Spotlight

http://youtu.be/Zg5zSVxx9JM

Couldnt see a post on this already, excellent stuff. Great cast,great momentum and really powerful stuff

Definatly recommend

Nate--IRL--

That actually looks good.

Nate

JP Liz V1

Interesting Ray Donovan aka Liev is in this given the plot

AnonoBoy

Great cast. Great director.

Really looking forward to this one.

FortuneChip

Really looking forward to seeing this.
Had a sneaky bet on it for Best Picture a few months ago, and now I see it's favourite!

Excellent cast, and some good feedback from Toronto Film Festival

Mitch Connor

doesn't seem to be getting released over here til January. Disappointing - was looking forward to it and thought i'd be seeing it this month.

Very strong performances in this. The pace is great in it, keeps you interested from the very beginning

fryup

anyone seen this yet?

errlloyd

fryup wrote: »

anyone seen this yet?

Yes it is very good. Deserves it's best picture nod, ruffalo is strong.

marklazarcovic

It's good ,but not hard hitting enough imo,not enough drama for a drama if ya get me

hidinginthebush

I didn't like it. I think with all the horrible abuse that has been exposed over here the past few years, it's hard to be shocked by

learning of all the coverups by the church

. Maybe it'll shock and surprise some americans who see it, but I think people over here where that abuse has been so publicly discussed over the past years, it is hard to become enraged / inspired at something we've heard about for so long.

Sad Professor

It's more of a journalistic procedural than a drama. And what it has to say about the role of good investigative journalism in exposing ugly social ills is far more valuable than anything it has to say about the child clergy abuse. And I do mean social and not just institutional ills because as one of the characters in the film says, "If it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse one."

We know all about that in this country where the social complicity was far more shocking than anything the priests and church were doing. From an Irish perspective, the question I came away from the film with was: what the hell was the Irish media doing all those years when this stuff was common knowledge? Well they were complicit too. Their religious sympathies prevented them from acting.

As the film also points out, sometimes it takes an outsider to see this.

AnonoBoy

hidinginthebush wrote: »

I didn't like it. I think with all the horrible abuse that has been exposed over here the past few years, it's hard to be shocked by

learning of all the coverups by the church

. Maybe it'll shock and surprise some americans who see it, but I think people over here where that abuse has been so publicly discussed over the past years, it is hard to become enraged / inspired at something we've heard about for so long.

I don't think the film is supposed to shock as such, is it?

It's telling the story of how it was exposed as Sad Professor said - it's a procedural.

When I watched All The President's Men I already knew what Nixon had done, it was how it was uncovered that I paid in for.

hidinginthebush

Hmmm maybe "shock" wasn't the right word, but I still found it hard to get engrossed in the film when I knew from the offset

there would be corruption, the church would be ingrained into everyday life, some people (even those not involved with the church) would not want the info to come to light

. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that the subject matter of the film wasn't enough to pull me in to the story and feel for the struggle of the reporters, when I knew the outcome and could guess the pitfalls they would face along the way.

Sad Professor

hidinginthebush wrote: »

Hmmm maybe "shock" wasn't the right word, but I still found it hard to get engrossed in the film when I knew from the offset

there would be corruption, the church would be ingrained into everyday life, some people (even those not involved with the church) would not want the info to come to light

. I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that the subject matter of the film wasn't enough to pull me in to the story and feel for the struggle of the reporters, when I knew the outcome and could guess the pitfalls they would face along the way.

I agree somewhat. I didn't find the subject of their investigation particularly compelling. Priests are capable of evil, religious institutions are corrupt as any other, etc — we know all this. But Spotlight is no more about that than The Insider was about cigarettes being bad for you. The film is more about about showing the value of good investigative journalism to society. The way it can put a... spotlight on an institution, even one as hallowed and politically powerful as the Catholic Church and say this isn't right. But it does so in a honest way that shows how journalists in rather insular communities like Boston rub shoulders with the upper echelons of power, and the financial and commercial realities their media employer's face.

This has a lot of relevance right now. Could the same investigation happen today, would it be given the time and resources it needed? Even though the events of the film happened less than 15 years ago, the answer is probably no. That kind of journalism is dying off.

Sad Professor

Having said all that, McCarthy's direction is no great shakes. He's an excellent writer, but he's no Pakula or Mann behind the camera and isn't able to give the scenes the kind of punch they need.

CatFromHue

I thought it was good anyway and I agree it wasn't really meant to be a shock type film but more about how they went about it all.

In saying that,

the scene towards the end when Ruffalo is looking in at the 3 kids colouring and the attorney tells him that two have been abused brought it all home for me. At the end I had to look away when they were listing all the places the cover ups had happened as I nearly cried after the first time I saw an Irish place on it.

K-9

What a fantastic film. Perfectly under stated but boy, did it hit home (a few tears watching this one). No need for any graphic details, a simple thing as an ice cream resonated, no Spielberg Bridge of Spies explaining for the audience needed.

Some uncomfortable truths spelled out to for journalists, good balance between idealistic journalism and realism.

Still left you feeling sorry for the true believers in Catholicism.

I loved it. Just let a story develop, show the drama, but let's not make it good guys vs. bad guys.

LuckyLloyd

Sad Professor wrote: »

Having said all that, McCarthy's direction is no great shakes. He's an excellent writer, but he's no Pakula or Mann behind the camera and isn't able to give the scenes the kind of punch they need.

My one criticism too, also felt the soundtrack was very pedestrian throughout also. The difference between a potential masterpiece and the worthy / interesting film that Spotlight is.

mystic86

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

My one criticism too, also felt the soundtrack was very pedestrian throughout also. The difference between a potential masterpiece and the worthy / interesting film that Spotlight is.

god, are we really gonna go down this route? The music prevented it from being a potential masterpiece?!

LuckyLloyd

mystic86 wrote: »

god, are we really gonna go down this route? The music prevented it from being a potential masterpiece?!

I didn't just say the music - I said the direction and music. And yes, those things matter. The story is strong and worthy but had it been presented with more power and flare the film could have been greater than it is.

johnny_ultimate

Spotlight certainly falls into the category of 'great story, solid film' for me. The story contained within is so infuriating and in some cases incredulous that, years after the revelations it still has the power to rile the blood (and of course be impressed at the sheer journalistic vigour on display). In a sense, it's 'essential' viewing to simply further underline (as if it needed it) in a clear and concise way what an absolutely poisonous, unforgivable phenomenon the institutionalised cover-up was and as a passionate but balanced tribute to the need for proper journalism when almost everything has turned 'metro'.

It's definitely not 'badly' told either. For a film that has little in the way of genre action, it clips along at an engrossing pace, making what was in essence tireless and decidedly uncinematic reporting feel engaging and exciting without completely surrendering its groundness. It's powerfully acted, and McCarthy is wise enough to remain fairly 'hands off' in some sequences that more or less speak for themselves. There's a few potent shots scattered throughout too, like one of the final ones of a near-empty Globe office with Marty Baron working away in his office in the deep background.

But, a good few films into his career, Tom McCarthy IMO is a director who remains competent (with a mostly positive emphasis) but rarely remarkable. He tells stories simply and well, but that's about as far as it goes (I haven't seen the Cobbler, but I don't think I need to :pac:). While in some of his more intimate pieces, like The Visitor, I'm more willing to forgive that. But I reckon he's operating in a more challenging realm here. Some previous examples of 'journalistic investigation' films are some of the most artfully made of their eras - All The Presidents Men or Zodiac, to take the two most obvious. Spotlight, with a few exceptional moments here and there, has all the cinematic flair of an episode of The West Wing. Again, everything flows smoothly and engagingly, and a generous reading that the story being told doesn't need any bells and whistles is a fair one. But again the film is blandly directed (cast direction aside) and that makes it a film whose successes are in many cases inherited from the source material rather than anything about the film itself.

I'd still easily recommend the film - it is far from being actually 'bad', and it would have taken some serious cack-handedness for the story being told not to be fascinating and deeply emotive. A great story, and a pretty good film is, well, good enough.

siblers

Anyone else find Mark Ruffalo's charachter quite annoying? Something off putting about the way he spoke and the way he always had his hands in his fecking pockets.

TopOfTheRight

siblers wrote: »

Anyone else find Mark Ruffalo's charachter quite annoying? Something off putting about the way he spoke and the way he always had his hands in his fecking pockets.

Yeah I thought he was awful, his investigative journalism style reminded me far too much of this guy's;

loadwire

Saw this yesterday, thought it was excellent.

Didn't mind the 'quiet' directing style. To me it was a wise choice to focus more on storytelling over visual/technical aspects. Not that it has to be one or the other but personally I never found myself wanting more artistic or inventive framing. Once or twice it was a bit clumsy

like when the camera panned down to show a survivor's injected arm I thought it could have been done more subtly

but other than that I thought it suited the film. Maybe the fact that I have seen this after Hateful 8 and Revenant made me more open to a less showy directing style.

I was wary going in of it being rated 4/5 stars because of the importance of the subject rather than the quality of the film but IMO it earns those ratings due to the quality of the storytelling, writing, pacing and tone. It was as much (if not more) about the work and role of investigative journalism pre-web than the abuse scandal itself - though

the closing frames are appropriately solemn and striking

.

I did have a few niggles. Most of the cast are excellent but I found both McAdams and Ruffalo weak. Not too bad that they spoiled the film but they weren't as believable as the others - maybe they are just too hollywood looking (if that makes sense) for this kind of film/subject matter. Agree with others who found Ruffalo's characterisation annoying. Thought it was silly the way

he was constantly sprinting off to wherever, it wasn't needed and didn't add any tension to those scenes.

Overall 4/5

e_e

I kept trying to pinpoint who the hell played Mitchell Garabedian before seeing on the poster in the foyer afterward that it was Stanley Tucci, somebody who I've seen and admired in many movies. That's the sign of a great actor surely, where they just disappear into a role like that.

It was a good nuts and bolts procedural, no more no less for me. 7/10

smurf492

Caught this on Friday. I was well impressed. Felt ruffalo was a bit strange in the way of character traits but overall a worthwhile view... Plus nice to see something that didnt rely on excessive CGI and explosions...

homerun_homer

loadwire wrote: »

Thought it was silly the way

he was constantly sprinting off to wherever, it wasn't needed and didn't add any tension to those scenes.

Well one of the times he was legging it to get to view the documents on time before anyone else potentially did, so it makes perfect sense to show him in a hurry.

siblers

homerun_homer wrote: »

Well one of the times he was legging it to get to view the documents on time before anyone else potentially did, so it makes perfect sense to show him in a hurry.

I don't understand why they didn't send someone who was already in Boston to get the documents, instead of him rushing back from Florida

K-9

homerun_homer wrote: »

Well one of the times he was legging it to get to view the documents on time before anyone else potentially did, so it makes perfect sense to show him in a hurry.

Yep, those running to get to the counter before some public servant closes the desk always remind me of Blues Brothers.

Not a big drawback for me, just felt unnecessary.

AnonoBoy

e_e wrote: »

I kept trying to pinpoint who the hell played Mitchell Garabedian before seeing on the poster in the foyer afterward that it was Stanley Tucci, somebody who I've seen and admired in many movies. That's the sign of a great actor surely, where they just disappear into a role like that.

I didn't recognise him with hair!

The Black Oil

Considering this sort of thing could easily slip into unrelenting grandstanding, it manages not to. It's a human story about the legwork involved in long form, investigative journalism and it doesn't exactly cover the Boston Globe in glory all the time, either. The cast are great. Liev Schreiber isn't on screen a while lot, but is quietly diligent in his editorial role. All things said, it's a notch or two below being in a class of its own and perhaps a tad too long. Key line: The Church thinks in centuries, Mr. Rezendes. On a lighter note, they seemed to get some of the early internet stuff spot on. I smiled at the AOL billboard. :pac:

Canadel

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

My one criticism too, also felt the soundtrack was very pedestrian throughout also. The difference between a potential masterpiece and the worthy / interesting film that Spotlight is.

Thing is, this movie didn't need a soundtrack. And the soundtrack was never going to be the difference between a movie like this being a masterpiece or not.

A very important movie which should be watched by everyone and screened in schools as part of the curriculum. The 2nd half didn't quite hit me in the same way as the first half did but the job was already done. Maybe it was because I became distracted half way through when I realised that The Revenant will probably win Best Picture at the Oscars. The world is a strange place.

runnerholic

I went to see this today and was well impressed. Imo the cast were excellent, particularly Rufalo, I'm surprised the negative comments re his performance on this thread.

AnonoBoy

runnerholic wrote: »

I went to see this today and was well impressed. Imo the cast were excellent, particularly Rufalo, I'm surprised the negative comments re his performance on this thread.

Ruffalo is a brilliant actor. His performance way back in 2000 in You Can Count On Me is sheer class.

Mr E

Ruffalo's mannerisms were strange, but that's how Mike Rezendes is in real life. Good interview with Ruffalo and Rezendez here in GQ. There is no point in Mark Ruffalo playing Mark Ruffalo - it's based on a true story with real people (quirks and all).

I also liked the score. It started off very low key (just piano) and got more layered and multi-instrumental as all of the revelations came to light. Very clever.

Excellent movie, one of my favourites this year so far.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Saw it today. Really solid piece of work. Nothing flashy and I didn't think anyone in particular stood out rather it was a really great ensemble piece, which I think maybe used to be quite common place in films but seems to have gone out of fashion.

It obviously didn't set out to shock but I still found it pretty disturbing just how not shocked I was by any of it. That's nothing to do with the film, just the environment we live in.

All the scenes with the victims telling what happened seemed very.... simple? I didn't want people sobbing into hankies for two hours but some of those scenes seemed almost casual? I don't know. Clever or obvious to have massive churches hanging over a lot of the scenes out on the streets? Or maybe unavoidable in Boston.

I liked, if that's the word, how they didn't really paint the journalists as heroes in it all.

The fact that all the info had previously been ignored/burried before and that the lawyer who looked like he was exploiting the situation had actually tried to make it public before.

As the boss man said lots of blame to be passed around.

I thought the strongest scene in the film was probably at the end when Ruffalo's character saw the family in the lawyer's office.

vetinari

Thought it was a really good movie.
Really brought back memories of the Irish Abuse Scandal's coverage growing up.
Also thought the scenes with survivors describing their abuse were very powerful.
On the news, it's usually much more sanitised.

kidfromkibbly

Great podcast that follows up on the aftermath of the initial 'Spotlight' report.

Aidric

Saw this yesterday. I can't remember the last time I payed a cinema admission for a second time but I'm considering it for this movie, such was my enjoyment of it.

Like others have eluded to there is nothing flashy about this movie, it hangs on a gripping story line that is fully realised by the actors tasked with portraying it. There is no need to highlight any one performance because they all brought each other to a sustained level of excellence. The Directors trust in them pays dividends.

DMCC10

only getting to see this award winning film tomorrow in LHC -looking forward to it

skimpydoo

CatFromHue wrote: »

I thought it was good anyway and I agree it wasn't really meant to be a shock type film but more about how they went about it all.

In saying that,

the scene towards the end when Ruffalo is looking in at the 3 kids colouring and the attorney tells him that two have been abused brought it all home for me. At the end I had to look away when they were listing all the places the cover ups had happened as I nearly cried after the first time I saw an Irish place on it.

Yeah me too especially as my old parish priest was a well known abuser moved from parish to parish, and I was glad I was never an altar boy.