Over a decade since it was released, and Kill Bill still holds up as one of the best "I've been done wrong, and I shall have my revenge" sagas ever committed to celluloid. With the release of "KB: The Whole Bloody Affair", the viewer is able to enjoy the entire saga in one fell swoop if so desired. As a bonus, this 215 minute version adds some scenes either missing or only alluded to in the original edits.
First up, the opening Klingon proverb, "Revenge is a dish best served cold." is gone and is replaced with a dedication to the late director Kinji Fukasaku (Battle Royale). Then in the O-Ren anime sequence, which was already fairly gory, the young O-Ren's murder of yakuza boss Matsumoto is even bloodier, with a close-up of his stomach and intestines spilling out after she guts him like a hunter does an opening day deer. In the House Of Blue Leaves sword fight against the Crazy 88, which changed to black and white in the original after Beatrix rips out a henchman's eye, here, the entire battle is in shown in color, which amplifies the severity of the carnage with gallons of Karo and red dye number 40 as several dozen limbs are severed and the entire sound stage ends up looking like the vampire club scene in Blade. There are also several different angles and gory shots added into the sequence including a brief, earlier encounter with the young boy Beatrix ends up spanking with her sword. With that addition, her reaction at their second encounter pays off better.
There is also an additional scene with Beatrix and Bill's lawyer Sofie Fatale, which clarifies why she was so broken (if losing one arm wasn't bad enough) when Bill is consoling her in the hospital. And finally, as Beatrix enters Bill's house and finds out what happened to her daughter, its a much better reveal since that reveal hadn't been hinted at as in the original versions.
While recent rumors of a Kill Bill: Volume 3 have yet to be confirmed, there IS a potential path forward as set up in Volume 1. Seeing as Beatrix is hardly an innocent victim. She's an assassin who kills other assassins, including another killer turned mother, as she consolingly tells Vernita Green's little girl, "When you grow up, if you still feel raw about it, I'll be waiting." She says this knowing there yet may also come a time when she, too, may be taken to account for going beyond "justice", and "balancing the books" in favor of pure and simple revenge.
Uma has said she would work with Quentin Tarantino again if he wrote a great part. Maybe that part could be Kill Bill, Vol. 3. Tarantino has said he will retire after his tenth film and he has already made his ninth, "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood", which interestingly, did cast Thurman's daughter in an unspecified role. So what the future holds has yet to be written, but I for one, would look forward to revisiting the deadly viper assassin's world one more time.
A riveting courtroom drama from early-career Aaron Sorkin, one that's absolutely stuffed with taut suspense, gripping dialog and A-list actors delivering lifetime performances. Not bad for a first-time screenwriter. It's an intelligent film that smoothly toes the line between spelling things out and relying on legalese to skim the details. The audience gets a thorough understanding of the issue, the limits of the law and the goal of both teams, but that information is slowly rationed and rarely over-explained.
We see vivid flaws in our heroes and earnest values in our villains. Each important player gets their chance to shine, and boy, do they all smack the ball out of the park. None moreso than Jack Nicholson, whose "You can't handle the truth" outburst has become synonymous with the picture. That speech still holds incredible power today, not just for the substance of the words (which remain pertinent, nearly thirty years later) but for the raw, unguarded emotion of Nicholson's delivery. It's easy to overlook the fact that he's scarcely on-screen for fifteen minutes, that climactic delivery resonates for so long. Tom Cruise and Demi Moore also bring their very best - I don't think Jack's moment burns quite so bright without Cruise there to egg him on - and a whole mess of supporting players are equally motivated, but that's just water under the bridge. It's all about getting to that speech, about earning that speech, and then basking in the afterglow of what it meant.
Daring, unflinching, passionate moviemaking that keeps us guessing to the very last breath. It's still every bit as good as I remembered.
Overall, funny but offensive in some ways that are important, in others just mean. I also find it frustrating certain things seem to get more public attention than others. But the comments in general about trans people come off as the "crazy racist uncle" trope of yesteryear who Chappelle himself would mock when they'd excuse themselves by parading their one black friend as if it was an excuse.
I won't even attempt to excuse his mean spirited jokes about the trans community. Whilst his friend may have loved them it's still the sort of thing that wounds people enough to drive them to what I hope he doesn't wish on anybody else.
Some jokes didn't land at all for me, the "antisemetic" joke for instance. I don't get what was funny or offensive about it, probably because I just simply don't get what he's referencing, neither did my Jewish husband. Either way it seemed odd and out of place among everything else. It just made no sense to me at all.
All in all, my viewing experience is probably very different to that of someone who is trans. So I can't and don't think anybody other than trans people should be saying whether it's transphobic/offensive or not.
I'm very conflicted about this as I love Chappelle and feel awful about what happened to his friend. But I know that if he were a white man making the same kinds of jokes about a black person I would be upset, too.
Brilliant drama.
"Kramer vs. Kramer" is a terrific drama about an unhappy woman who walks out on her husband and young son. The husband now has to take up the responsibilities of taking care of the boy. As he does, they get to know each other better. But then, the mother and wife returns, and she wants custody of the boy. "Kramer vs. Kramer" has lots of drama with some wonderful bits of comedy thrown in for good measure. Dustin Hoffman won his first Best Actor Oscar for his brilliant performance here. Most people say his performance in "Rainman", which won him his second Oscar, is his best. He was great in that film, but I disagree that its his best. In my opinion, the best performance of Hoffman's career is in this movie. Scene after scene shows us why Hoffman is one of the best American actors working today. He's also funny at times. Also giving a terrific performance is Meryl Streep, who wasn't as well known when she made this film like she is today. Streep, like Hoffman, also won her first Oscar (for Best Supporting Actress) for her work in "Kramer vs. Kramer" as the wife and mother who tries to find herself after walking out on her family. Justin Henry, who was only 8 years old when the film came out, is wonderful as Hoffman and Streep's son. He won an Oscar nomination for his role here, and still to this day he is the youngest performer to receive an Oscar nomination in a competitive category (Best Supporting Actor). Jane Alexander is also fine as a conserned family friend. She too got an Oscar nomination (for Supporting Actress where she lost to co-star Streep). "Kramer vs. Kramer" is a great film from start to finish. Writer-director Robert Benton has made a film that's absolutely unforgettable.
The movie is very well made. Everything from the sets to the costumes and the acting is, in typical Ridley Scott matter, flawless.
However the way the story is told is not to my liking. You have about 45-50 mins of content but, due to the multiple perspective way of storytelling, you have to watch it three times. It's a "he said, she said" that in the end isn't proven one way or the other because, let's face it, "God has spoken" and "an honest man can't die" is as stupid as "you can't get pregnant from a rape because if you don't enjoy intercourse you can't get pregnant. That's sience"
And there lies the biggest issue I have - the movie criticizes a whole society for there misogynistic ways but like with the above that was how it was. Women were property just like men could be. Or what do you thing all the folk working for those nobles were ? From our moral point of view this was wrong but pointing a finger back 700 years in time is easy to do.
Well, it's not a political forum here and I think I will attract comments with what I said no matter what.
The actual duel at the end was great, very well filmed, with the instense and brutality you imagine had to be there in a fight for ones honor to the death. But after sitting through more than two hours it wasn't enough to save the movie in my eyes.
This flick was of interest to me for two reasons: One, my mom is a longtime fan of Broadway musicals, especially this one, so, I grew up hearing the songs and knowing the story. While I've never read the Victor Hugo novel--I know; what kind of reader am I?--I've become familiar with it thanks to its various interpretations. Two, Anne Hathaway is an old Hollywood "flame" of mine. In March of 2005, she replaced Hilary Duff as my number one favorite female celebrity after I saw Ella Enchanted thanks to a friend's recommendation. (Believe it or not, not only was that friend of the male gender, he was a former drill sergeant; no joke!) So, when I saw this recently at a garage sale, I knew I had to give it a whirl.
In short: I was blown away. The grand scope of the story; the performances, especially from Hugh Jackman, Anne Hathaway, and Samantha Barks; the authentic sets; the musical numbers; pretty much everything about this flick wowed me. Better yet, it portrayed faith in God in a positive light; so much so, I almost felt like I was watching a Pure Flix production at times. An appearance by original Broadway cast member Colm Wilkinson was a plus. Not since the celluloid adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera have I been this impressed with such a film. Despite their popularity and my penchant for Disney Channel media, even the High School Musical and Camp Rock flicks didn't have such an effect on me.
However, I did have one quibble: There were certain moments that I found unnecessary. I understand that violence and sex were a big part of the original novel, and any faithful adaptation would have to be at least "PG-13"; still, there were a few brief scenes that could have been left out, and that would have embarrassed me if I'd had a friend--especially one from my church--watching it with me. So, discerning viewers may want to proceed with caution.
A beautiful, ambitious riddle that tackles the weighty topics of time displacement, space exploration, fatherhood and the end of life on Earth. Not necessarily in that order. Like Christopher Nolan's preceding mind-stompers, Inception and The Prestige, it's a crafty, sprawling creation that feeds and grows based on sheer conceptual might. I found it less accessible and rewarding than those two, however, overreaching in the third act to reel us back in after a few digressions.
Most of the climax feels like an ill fit, too, discarding two hours' worth of rigorous scientific detail in exchange for a trippy, convoluted plot device and a fairytale ending. In a lot of ways, it's like a mainstream adaptation of the finale seen in 2001: A Space Odyssey, a clear inspiration, in that it's bright, blurry, colorful and confusing. Only this time, the static leads to a cookie cutter epilogue, not a blank canvas.
Such complaints notwithstanding, I greatly enjoyed most of the ride to reach that point, even if it has a tendency to belabor a point. Nolan's vision of a near-death civilization on our home soil is vibrant and real. His emphasis on the pain of separation and the dizzying potential of galactic time-shifts are powerful and moving. It's a real visual stunner, too, making hay with staggering CG representations of theoretical deep-space star configurations that left me slack-jawed more than once.
As a space nerd, that was very cool to breathe in, and seeing practical demonstrations of so many abstract concepts is wonderful. It's excellent at many things, frankly, but perhaps a bit too overzealous for its own good.
The Earth is dying, and technology a luxury. People live as farmers for the most part to produce food for mankind.
In these times, the protagonist, a former NASA pilot, gets by accident into a progressive NASA program with the goal of finding a replacement planet for humankind.
Pretty slight spoilers (not much more than you likely know about the movie beforehand anyways):
A wormhole was discovered in the solar system, which alien forces have laid off and sending signals to the Earth. In the search of a new home for humanity, the team passes through and is going to investigate planets which scouts did discover before.
In-depth spoilers, better read only post-watching:
The first planet to find was pretty weird, I think. Because landing on there makes the time ratio 1:7, but this doesn't seem to count for the ship in the orbit of it? When you are so close to a nuclear star, it seems pretty unbelievable for me that that tiny distance difference would bear such huge consequences. Additionally, it looks like for each hour on the planet not only 7 years pass on Earth, but also for the ship in the orbit - Which doesn't make sense, especially considering it is near a nuclear star. This is more of a scientific note, it does not make watching the movie worse in any term.
I also failed to understand how the robot did fall through to Earth and how that did happen as well as him being "picked up by scouts", where even?
The ending is pretty creative, in any case, independent on how you think about it personally.
I think one among the best movies I have ever watched.
Rating: 10/10
A cinematic masterpiece and benchmark for movies to come.
In "Interstellar", a film written and directed by Christopher Nolan,
climate change has decimated most of the world's food supplies.
Towns are regularly ravaged by fierce sand storms, and
everything is covered with thick layers of dust.
A very select group of scientists set out to embark
on humanities most ambitious mission: travel through
a newly discovered wormhole into another galaxy.
They hope of collecting the necessary data to either move
many people onto a new experimental gravitation spaceship, or find a new Earth altogether.
I have now watched this movie twice at an IMAX.
After my first viewing, when the credits rolled,
I sat there perplexed and was unable to move. I was paralysed
by what I had seen. I looked around, I was not the only one.
Unquestionably, one of the greatest movies I had ever seen.
I was almost ashamed to admit it, because it felt like I had no
say in this decision whatsoever.
There are many moments when "Interstellar" transcends into
something so artistic, you are left speechless and are moved to tears.
The cinematography and directing is, even by Nolan's standards,
his best work so far. I think his talent is even too profound for
the Academy of Motion Pictures, hence why he has yet to receive an oscar
for directing. Personally, after watching "Interstellar", I consider
him to be the best director that is currently alive, only rivalled
by Kubrick and Hitchcock.
Hans Zimmer wrote the score and I really recommend to read how
he translated Nolan's fantastic ideas into music.
I get goosebumps just thinking about the high-speed docking scene,
and you will, too! The sound engineers did an amazing job contrasting
the cosmic silence with Zimmer's incredibly ethereal music.
During the rocket launch, the entire theatre shook and you were
really feeling the thrust.
If I was forced to describe the score, I would say it was
heavily influenced by Johann Strauß, Philip Glass and Bach.
Truly a masterpiece that deserves to be revisited many times and
among all the great soundtracks he has ever done, this is simply
on an entirely different level. His most intimate work.
The visual effects were breathtaking - quite literally.
The on-screen silence during certain parts of the movie
was only rivalled by the complete and utter silence
of my fellow IMAX watchers. Nobody said a word, nobody moved.
Just hundreds of mesmerized people staring at the screen,
or digging their fingers into their armrests during
some of the most tense moments I have ever seen.
"Interstellar" depicts astrophysical concepts that
have never been seen or discussed on-screen before.
"Awesome", in its most literal sense, really describes it.
When I set out to write this review, I really tried to
avoid superlatives, and give you a more nuanced opinion
of why I think this movie deserves to be ranked among
the best, but I now see how I have failed.
I recommend to watch "Interstellar" at an IMAX,
or the best movie theatre around you.
It's not something you should rent at a Red Box or watch on Netflix.
"Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light." -Dylan Thomas
Christopher Nolan's Interstellar may very well be one of the best movies that have come out in the year of 2014.
The film starts off by more or less depicting what the near future Earth looks like. Much like in the movie The Martian all the technology looks futuristic, but it always seems like it could already exist today, if only as a prototype. The directors manage quite well to bring across the massive problems and the looming threat of extinction the human race faces by simply showing us the daily life of ex-pilot, engineer and now farmer Cooper and the problems he faces. We see the distant crops burning away, giving us a sense of the increasing scarcity of food, as crop after crop is being destroyed by the blight and only corn can survive. We see the plates being turned down on the table, as the dust has become omnipresent. We see the shift of society, as the teachers of Cooper's misbehaving daughter try to convince him that the Apollo mission did in fact not happen and they make it quite plain that in this society no engineers, astronauts or scientists are needed, but farmers, and that is what he should teach his children to be. Not only does this set up the world quite perfectly, we also get characterizing moments. Cooper, as the film quite often states, is out of place in this world. He looks skywards, whilst the rest looks at the dust and earth below them. The shared moments with his children show his love and affection for both of them, he respects their interests and treads them accordingly. The seemingly paranormal sightings also characterize our second main character at an early stage, Murph. She quite literally follows his footsteps and adopts the scientific ways, she is curious, intelligent and more than anything stubborn. The family grows on you amazingly quickly and his farewell scenes are made all the more hurtful.
It is here that I would already like to mention Nolan's attention to detail and love of practical effects. He literally bought acres of corns to avoid CGI as much as possible for just a few scenes. Whenever CGI is used, and of course in a movie mainly taking place in space there has to be a lot of it, it could just as well be practical effects, by all you know, if only some of it wouldn't be possible. The visual effects are simply stunning and most importantly not noticeable.
As we are being shot into space with Cooper, we run into a few minor problems Interstellar has. After he stumbles onto the secret NASA facility, giving us another glimpse at the world building, that may not be complex but it certainly gives us the illusion of complexity, he gets to pilot a spacecraft in space without getting into shape or ready for space in any way. Having arrived on the space station, the movie struggles to find ways to explain the complex science behind what they are trying to do and so they resort to a scientist explaining the concept of wormholes (exactly the way the teacher did it to the kids in Stranger Things by poking a hole into a sheet of paper) to another scientist. The same happens again later in the movie when the same guy explains to Cooper that time is relative. Nevertheless, even if the exposition may at times be wonky, the actual use and depiction of science is spot-on and nothing like I've ever seen in another movie on such an...interstellar scale. The plot and premise of Interstellar is so unique and amazing precisely because it explores the unexplored aspects of physics, like the concept of wormholes and black holes, and just rolls with it. Every scene in space or another planet looks fantastic and the sheer size of everything, whether it's the massive tidal waves caused by the black hole, the vast ice desert or the black hole itself, really makes you feel helpless and small, whilst still being overtaken by its beauty.
Probably the most emotional scene of the entire two hours is established using the previously mentioned relativity of time. After spending unintended three hours on the black hole-orbiting planet, they return to their station, to their colleague, realizing that decades have past. We are now forced to watch Cooper sit there and have to undergo decades worth of emotions in a few minutes, as the computer displays all the messages his family had sent over the years. It was truly a test for the wonderful actor and if you haven't felt for the protagonist, who more or less carries the movie along with Murph, before you certainly have after this scene. The other side-characters do indeed feel a bit one-sided and unexplored, but that's okay, it's not their story and you always realize the stakes for every character, adding weight to every decision they make. The comic-relief, a robot names TARS with a humour setting of 75 - 100%, is surprisingly likeable and funny, adding the much needed light-hardheartedness.
Parts of the movies do eventually get a bit silly and some scenes feel out of place, like when Dr. Brand talks about love being the only thing that can travel through dimensions next to gravity and two scientists fist-fighting in another galaxy on another planet. The plot concerning Dr. Mann was fine and a murder attempt does actually fit, but the fist-fight was unnecessarily ridiculous.
Following this, however, we get to the most thrilling scene of the entire movie. The spacecraft trying to dock a space station, spinning out of control, by spinning with it. It's here that I would like to mention two things: the score and the lack of sound. You don't see many movies taking place in space that actually show the lack of sound in space and even fewer that use it as a way of instilling fear in us, fear of the vast emptiness and apathy of space. Then, the score. I know a few people that get annoyed by Hanz Zimmer's style of music but many more absolutely ravel in it, as do I. The soundtrack is most of the time idle and you can feel the stellar, spacey aspects of it but when needed it erupts into what you imagine a burst of creativity must sound like. On top of that he brilliants made most of the beats hit every single second, imitating a clock, since time is the main aspect of the movie. Sometimes, in fact, he even uses a clock for his music.
At last, the movie ends with Cooper meeting his dying daughter, creating an arguably even more emotional scene, before eventually ending the film on an optimistic note, leaving you with tons of emotions inside and probably only noticing now that you have to pee, because you had been glued to the screen for the entire time.
Everyone keeps suggesting there is a paradox concerning the 5D future humans and their ability to save humanity in the past. It's really not a paradox at all. Everyone assumes humanity survived to ascend to the 5th dimension but how could humanity exist in the future if not for the actions of Cooper.. who was guided by future humans (begin endless loop).
Did anyone ever consider the other important character in the movie? Amelia Brand carried on with the rest of her mission (thanks to Cooper). I postulate that Brand used the human seeds as intended and set up a colony. A colony that would thrive and eventually evolve beyond human. Thus Earth is of little importance, and may have indeed died. These colonists, and the generations that followed, would have been told the story of a great man (Cooper) who saved them from extinction. With the ability to manipulate space-time, they would pay homage to their hero "God" by helping him in the past so he may fulfill the mission most important to him, to once again see his daughter. Plan B worked beautifully. But the 5d humans, having the power to bend space-time, decided there's no reason why Plan A had to fail.
Just as last time, I feel Jack Reacher falls a bit short when compared to the books. I have realized that comparing movies and TV to books is kind of hopeless in most cases, so I tried to keep an open mind.
It kinda worked. Tom Cruise is still very far from how I envision Jack Reacher, but since the story capture some of what Jack Reacher is all about, he gets a pass. So does the rest of the cast for that matter.
So...I have come to the conclusion that Jack Reacher is an ok way to waste a couple of hours.
Jack Reacher...yeah...well...Is Tom Cruise really tall enough to play a character that is described as 6 feet 5 inches tall in the book? Well...It worked...to a degree.
I'm a huge fan of Lee Childs Jack Reacher series of books. They are quite fun and it was with great fear I watched this for the first time right after it got out. I had a certain picture of what Jack Reacher looked like and how he behaved. Tom Cruise was so far from this image that I thought this would probably be total shit. To my total surprise...it wasn't all that bad.
The movie, as a whole, was a bit slow, the pacing was off, and a few things were left unexplained. And here comes the point...How can a movie that feels slow and sluggish manage to leave so many plotholes?
Anyway...Tom Cruise wasn't bad, the rest of the cast wasn't bad, and there were both excitement and laughs. If I hadn't read, and liked, the books I think I would have felt this one was a bit better.
The reason my better half and I rewatched this was to prepare for a viewing of the sequel. I'm not sure I would have done that otherwise.
If you haven't seen it, it's worth a look...especially if you haven't read the books.
This is by all means a lame movie.
When a movie is named after its protagonist, you'd expect the character to be well formed. Jack Reacher wasn't. As an ex-army-cop anti-hero that doesn't play by the rules, Tom Cruise's character was a tame sheep who exerted his dominance using his mouth more than his fists. "You don't want to mess with me" was his catchphrase, but in a post-1980's-world, he certainly did not look more threatening than a teenager with mood problems. Cruise's performance did the character no service either, demonstrating a single stern line of emotion that felt copy and pasted for the film's duration.
The plot ran through tropes and was predictable in its twists (i.e. if you manage to stay one step ahead of the game, you'll be predicting the whole story dead-on). The camera emphasis on prop guns (and its PG-13 rating) suggests that this movie was geared towards a certain prepubescent demographic, and the complexity of the dialogue reflected such. Dollhouses have more personality than the cast and opting to have no soundtrack made the film dryer than a bad turkey sandwich.
While there's no serious complaint about the quality (yeah, it could've been worse), but there's really no positives that can be seen. 5.0/10
Harry and friends return for a second term, where they're quickly caught up in a long-standing plot to rid the school of so-called "impure" students. Between the celebrated, absurdly deep cast, the charming, nuanced world at large and the constant manipulations of a shadow-clad foil, this picture had an awful lot going for it right out of the gates... so why does it feel like we're just treading water? A large swath of The Chamber of Secrets seems inessential and redundant, which isn't to say it's without merit, just that it could be using this time to fry much larger fish. Did we need to reinforce the idea that Harry's adoptive parents are cruel people? Didn't our hero avoid an attempt on his life on the Quidditch pitch last time around? For that matter, wasn't the entire endgame eerily similar in the preceding installment? Too much time smelling the roses when there's a fire down the block.
Of course, it's not all bad news. The CGI, though still not without the occasional hiccup, has vastly improved since the last picture. That doesn't excuse the force-fed inclusion of an all-digital supporting character, but at least these appearances are kept mercifully short and to-the-point. Although it's the longest installment in the Harry Potter franchise, this chapter skims along at a strict pace and feels much shorter than it actually is. Though seemingly inconsequential as a whole, the plot does drop frequent hints at a darker side of the Hogwarts mythos before, ultimately, allowing such things to continue lurking in obscurity. It shows promise in spades, and will certainly capture the hearts and minds of the younger audiences it's primarily there for, but more demanding viewers will likely find it too thin and sugary for serious digestion.
It’s astounding really that the Potter franchise managed to grow beyond this entry. Regardless of the dated effects work which stand out even more, it’s the terrible pacing and some rather clunky performances from the child actors that drag this film down. It doesn’t help that the script is really poor and treats its audience like idiots, feeling the need to spell out every single plot point. Looking back at the series as a whole, there is so much material here that could have been cut that would have helped the film immeasurably, not least by balancing the desire to develop the world with the narrative demands of the actual plot. Harry Potter at times feels like Oliver Twist in that the central hero of the film is the least interesting character and it doesn’t help that Radcliffe spends most of the film gawping and reacting to events. It isn’t a total loss - the casting is pretty much spot on with the more experienced adult actors helping to sell the script and carry the performances of the children around them. Emma Watson and Rupert Grint seem more comfortable in their roles than others and Radcliffe does have some moments that suggest he will grow into the role. It doesn’t hurt that the film also has John Williams on top form - his musical themes bringing a magical quality to the film even in moments where the rest of the elements fail to shine.
Hogwarts. A boarding school where children...:
– Are placed in four different houses and pitted against each other.
– Learn how to fly in a broom, without any safety measures and supervised only by an incompetent professor.
– Are rewarded every time they break any rule.
– Are allowed to play a brutal sport in which serious injuries are quite frequent.
– Are punished by being sent to an "strictly off-limits" forest at midnight. (I wonder what would be the punishment for wandering in the Dark Forest without permission...).
– Are scored through all the year, earning or losing points for their houses... only to have the least scoring house win at the last minute, because of 4 people.
Seriously. What's with the House Cup? How many students are there in Hogwarts? 200, 400? The whole Gryffindor scored something like 360 points in the whole year. But since our trio decided to go on a (completely forbidden and extremely dangerous) adventure, they are rewarded with an extra 170 points and win. From 4th to 1st. If I were any of the other students, I'd feel betrayed, to say the least.
What's worse, there wasn't any need for the adventure. The stone was actually well protected, Quirrell couldn't get it from the mirror. So... well done, guys.
:zany_face:
Woody Harrelson and Liam Hemsworth collide in this old west pressure cooker; a tale of justice, betrayal and revenge. In the years since squashing a grudge via gruesome, rain-soaked duel, Harrelson has moved himself south, taken on a cult of personality and established a small, isolated town of thrall-bound civilians. It's a good turn for Woody, showing that he works with a versatile set of skills and can pull off complex menace with ease. There's something sinister brewing behind those dark eyes and white wardrobe, but we only catch a glimpse.
When Hemsworth arrives in town, both a Texas ranger come to enforce the law and an orphaned son seeking retribution, the table seems set for fireworks. Instead, things grind to a halt and we trudge through a long, drab series of blunt manipulations and hollow conversations for an hour before the plot finally, abruptly, leaps back to life. The dramatic shifts in tone don't feel right, and the climax feels like it was lifted, bit by bit, from another film entirely. Hemsworth isn't able to match his co-star's depth, either, and that makes their clash of personality a relatively one-sided affair. Uneven, heavily padded and underwhelming - a waste of one good performance.
[8.2/10] It’s hard to talk about Arrival without spoiling the film. So much of what makes it more than just a well-done first contact story is tied up in its later developments. They recontextualize enough of the prior proceedings that trying to discuss the import or quality of the film without mentioning them is like trying to give someone directions without letting them know the destination.
But its premise is fairly straightforward. Aliens have come to Earth, in twelve ships scattered across the globe. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) a linguist, is brought by the U.S. Military to the ship in Montana, in attempt to help us communicate with the extra-terrestrial presence. With the help of theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), and buffer provided by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker), Banks slowly but surely finds ways to talk to these beings, with the American team alternatively working with and against similar groups in other nations attempting the same.
And then there’s the twist. The birth, death, and tragedy of Louise’s daughter, implied through the grammar of film to have occurred prior to the alien encounter we witness, actually happened afterward. The estranged husband hinted at early on turns out to be Donnelly. And Banks herself, through learning to think like the heptapods, and eventually direct contact with the aliens, becomes unstuck in time. She experiences moments from what we’d consider the past, present, and future, in non-linear splendor, mixing them up like a memory collage.
Despite the narrative trickery employed, the reveal itself isn’t so unfamiliar to those acquainted with the novels of Kurt Vonnegut, Watchmen, and even Star Trek: The Next Generation. But what the twist lacks in novelty, it makes up for in thematic resonance. Like those works, Arrival uses the time-dilated nature of its story to comment on processing trauma, the value of one’s experiences and life itself in a chaotic universe, and the potential of the human mind to expand to contemplate greater possibilities.
You’re unlikely to find a film this year with as many intriguing philosophical implications as Arrival. In that, it is akin to The Prestige, as a film with a twist that initially knocks over the viewer with how it changes the reality of what’s been depicted up to that point, but that makes its bones from the implications of that new reality. In both films, what the reveals show about the characters, and say about the value and nature of human life, linger long after the shock of the twist dissipates.
But the force of the movie does kick into high gear after the non-linear way in which Louise begins to experience time is unveiled. It answers the plot-specific mystery that Arrival presents – why did the heptapods come here? They, it turns out, have experienced time in this fashion from the beginning, the thoughts and information able to exist simultaneously in the past and the future. Their journey is to help Earth unify, to serve as a catalyst for cooperation, so that three millennia in the future, humanity will be able to help them. It is an intriguing and clockwork explanation for their presence.
Beyond, however, the on-the-ground (so to speak) plot mechanics of Arrival, what makes it stand out is its exploration of how this change in temporal perspective changes how individuals think, how they value different things in their lives, how they approach and view the world. The film reflects this in interesting ways.
The heptapods’ language is circular, more symmetrical and again, non-linear to reflect their perspective, tying into the motif that learning a language rewires your brain to a certain extent. Louise naming her daughter Hannah, which the episode notes is a palindrome, reflects the way this same symmetry and perspective has filtered down to her. And the film itself often frames Louise symmetrically, using a flat background or one-point perspective to balance the images.
But most notably, that mode of thought changes Louise’s perspective on life writ large, estranges her from eventual husband Donnelly, and motivates her to both marry him and have a child, knowing that each choice will end in pain. The cinch is that for Louise, these decisions do not “end.” They simply are. They exist on the same continuum as all moments, not greater or lesser in priority or order than the others.
And for that, for the gift given to her by the heptapods, she chooses the path that will increase the amount of bliss she enjoys, where she experiences love, where she is enriched. Amy Adams understated performance gives life to this epiphany. Freed from constraints, in philosophy and temporal perspective, of having to fear loss and hardship, she pursues those paths that will make her life more worthwhile, that will give her more moments of happiness and wonder and fulfillment, regardless of any chronological path from joy to sadness.
It’s a laudable message, that applies even to the humble folks who still experience time in a linear fashion. Much of cinema tackles ideas about coping with loss or valuing the good times even in the shadow of the bad. But the device of the scattered timescape of Louise’s life, seen as an accumulation of experiences and not a linear progression, drives that point home in a unique way. Much of Arrival is about broadening perspectives, and the scattered scenes combining what was, what is, and what will be help to cast the same broadening spell on the audience that the heptapods do for Louise.
That’s part of why talking about this film without talking about its twist is so hard. The way Arrival tells its story, the ways those moments are sequenced in the film, is so essential to what the film is trying to say that discussing it apart from that perspective is unavoidably lacking. In a film about altering perspective, there is only so much to say without talking about how it attempts to shift the audience’s own perspective in the process. Arrival uses the alien and unfamiliar to tell a deeply humanistic story, about unity, philosophy, and worth, through one individual who comes to see them all very differently.
"Remember Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies."
Finally! I don't no why it took me so long to see one of the most acclaimed films of all time. The Shawshank Redemption really moved me.
The emotion that was put into it, was something really truthful and real. Even when there are moments where you predict what is going to happen next, its subtleness and immense depth affects you anyway. Since the very first moment, we are attached to it and not many films do that with the audience. Such a simple story but with such content.
Frank Darabont direction was amazing! The film has over two hours and you never get bored, you are driven by the emotion of the events and the great cinematography makes you feel the terrifying life in prison.
The performances from all the cast are something great to see but Morgan Freeman and Tim Robbins are the ones who gave absolutely phenomenal performances. The performances of a lifetime.
I can see why many people love this film. They love it because is power makes it unforgettable. Now I love it too, and I will always remember it.
An absolutely beautiful story about hope and friendship.
The Five Faces of RESERVOIR DOGS
:heart_eyes:
The opening scene introduces our characters, and even though we hardly learn anything about them we already feel like members of their little group. Hearing them discuss Madonna's music and tipping culture feels very down-to-earth.
Most scenes are long and contained, so the film feels almost theatrical in its presentation. Amazing performances and great dialogue move the film forward.
The overall story is like a farce or a Shakespearean tragedy, down to the ridiculousness of the plot and the lunatic characters.
A special nod to Steve Buscemi (Fargo, 1998) in probably one of his most intense parts. He absolutely shines as Mr. Pink and puts in a career-defining performance.
Harvey Keitel (Thelma & Louise, 1991) and Tim Roth (Rob Roy, 1995) put in the best performances; they're hilarious, furious and tragic all at the same time.
The furious and energetic fighting between the characters is absolutely a joy to watch and forms the basis of the movie's plot.
Quentin Tarantino's (Pulp Fiction, 1994) feature film debut contains many details that will later become his trademarks: sharp and quotable dialogue, distinct characters, lots of blood, pop culture references and sudden bursts of action.
:smiley:
Reservoir Dogs contains several moments of brilliance, such as Keitel and Buscemi screaming at each other, Mr. Orange's little story to his partners or Mr. White (Michael Madsen; The Hateful Eight, 2015) dancing around a cop while torturing him.
Interesting choice of story progression, in true Tarantino fashion. We begin with the aftermath and the mystery and end with everything leading up to it. It's the type of non-linear storytelling Tarantino is famous for.
The ending is bizarre, over-the-top and incredibly theatrical. It's not the most creative Tarantino ending but is definitely memorable.
:neutral_face:
The film is extremely slow, as the dialogue and performances move the plot forward. Many scenes drag out for so long, that you forget their significance to the plot.
The scenes set in the past with Joe are meant to bring some exposition, but aren't as interesting as the scenes where team members interact with each other.
The simple story is stretched out to an extent, with the script staying on the same subject matter for quite some while before moving on.
Half of the gang barely appear in the film, which is a pity, since it would have been interesting to get to know Tarantino's interesting characters a little better.
The overall plot is a bit of a disappointment. No big twist or surprise, very little to chew on or contemplate afterwards. There's little reason to revisit this film.
:frowning2:
//
:face_vomiting:
//
The Final Face: :smiley: // Good
Tarantino’s debut is still one of his best films. The opening sequence has been often imitated and referenced, but it does showcase Tarantino’s use of banter, natural dialogue and pop culture to bring his characters to life. Here it works well, immediately giving the audience a sense of all the important personalities within the film and the relationships between them. By dropping us into the aftermath of the heist, the film’s strength is in the use of flashback to build intrigue over what happened, but equally important is the hook that there might be an insider. This allows Tarantino to gradually develop his characters in the flashbacks beyond simply focusing on how the dilemma they find themselves in will be solved. Buscemi and Keitel in particular stand out and whilst Madsen has repeated himself ad nauseam in other films, he is still effective here. The soundtrack and costume design all serve to emphasise how hip and cool the characters are, but this is punctuated with the violence that remind us they are brutal too. Its this juxtaposition of coolness and violence that marked the film out as something different, no more so than in the still shocking scene of Madsen torturing someone. Some of the flashback scenes do occasionally outstay their welcome, though there is a lot of humour drawn out from them and the authenticity in his dialogue that Tarantino appears to strive for is sometimes stretched as characters vie to show who is top dog. But these minor quibbles don’t stop this from being a tightly edited and well paced crime thriller.
There is a mantra I live by, if Maggie Gyllenhaal is in something watch it. Even a baked-bean advert. You'll see a great performance even if the product is not good.
Kindergarten Teacher is a very interesting film, it can literally be seen as a 'slow burner' as we are treated to Lisa's life both work and family and there is little that is remarkable about it with all the actors giving fantastic naturalist performances. So, if you are looking for intriguing action or drama from the get-go you really need to have a modicum of patience.
Eventually, Lisa crosses paths with Jimmy a strange five-year-old in her class, wonderfully played by Parker Sevak as good as young child can play a role, and here we start into a rabbit hole that Lisa should have avoided but due to her life just could not.
Your view as to what type of film Kindergarten Teacher really depends on the viewer, obviously this is true to an extent of any film, but in general you know a film is a horror, comedy or war film usually. But Kindergarten Teacher can sit comfortably in several camps. It is definitely a psychological drama, is it a horror-drama? Only you can decide and for me it shows tremendously skilled writing, directing and acting that leaves you questioning as the final scene closes. What did you just watch? How do you feel about it? That final line, for me Lisa was correct, her actions not so much but she was correct. That's all I can say because if you do watch this film and like it any more will ruin it.
For me there a lot of horror and thriller films that fall far short of the potential scares that this film produces with great subtlety and with all the scenery left unchewed and intact. A typical understated Gyllenhaal performance seems to have permeated throughout the film and it is all the better for it - although I am being disingenuous director Sara Colangelo clearly believes less is more - it looks as if she is correct.
After watching I found out this is a remake of a 2014 film of the same name, it would be interesting to see if this is the better film.
Kindergarten Teacher is a film that will make you feel uneasy the longer it goes on and will make you think about what you have just witnessed long after the final credits have ended. This film will 'get to you' I recommend giving it a go.
This is a full length documentary about the stars who aren’t stars, the backing singers. Anyone who loves music has heard them over the years on many, many records, hit or not, but not many of us can name them. This film strives to put this right and also to put the spotlight on a group of mainly African-American singers and how they coped with their talent and their lack of recognition.
The stories of the various backing singers across the running time of this film are fascinating, sad and funny but I was not really sure what message I was supposed to get from the meandering film. The music is the most important thing, yet nearly all but one the backing singers featured seemed to want to be a big star and have a solo career. Most of them tried but did not succeed. In the end they still had successful backing singing careers.
Sting, Bruce Springsteen et al add their views on film and everyone interviewed in the ‘business’ know that backing singers have great voices, great talent and deserve to be famous but to be successful as a pop-musicians talent does not always mean you will make it.
Thanks for that but non-in-the-know members of the general public having been saying that for years as tuneless, off-key and toneless ‘artists’ rack up hit after hit. Also when a ‘vocal contractor’, a job title never explained, gives us an anecdote about a record producer needing time to ‘tune-in’ the backing vocals, rather than just using backing singers, you know that pop-music really is a manufactured money-making business and little else.
The most balanced singer throughout the film is probably the most talented, Lisa Fischer, who just wants to sing and could not give a fig about fame, stardom and lorry loads of cash. I like her. This neatly brings me back to something I found out about this particular documentary post-viewing, to include it in a film review after I watched the film without knowing about it seems a cheat and bit churlish but it puts a big question mark over the whole integrity of the story telling.
Apparently, Darlene Love, one the singers featured heavily and frequently in the film, did not sing on tracks she claims she did and seems to have bent the truth to the point of breaking throughout the film. After filming, Morgan Neville was contacted and put right on some of the ‘facts’, he apologised but for some reason left all the ‘exaggerations’ in the final cut. Maybe because the story of an underdog with talent being manipulated by a now convicted murderer makes for better box-office than a singer who wants to be a huge star not quite making it.
There in a nutshell is the problem with this film. With some great archive footage, some great music business anecdotes, story of backing singers contributing to some the greatest music in the world regardless of fame and fortune could have been uplifting and inspiring, instead it seems more like a whinge-fest about how some of them are not famous and stinking rich despite their talent. Well the space at the top of the ladder is very small and the club they are in is very, very, big. Not only that but most of them did contribute to some great hit records, earn a living doing the thing they love, and seem to be well respected in the industry if not with the public. More upsetting is perhaps the saddest and probably most upsetting story of the film is fabricated. Excuse me if I do not burst into spontaneous tears and applause.
So once again we seem to have got a good film with an interesting narrative and interesting characters but as a truthful and insightful documentary not so much. Not the first time that the viewing public has been led by the nose to the truth, only the find out that ‘the truth’ is what the film maker specifically wants you to see and not actually might have been what is actually there to be seen.
Sure, you can watch it without having seen Breaking Bad, but that would be like watching Avengers: Endgame without having seen any of the Marvel movies. You'll get the essence of it, but you don't have a deeper sense about the characters and their motivation, or an understanding of some of the references that are being made. Personally, I really like that it builds on where we left off; it doesn't pander to an audience that isn't willing to invest their time in the show. So I'd advise anyone to watch the show first, mainly because the core of it was undeniably strong. The story and characters were magnificent. El Camino benefits from that. If these weren't the characters we'd know and love from Breaking Bad, this movie wouldn't be nearly as good. As a story, it is a nice epilogue to Breaking Bad, albeit fairly predictable and a bit needless (because Jesse's character doesn't really have an arc throughout this movie). The actors are, of course, great (Aaron Paul and Meth Damon in particular).
The weakest part of the show, to me, has always been the directing. I always found it to be fairly lifeless, particularly in the first two seasons. El Camino is no different. Scenes are often quiet and really drawn out, with shots that are being held for way too long. Some directors, like Alfonso Cuarón or Steven Spielberg, get away with this, but that is only because they constantly keep the camera moving. Some shows, like Mr. Robot, use really interesting angles and colour in order to make the longer shots hold your attention. Don't get me wrong, the show and this movie are definitely far above sit-com level cinematography, but the shots aren't so special that they justify being held for 8-10 seconds. Some people will proclaim it to be a unique and interesting style, but to me it has always been a recipe for bad pacing. And that's very strange when you think about it, because the show and this movie definitely aren't uneventful. Finally, I'll also say that some of the fan service in this movie doesn't work, because it doesn't add anything to the story. For as nice as it was to see Walter White and Jessica Jones again, they really should've been deleted them from the final cut of this movie.
6/10
Perhaps one of the most powerful films of the early 2000s, Prayers For Bobby details a story that is close to home for many in the LGBTQ+ community. Throughout the film, the true feelings of the main character, Bobby, can be felt deeply in anyone who has grown up in an extremist religion environment, and those who haven't. regardless of your orientation, background etc. this film is a must see. it provokes deep thought and reflection about one's own practices in life and encourages people to think for themselves, to challenge and stand up when something isn't right, and addresses the deep seated emotion and generations of bigotry that have fueled this all too common reality in the lives of youth throughout the world who identify as LGBTQ+ and those who don't even yet have a term for how they feel and who they are. I recommend this film for history classes as well as it brings to light much of what the LGBT Q+ community has fought through and a major reason as to why so many in our community have died unjustly at the hands of those whose intentions may be either twisted, or good hearted, but yet influenced and hijacked by indoctrination in many walks of life that might not be considered.
this film provides a great understanding of a serious issue that contributes to teen suicides and adult suicides that ocurr countless times a year. it also shows the beauty of change and the power that we have to chose our own views for the good regardless of where, who, what, or if we even recognize a deity.
School counselors, this is a must watch for you and for all in the mental health community.
for further reading, check out the oubliwhed version of Bobby's diary from which this film is based. it is under the same title, prayers for Bobby.
I wanna rate it 9, but the movie was really slow, so i guess 8 is fair.
Anyway, it was so beautiful, i mean this state of mind they were at was too relatable! I guess to be bored of your life, lose your passion, then lose yourself, all of that i've been through! i really like being alone, but as the movie clarified, it's a relief when you find someone that understands you, that you can share moments with him & then find what you really are.
It doesnt have to be a lover/bf/gf ,etc.... it can be a friend, someone you really love, however, he can be then the one you share your life with! who knows!
all of that i got from the movie, they obviously loved each other, and that evolved from love being together and talking with each other, it's not just about sex ffs! they shared the bed together talking, laughing, and watching a movie! that's what you need when you are lost.
but they hid their feelings, for so many reasons, age difference was one of course, she brought that up when she was obviously jelaous that he had a one night stand!
it's a very complicated situation, only if u feel how they feel u can understand why they loved each other when they found each other.
Anyway again, the movie was slow, no much for the script, but the cinematography & the cadres! WOW! amazing, i literally took 167 capture of the movie! the music was also good.
For the acting, SUPERB, Bill was really funny and broken! no many actors can pull this off.
Scarlett! i mean Young Scarlett! how cute, sexy & beautiful she is! she did a really good job in this one, loved her.
The Ending scene tho! i almost had tears when he hugged her & she cried! it was perfect.
I absolutely loved this movie, it's the kind of movie that will stay with me for the rest of my life. I grew up in a catholic household and one of my local priests was accused of pedophilia, everything about this movie felt so incredibly real. It's a story we've all heard before, yet when it's told by the victims and by those in the middle of it it becomes all the more powerful. The acting in this movie was superb, not just from the leads but from the side characters. The performances from the victims were fantastic and incredibly moving. The directing is so subtle and laid back, McCarthy lets the story do it's work without needing flashy visuals or incredible shots. The movie is so simple, and it lets it's story and acting be the center point, adding to the power. The score is perfect background music, it doesn't distract from the movie and fits perfectly into the background. I'm having a hard time thinking of anything I disliked about it, it was a little slow but that made it feel more real and worthwhile. It's easily my favorite film of 2015, passing Ex Machina. I almost never give movies 10/10, but this movie deserves it.
Considering the very controversial and sickening nature of this story and how it can be sensitively portrayed everything about this film is outstanding and highly impressive. From the performances of the leading ensemble cast to the supporting actors it is clear the entire team of the ‘Spotlight’ film knew the importance of what they were making.
For the victims then and the victims now this is a testament to the absolute corruption, abuse of power the true helplessness and impotence of those on the lower rungs of the ladder.
All of this in a film with no sensationalism, no recourse to graphic detail, no deliberate emotional overloads. It is as if the film crew followed the Spotlight team around as their long and difficult investigation. As far as I can tell this film is truly authentic which is a rare commodity in a film these days especially those that are based on true events. The cinematography relies on a natural look and this gritty realistic feel to the ongoing investigation is as important to the story as the top-class acting on display.
Everything about this movie is outstanding -- the performances, the way the true events are handled, the cinematography. In this day of digital news, this movie makes us stand back and realize what we may lose in the way of investigative journalism as we slowly kill off print media.
Each character is portrayed very well and I never got the feeling that the story was preaching or too dramatic. The cast truly is an ensemble cast and no one actor pokes their head above the parapet shouting look at me, look at me. Mark Ruffalo clearly studied Mike Rezendes’ manners and way of behaving and Rachel McAdams gives her best performance to date. In this part of the review I could just list each actor and say how great they were but really looking at the cast list you know you are going to get good value for money, Live Schreiber and Stanley Tucci are in it for goodness sake. I was particularly impressed with how each character was given just a little background story beyond their life as a reporter to flesh them out, make them ‘real’, but not enough to distract, slow-down or make the film melodramatic. Other film-makers should take a long hard look at that aspect.
There is never a wasted scene or character in the film, nothing is sensationalised but the overwhelmingly powerful message is that this happened, was allowed to happen and then covered-up by those with the power to stop it – and worst of all is still happening and probably will continue….
Sometimes a film is more than just a film.
For a film with such an emotive and challenging subject matter, this is such a low-key and underplayed film. The filmmakers seem to recognize that details of how the Catholic Church dealt with both the perpetrators and victims of child sexual abuse speak for themselves and instead they have used this as a background to a film that celebrates the hard work and graft of old-school journalism. In the Internet age of 24-hour news cycles and social media demand, it's refreshing to see a story that focuses on the reality of investigative journalism and the teamwork involved - there are no rushes to meet deadlines, no villainous editor or board trying to thwart their efforts, no heroic writer who uncovers the truth and threats from those complicit in the cover-up amount to little more than vague attempts at justifying their actions. Even the eventual publication of the work is simply portrayed as another day at the office, though the final moments do hint at the larger picture that is so widely known now. As the film is about a team of people that worked on the investigation, it is also nice to see a focus on the ensemble of characters rather than on one or two, with only one moment of cathartic grandstanding from Ruffalo that feels a little out of place in the film as a whole, notwithstanding his great performance. But it is difficult to single any one out here - perhaps for a film that celebrates the team effort in bringing such a difficult story to light, that is somehow appropriate.
It's hard to say how much knowing what happens affects our enjoyment of a story. We live in the age of the spoilerphobe, where nerds like me abandon social media in the days leading up to a major release for fear of having significant plot points or major twists revealed too soon. But in Shakespeare's day, everyone knew the stories being told, and the lack of novelty of the tale didn't lessen the draw. And that's a reminder that what the story is need not, and arguably should not, overshadow how the story is told.
Which is to say, I'm not sure how much the greater effect of Spotlight is lost on me already knowing a decent amount about the molestation scandal within the Catholic Church that played out in the newspapers and on our television screens for years after the time depicted in the film. The film is, if not exactly a mystery, than certainly a story of the intrepid reporters of the Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team starting small and uncovering how widespread a pathology this phenomenon was.
Much of the film is framed with the Spotlight team investigating something seemingly isolated and being shocked to find how the tendrils stretch out and reach areas and individuals they never would have expected. But the impact of this gradual discovery is blunted when you already know how deep the rabbit hole goes. Sure, there's something to the characters' realization that tries to drive the magnitude of the discovery home, but as horrible as what they uncover is, the film loses some of its narrative punch when it's telling you something you already know.
Which is why the film's most vivid and poignant scenes are those involving the Spotlight's team interviewing the victims of the abuse. There's a stark quality to these sequences, which feature straightforward but moving recountings of how these men were taken advantage of as boys, that make them stand out. The film as a whole has a Wire-esque sparseness in the production design and cinematography that makes these scenes, and the horrors they represent, more palpable, awful, and affecting.
But they also reveal a difficult hurdle for the film -- the story of what happened is more striking than the story of the people who found out what happened. But it's a sprawling, very individual story, splintered across thousands of victims and abusers, and director/co-writer Tom McCarthy uses the frame of the newspaper investigation to tie it all together. The unfortunate side effect is that it mediates terrible events that the film is concerned with, mixing them up with didactic discussions of psychological pathology and the personal effect that learning all of this has on the reporters who discover what happened.
There's a fair attempt made both to educate about this crisis and to bring its wide-ranging impact home by showing how it affects Mike Rezendes's (Mark Ruffalo) connection to his faith, or Sacha Pfeiffer's (Rachel McAdams) relationship with her grandmother, or Matt Carroll's (Brian d'Arcy James) sense of the safety of his children in his neighborhood. And yet even as the film is about the Catholic Church's molestation scandal, it's as much about the way that communities close ranks in the face of a potential crisis, and in how there's a certain complicity to it, a sometimes unconscious acceptance of how things are that invites horrific actions to be swept under the rug.
A laudable performance from Michael Keaton as Spotlight editor Walter Robinson anchors the latter theme in the film. As Robinson hunts down old leads and sources, he encounters resistance from well-meaning fellow journalists who believe the story was culled from the crank file, less-than-subtle suggestions from friends and community leaders who urge him not to rock the boat for the good of the community, and disdain from veteran soldiers in the fight to expose the abuse who chastise him, and by extension The Boston Globe, for not doing more and doing it earlier. Carpetbagging editor- -in-chief Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber, who makes a strong impression with a lived-in performance in a smaller role), represents the way an outsider can cut through the status quo and see the collective shame for what it is without the history in the community or the stomach to ignore it.
It's legitimate material to explore in a film of this sort, and yet it ultimately feels very paint-by-numbers in the attempt. Spotlight has all the trapping of the prestige picture. It hits on a Big Issue; it features palatable protagonists fighting against something abhorrent; and it boasts an impressive cast who are given more than enough room to underline the film's points. Every scene seems to end with a line or an exchange that puts a very obvious bow on whatever the audience has just witnessed. Ruffalo gets his Oscar reel moment to bang on the table and demand justice. And the end of the film features the predictable moment of self-questioning, the inevitable bit of triumph, and the white text on a black background explaining the real life consequences of the "Based on Real Events" story the viewer has just witnessed.
That means that the film gets every opportunity to make its statements, to throw in standard-if-creditable character moments, and to work in small but salient details of the scandal. It simply does not make this all feel like something other than a movie going through the motions in the lead up to the Academy Awards. The film has something to say, and it's worth saying, but it doesn't delve particularly deep into these ideas, and doesn't offer anything especially creative in how it presents them either.
Spotlight is a good enough film. It has a sturdy structure, good acting across the board, and locks in on some worthwhile thematic material. It's not a movie I'm sorry to have watched, but also not a movie I'm likely to ever watch again, because even if I haven't seen this exact film before, I've seen this type of film 100 times. It's a solid take on the dogged reporter breaking a scandal story, and hits all the right notes for an Oscar hopeful. But Spotlight never goes a step beyond that commendable-yet-spiritless flavor to the proceedings that seems to persist through so many movies in the same vein.
