The Post - Spielberg/Hanks

The Black Oil

Looks on form. Another newspaper film to get your teeth into.

Hande hoche!

Some serious Oscar bait. Look forward to the five star review from the Washington Post.

JP Liz V1

It has been named the best film of 2017 by the National Board of Review

Fox Hound

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrXlY6gzTTM

Looks like a good one!!!

david75

The Post is good. ‘Oh look Tom Hanks and Meryll Streep are dressed up like it’s the 70s.’
She gets away with it cos she can act, but Hanks is just Hanks.
It’s probably a great film certain people in the world need right now. Freedom of the press blah blah. That’s nit to be dismissive but it takes a long time to get to this point and doesn’t do anything with it when it gets there.

The very last scene is all the more cringe inducing for being totally unnecessary. It had made its point then does that?

Wait for it to turn up on Netflix. Not an essential cinema trip at all.

johnny_ultimate

Probably one of Spielberg's best in years, although that is relatively faint praise given his wildly uneven filmography in the 2000s (a Lincoln or two aside). Still, there's a certain old-fashioned passion, urgency (it was shot on a deadline!) and light-footedness to the film which makes it seem like he really has a lot of love for the story he's telling. The camera zooms and and moves along with the dramatic revelations to rather impactful effect - this isn't subtle filmmaking, but you don't go to Spielberg for subtlety. I'm naturally biased towards the material, but there's a thrill to a well-crafted newsroom drama that is capably amplified here, even if it doesn't come close to the masterpieces of the genre (basically: All The President's Men). An acting powerhouse, as is to be expected: even the supporting roles are full of some of the best character actors in the business (all about the Bob Odenkirk).

This is still Spielberg, so expect some regrettable, eye-rolling indulgences here and there. It starts clunky with some bog-standard Vietnam scene-setting, and ends clunkier with a rare case where telling rather than showing would have been preferable (

Streep making a winking, amusing nod to the Watergate drama to come... before Spielberg of course jumps forward and recreates the robbery itself as a sort of melodramatic & utterly misguided cliffhanger

). The era scene-setting outside the WaPo offices and Graham's high-end party mansion is rudimentary, outside of one or two shots capturing the wider social unease of the time. There's a few sentimental speeches, with soaring Williams score, to remind you in no uncertain terms who's behind the camera. And there's a final bit reading off a Supreme Court judgement that's completely OTT... but I guess when you have a hateful, egotistical idiot in the Oval Office hosting a farcical 'fake news awards' later this week, Spielberg gets a cautious pass this time. Just about.

It's familiar 'prestige' Spielberg, then, with all that entails, but it's the most straight-up entertaining film he's made in an age (with the repeated caveat that I have a weakspot for the material). There are far better films about the era and indeed journalism, while there’s a certain shallowness to it a riskier director would likely have built upon. But The Pentagon Papers make for a damn good story, and it is a story here told with the confidence of a seasoned pro. Now enjoy this before Spielberg inflicts ****ing Ready Player One on the world.

david75

Really? It just felt really lightweight. There’s no heft to it at all. No real sense of consequence yet consequences are thrown down repeatedly yet they don’t feel serious. The

back and forth on the decision to publish goes on too long for what we get and it doesn’t feel impactful the way it ought to when she finally decides to

and that last ten minutes / final scene .. just completely unnecessary imo.

I love John Williams but I barely noticed his score. And he usually accents the moments that matter so that you’re swept along. Didn’t happen for me here at all.

And Spielberg using a 70s retro filter to let us know when in time we are? Totally beneath him.

This wasn’t even trying to do great things it just, plods along.

The Black Oil

This, imo, can't compare to the horror, shoe leather and localised parish feel of Spotlight. Whilst it does very much get into the details of building the story, and the principles of what's at stake are very much there, the unavoidable and tidy Hollywood sheen does take over proceedings now and then. That said, it's a simple enough story told with confidence. It's not easy to pull some of this off without excessive grandstanding or bravado. Thankfully, the script was not written by Aaron Sorkin. I thought it dragged somewhere around the half way mark, or thereafter, but as a piece of mainstream entertainment it works well. Overall, it feels like Spielberg firing on full cylinders, or something quite close. Take it at that level, like a decent best selling book and you'll probably enjoy it.

The first familiar face we see is Matthew Rhys. As it happens, he does some infiltrating, but he's not drawing upon Philips Jennings here. Elsewhere on the acting front, no one is doing a 'hey, I'm giving a performance here!'. Streep's character has a number of challenges to juggle. There are of course some not so subtle similarities to the current political and media landscape. Nixon, in a rage, throws around words like 'pricks' and 'bastard' in reference to journalists, whilst also, as Hanks's Bradlee puts it

'is taking a **** on the first amendment.

It's fundamentally about communication and relationships - how people choose to respond, rooms, phones and everyone gathered around watching Walter Cronkite. Seeing old printing presses was a treat too.

Beechwoodspark

I found it a bit bland and also there’s one or two scenes where Spielberg absolutely hits the audience over the head making certain points. No subtlety.

pumpkin4life

Saw it yesterday.

Bland, syrupy spurious black and white crap from a terrible director. But it will hit all the right buttons and critics and Mark Kermode will talk about it being an excellent movie about fake news and all those journalists who care and how fitting it is to come out in Trump's America and hope and love and puppies and rainbows and visits to the land of chocolate. :rolleyes:

It's done well at the box office though, so maybe it's just the children who are wrong.

brevity

Terrible director?

brevity

brevity wrote: »

Terrible director?

He watched the Señor Spielbergo version

pixelburp

Honestly, while he has obvious ticks and repeated tropes (but then, what director doesn't?), calling Stephen Spielberg a 'terrible director' is pretty ludicrous, and reaching to a exaggerated degree.

I haven't seen the film myself, and does smell like a case of journalistic hagiography, but a free press is something to cherish and celebrate, not snort at. Were there none, there's a good chance nobody here would be free to express their own opinions on Boards.

johnny_ultimate

Mod note: Two separate threads on the film merged.

pumpkin4life

brevity wrote: »

Terrible director?

Yep.

Watching a Steven Spielberg is like watching an episode of South Park.

When he sticks to making straight up movies (Raiders of The Lost Ark, Jaws, Duel, Jurassic Park, Last Crusade) he's actually pretty great, and in the case of the first movie there, brilliant.

When he does anything political/serious/topical, he completely craps all over himself with black and white characters, over the top sentimentality, and even borderline propaganda at times. It blows my mind that Saving Private Ryan is considered a great movie for example. Good video on the topic:

I also get this weird kind of 'off' vibe with a lot of his films. It's hard to describe. Don't ask me about that one lol. I don't get it either.

gmisk

I saw this yesterday in the lighthouse the screening was RAMMED.

I thought it was solid no more...terrific casting, but it wasnt particularly gripping, Tom Hanks was good, Meryl Streep was Meryl Streep, honestly if she fiddled with her glasses one more time I was going to scream.
I just think the central premise wasnt particularly gripping which didnt help.
No idea why it is being mentioned in the oscars race.

To be honest I totally agree with the other poster I thought Spotlight covered the whole old school journalism ground in a much more gripping and involving manner.

JP Liz V1

Streep picks up another Oscar nom

Wombatman

Impact-less filmmaking by numbers. In a time of fake news, click bait and news in 140 characters, never more did we need a hard hitting message underlining the importance of journalistic integrity and the free press. What we got was an anodyne vehicle for Hanks (who plays Hanks) and Streep devoid of any spirit or originality. Late on it seemed to make an awkward effort to get on message with the prevailing, guilt ridden, theme out of Hollywood these days "Ah sure the women are great altogether, aren't they".

3/10

david75

So does anyone have any explanation for the weird veiled skeleton in this? It’s as Meryls character is leaving the court.
Spielberg tic or some other significance?
Pic attached.

So Trump claims all news is fake news! then streep and the likes come out with a movie within his first year about how important REAL news is in the USA.!!!

This is an anti- trump, pro-mainstream media propaganda job!!
you don't have to be called joseph goebbels in order to be doing this shyte!

Sabre0001

Surely Trump should support something like this, a movie that expresses how it's important that newspapers do quality journalism and report real news and the truth. That is, unless he is the Nixon figure that wants to shut down the press because he has something to hide...Hmmm.....

pixelburp

rusty cole wrote: »

So Trump claims all news is fake news! then streep and the likes come out with a movie within his first year about how important REAL news is in the USA.!!!

This is an anti- trump, pro-mainstream media propaganda job!!
you don't have to be called joseph goebbels in order to be doing this shyte!

So being supportive of thorough, investigative journalism that pursues political corruption of any hue is being 'anti trump' now? I don't care whether someone voted for Trump or not - this isn't America after all - and you know I can kinda see why there's a cult-like support of him in some ways (he makes sweeping, declarative statements in a field that often waffles and dissembles), but I do care about the most powerful politician in the world making the kind of dismissive, reductive attacks every 3rd world, tinpot dictator makes when wanting to undermine the press. His comments wouldn't look out of place were they made by Robert Mugabe.

This isn't about binary positions of 'anti trump', 'pro mainstream media'. Step back from those terms and think for a second. You feel a free an open press is a bad thing? You're literally expressing that opinion in an environment built upon a free press.

pixelburp

pixelburp wrote: »

So being supportive of thorough, investigative journalism that pursues political corruption of any hue is being 'anti trump' now? I don't care whether someone voted for Trump or not - this isn't America after all - and you know I can kinda see why there's a cult-like support of him in some ways (he makes sweeping, declarative statements in a field that often waffles and dissembles), but I do care about the most powerful politician in the world making the kind of dismissive, reductive attacks every 3rd world, tinpot dictator makes when wanting to undermine the press. His comments wouldn't look out of place were they made by Robert Mugabe.

This isn't about binary positions of 'anti trump', 'pro mainstream media'. Step back from those terms and think for a second. You feel a free an open press is a bad thing? You're literally expressing that opinion in an environment built upon a free press.

well you read that all wrong. I believe in exactly that, honest press!! the point is that it's so bias now that the Anti-trump mob need to make movies about keeping it honest when it's anything but!! if he lost the election I'll bet my mortgage this wouldn't exist! if they weren't standing against an ejjit like him whilst standing behind a wolf in sheeps clothing, there'd be no need for it. now they have to convince us that NEWS is real NEWS and the importance of not having it discredited and undermined is paramount...really in America!! yea!! I'd sooner tune into the young turks!

expectationlost

so as this movie invites you do to Im watching All the President Men Im just before he meets Deep Throat but its bit fustrating unclear what articles the Post is running even accounting for hindsight, an organised break in at the DNC HQ seems like bombshell story even before they work to connect it to Nixen, i know they are trying to show that you can't get ahead of your story and you have to prove every little bit of it, but its seems like there no public reaction to breakin.

bit of a muted ending

pinkypinky

I thought it was solid with good performances all round. I didn't live through this time so only had a vague understanding but the film did a good job of explaining without overkill.

Didn't think Meryl's performance was Oscar-worthy though.

david75 wrote: »

So does anyone have any explanation for the weird veiled skeleton in this? It’s as Meryls character is leaving the court.
Spielberg tic or some other significance?
Pic attached.

Totally thought this was a euphemism for I don't know what until I opened the picture. WTF?

speedboatchase

Boring, boring, boring. Would rather stare at an actual post for 2 hours than ever have to endure that again.

david75

pinkypinky wrote: »

I thought it was solid with good performances all round. I didn't live through this time so only had a vague understanding but the film did a good job of explaining without overkill.

Didn't think Meryl's performance was Oscar-worthy though.



Totally thought this was a euphemism for I don't know what until I opened the picture. WTF?

Never got an explanation. Very very weird inclusion though.

wp_rathead

It was all over the place- very dissapointing
Spotlight was a much better film about investigative journalism

Niles Crane

Got the DVD of this but when I went to watch it today the picture quality was extremely poor, I tried watching on both a big screen and a smaller screen but the quality was the same and I checked the disc and there were no scratches on it.

Anyone else experience poor picture quality with the DVD?

Sad Professor

Niles Crane wrote: »

Got the DVD of this but when I went to watch it today the picture quality was extremely poor, I tried watching on both a big screen and a smaller screen but the quality was the same and I checked the disc and there were no scratches on it.

Anyone else experience poor picture quality with the DVD?

Poor how? It's a DVD so it's not going to look great anyway.

Niles Crane

Sad Professor wrote: »

Poor how? It's a DVD so it's not going to look great anyway.

Pixellation, blurriness.

I watched Murder on The Orient Express on the same player and the picture was perfect (for em anyway).

yerwanthere123

Watched this last night. Honestly, I thought it was insufferably dull. Such was my disinterest I actually considered abandoning it halfway through, which is something I very rarely do. Perhaps I should've done some research beforehand about the film's background, but I'm not sure this would've made a difference. I'd rate it 5/10, and that's being generous.

CrankyHaus

It's a solid film but was predictably hyped up when it came out.

Journalists will always celebrate positive portrayals of their profession, in a way that they wouldn't for films about say the phone hacking scandal or how the media cheerled the Invasion Iraq.
Add in the OTT reaction after Trump's surprise win in 2016 and the lazy parallels that could be drawn with Nixon and it was inevitable that the film would be praised above its actual merits.

Mad_maxx

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Watched this last night. Honestly, I thought it was insufferably dull. Such was my disinterest I actually considered abandoning it halfway through, which is something I very rarely do. Perhaps I should've done some research beforehand about the film's background, but I'm not sure this would've made a difference. I'd rate it 5/10, and that's being generous.

Dull is the word.