Spotlight starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton and Rachel McAdams is reviewed by Matt Atchity (Rotten Tomatoes), Alonso Duralde (TheWrap and Linoleum Knife podcast) and Christy Lemire (www.ChristyLemi...).
+Chad Hotelling Well, Transformers probably pays better. You know, it's easy for us to judge when these great actors take roles in movies like Transformers and Hunger Games as Stanley did. But at the end of the day Stanley has to pay bills like the rest of us.
+Paul y you're right. Michael Shannon did an interview recently, and said that the majority of actors/actresses are broke. And so when an opportunity to act in a big budget film comes along (for him, it was Man of Steel), they usually take them.
+Michael Colby if that statement was true then i and many other people wouldn't have enjoyed it... it ain't a masterpiece, but it's a thousand times better than TV... would watch the cobbler again every night than CSI:cyber, Scopian, Agents of Shield, (current) Dr. Who, Modern Family, Minority Report, Green Arrow, .. i could go on... millions of people watch those shows and it's better than all of them combined... a perfectly good evening movie on the couch with a spouse (i compare it to TV because i wouldn't buy it)
MrKJ444 Benicio Del Toro got snubbed of an Oscar nomination...doesn't make sense to me. Also, Leo carries the weight of The Revenant and the movie turned out to be phenomenal. He easily gave the best performance out of any actor in 2015.
+Kaj Anan what do you mean? the channel you watch it on on your tv set? the equipment used to broadcast the network? everyone affiliated with the network? even the regular liberal commentators employed by the network? - please try to think more clearly and communicate specifically what you meant to say
+mollkatless I think he's referring to Murdock and their mostly conservative point of view; I mean if you watch the channel for at least 2 hours you'll get it . But yeah they're totally fair and balanced dude.
I just saw this movie, it finished about half an hour ago in Sydney, Australia (one of the first sessions of the movie in the country). It is a phenomenal movie, they all give fantastic performances, Tucci, Ruffalo, Keaton, Schreiber. I was teary at the end, I couldn't help it. I've read articles and books about it all, but seeing it on the screen is just so much more powerful. You must see it.
One of the most powerful things I have seen is at the end of this movie when they list all the places where priests sexually assaulted kids. It was amazing to see all the cities listed out, I am relatively young and didn't know the extent that it was happening. 100% my favorite movie in recent years.
Right? My mom and I watched it and we were shocked when we saw name of our country on the list. It's an American movie and we are not used to it mentioning Europe
This is so fucking true. I saw the first page and I thought to myself, "god damn" and then the pages kept going and I was just like, "holy shit are you fucking serious?"
Wayne D right I saw mostly America and I was already like holy shit... and then 4 pages later I see my hometown.... Hamilton New Zealand and also the town I live in now Melbourne, Australia. Deeply disturbing. Felt like that “treatment centre right next door” scene all over again.
Here are some criticism for this movie: 1. For a movie about good journalism, the storytelling of this movie was a little bit too one-sided. They could have had a priest, good or bad, as one of the main characters. 2. Not much character development. Instead of having a team ensemble approach, they could have focused on just one or two characters. (Mark Ruffalo's character being one.) 3. The story portrayed the Catholic Church as pretty much an evil organization. They didn't try to show that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles. According to the movie, 6% of Catholic priests molest little children. That figure probably isn't that high of a number compared to any other group of jobs or work that involves direct interaction with kids. 4. As a fan of Stanley Tucci, there wasn't enough scenes with Stanley Tucci. He should have been one of the journalists. 5. Rachel McAdams was good, but her acting could have been somewhat better. As a hard-working journalist, she seemed too full of energy all the time. She never seemed tired or exhausted at any moment throughout the film. Overall, it was a good movie with a very compelling story and some good acting. 8.2/10
You completely missed the point. 6% were out molesting kids, while the 94% left knew about it, let it happen, and then buried it under the rug using the power and influence of the catholic church, they are just as guilty. All to protect their precious little cult.
Truly great movie. Alonso isn't wrong. Ruffalo's performance at times seems like he's trying too hard, whereas everyone else is completely naturalistic. But I only think it comes off that way sometimes. Other times he's fantastic. Also, I'm pretty sure he has the most screen time, which revealed it more perhaps. Who knows? Great movie though.
Mark Ruffalo actually nailed the character. When I saw the actual real Mike Rezendes being interviewed I suddenly got where Mark came from and he really nailed everything from the exaggerated movements, to the way he speaks only out of the right side of his mouth.
What a spectacular film. It's so simple! It reminds me of 12 Angry Men in a way that it just boils things down to a bunch of hard working journalists doing their best to expose the most shocking story anyone had run across in a very long time....strangely it feels like when someone has been putting off going to the doctor over a sickness and finally things are being treated and maybe we're on the long road to recovery. I still can't go back to church, but I've learned to be kinder to young people. That being said, I've been friends with several reporters and Mark Ruffalo freaking NAILED IT.
The one thing that made me pick this movie to probably be on my top ten list is Howard Shore's theme. This theme is simple but its simplicity at its best. Simplicity is not easy to achieve and I think they got it just right with this picture.
+Robert Perez very disturbing and sad theme. Makes you feel a sense of sympathy for the victims and a sense of hate/justice serving for the pedophiles.
I actually got to meet Mike Rezendes earlier this year, and he really is over-the-top. He doesn't really look like Mark Ruffalo, but Ruffalo at least got the mannerisms down.
249 priests and brothers were publicly accused of Sexual abuse within the Boston Archiocese. They were once children and they did believe in God? Here in Canada ours is residential schooling.
I'm really surprised by this review. I was pretty disappointed in this film, wasn't nearly as powerful as I was expecting. I thought it was pretty lacking in emotion, which is pretty shocking considering the content. I actually found the text at the end giving us a bit of extra information before the credits to be more emotional then almost anything else in the film. The acting was good from almost everyone, but a lot of the directing felt a bit cheesy. I'd probably give it about a 7.5/10. Really shocked by how high these numbers are...
mark ruffalo clearly did his research unlike you guys. He nailed the real life journalist to a tee all the way down to his mannerisms and body language
I found that Alonso is difficult to be pleased. He always pick up something from movie to dislike. He gave The Help only 4.5 out of 10, that movie wasn't that bad! And now with Spotlight he just couldn't give it 10/10. So perfectionist!
A powerful, yet flawed film . Some excellent storytelling - such as the enlightening 'speaker' call with the 'priest-abuse' expert. Yet, the Cardinal was right out of central casting - as were the 'stereotypical' portraits of ALL Catholic men as part of the 'old boys network' - ( The film company is being 'sued' for their false portrayal of that B.C. High alum ) . ALL Catholics were depicted as naive 'sheeple' - who couldn't get over to protest at the Globe on Sunday morning' as Keaton smarmily describes them being '' Still at Mass.'' In fact, it was the Boston priests and parishioners who petitioned the 'All powerful' Church to remove Cardinal Law . Also, the Catholic Church did not have any monopoly on child abuse - but it was The Worst Institution - due to the Churches 'insular' nature and lack of any type of checks and balances or honest system of reporting. Finally, I enjoyed the 'human' portrayal of the Globe reporters as flawed and competitively selfish .... Yet, The Globe was portrayed as the 'ALL-POWERFUL' deliverer of Truth .... those green Globe delivery trucks rolled liked WWII tanks through Paris.... 50 years ago I delivered the Boston Globe through the streets of Dorchester = my regrettable contribution to Yellow Journalism .
It was a good movie, solid, but I didn't find it THAT interesting. Came here to hear other people's opinion and I agree that the film made a potentially dull story into a watchable one. But it didn't evoke any special feelings for me. Maybe because I'm not religious in the first place. idk... I give it a 7 out of 10....and that is pretty high for my standards. I would recommed people to watch it but not in my top 10 of 2015.
I'm not religious either and neither were a few of the main characters but I grew up Catholic, my dad went to catholic school in dallas, I grew up Catholic in El Paso. Both of those cities were on the list at the end but the movie had me hooked long before I knew that.
10? Seriously? I'm sorry, but ~80% of this movie was watching people do dull legwork. A couple of great scenes does not make any movie a 10. Up your standards.
I think it's a 10/10 I was on the edge of my seat the whole film. Although, I am a biased opinion because I want to be a journalist and this just inspired me even more.
Watched it again last night. The reason it's good but not great for me is that the majority of the film is very emotionally flat. Just because something is a true story doesn't mean that it's a riveting watch or has deeply compelling characters.
nicodimus2222 It had a limited emotional impact on you but in the theater i watched it in, i regularly heard myself and others whisper "oh my god" or "jesus christ" throughout the film. Clearly, this movie hit others in a way that you didn't feel.
this is a very, very good movie, but I am not sure of its greatness. it has the unshowy, workman-like quality of ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN but it doesn't have the ingenious grace notes. that film had masterful little directorial touches which visually illustrated the exhaustive process of investigative journalism (i.e. the overhead shot in the library). I think McCarthy works within the mould of that film without trying to match it or better it. it doesn't get any better than ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN. that film is the ceiling for this kind of filmmaking and McCarthy knows that. even though its narrative is a lot more sensational than these two films, I think Fincher's ZODIAC gets bloody close to ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN in its depiction of the journalistic process.
+aenjgeal Exact same here. To me it was a good film that tells a important story, and I'm glad it exists. But it wasn't a brilliant piece of filmaking in any way to me.
Shadowman4710 Are you serious? I can understand there might still be pedophiles or any number of other freaks in the churches, but as far as goes the blanket of denial, I thought the church was done with that. There was some show I saw that addressed the direction they were taking as the way I *thought* they were. "Years ago we saw it as a sickness, something that could be fixed by shuffling them around. Now, we turn them over to you." The speaker was addressing a cop or DA, it might have been Law&Order.
Gangrel Aussie All I see is Pope Frank dodging the issue and making excuses for it. The Roman Catholic Church is rotten with pedophiles and sexual deviants (not that there's anything wrong with that :) and needs to go really. I don't see any concrete attempt at structural reform. Do you?
Shadowman4710 They do have a better face in the new Pope, but I suppose I can see your point. I don't really have the grudge against religion that some do. I think of it more as the holding pattern around some core ideas or tenets of humanity that have already been unpacked for building blocks by others to be us3d for where we want to go. The ideas of good and evil, starting out simplistically and growing with complication; an Afterlife and Supreme Being, going into the idea or scientific reasoning of energy as yet undefined that survives past this life or however you want to put it. I like all that. It's just people and old structures - like you put it - that aren't able to mold themselves into something better than what they started out as. The ideas keep developing. ... And I might have let that turn into a sleep deprived, cold-coffee ramble. Eh.
Gangrel Aussie No, I appreciate your thoughts. I should point out that my criticisms here have to do with the Roman Catholic Church as a political/cultural institution and not necessarily against Catholicism. I really don't care if people believe that bread and wine turns into human flesh and blood if you consume them in a really nice gothic era building. Believe what you want. The atrocities committed by that institution, which sadly often make the practice of child rape look like a walk in the park are everybody's business.
+roter13 I mean, it's hard to change a non-fiction piece where all of the characters portrayed in the real life even were white. I guess they could have thrown some multiculturalism into the mix, but then you would be altering the characters being portrayed, which bruises the authenticity and the overall movie.
I think it will win best picture. Not because I think it's the best film, but because I personally feel like that's what the Academy does. They choose films that are "important", or "original" like Argo, and 12 Years a Slave, which are true stories, and The Artist and Birdman which were original being in black and white and then in one continuous shot. Not that this is a bad movie, I really enjoyed it and hope it does win best picture.
Oh, so you're ashamed of these priests, but not of the whole goddamn institution that promoted their indulgence in their "pleasures" and just let it keep happening?
Good movie? Sure 97% on Rotten Tomatoes good? Hell the fuck no! And are they really wetting their pants over this and Carol? Maybe I just need to be more seasoned to feel invested enough in these Oscar bait movies. Room was great though.
