Spotlight (2015)

[Akijama]

Spotlight Blu-ray PRE-ORDER




Source: Best Buy

Spotlight TRAILER 1 (2015) - Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton Movie HD - YouTube

[bookcase]

Unfortunately, I was underwhelmed by this movie. Fantastic (albeit heartbreaking) story and good acting, but it was mediocre filmmaking.

[IndyMLVC]

Really enjoyed this movie. Also loved Truth, which didn't get nearly as much acclaim.

[Scottie]

My second favorite film of the year behind Phoenix.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by bookcase

Unfortunately, I was underwhelmed by this movie. Fantastic (albeit heartbreaking) story and good acting, but it was mediocre filmmaking.

Explain what you mean by this. That's a very serious statement! What exactly was "mediocre"? I thought it was incredibly well-paced and easy to follow, and constantly interesting and with very well-defined characters, all of which strike me as anything but mediocre film-making. And compared to the big daddy of journalism films, "All the President's Men," it was MUCH better paced and structured and never started to get into a rut of repetitive confirmations or anything like that film did. Are you just referring to the lack of fancy camerawork or anything? It has the handheld look of any number of TV dramas or something, but that doesn't make it mediocre. It doesn't need to look like "All the President's Men"! Maybe you have some other serious problems with it, though, which is why I'm curious.

[SammyJankis]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

Explain what you mean by this. That's a very serious statement! What exactly was "mediocre"? I thought it was incredibly well-paced and easy to follow, and constantly interesting and with very well-defined characters, all of which strike me as anything but mediocre film-making. And compared to the big daddy of journalism films, "All the President's Men," it was MUCH better paced and structured and never started to get into a rut of repetitive confirmations or anything like that film did. Are you just referring to the lack of fancy camerawork or anything? It has the handheld look of any number of TV dramas or something, but that doesn't make it mediocre. It doesn't need to look like "All the President's Men"! Maybe you have some other serious problems with it, though, which is why I'm curious.

I can't speak for bookcase, but I'm pretty sure, from what I gather from others regarding this topic, he's referring to the craft itself, which is pretty laid back with a standard approach. This isn't a knock against it coming from me. More of an observation that McCarthy kept his stylistic choices low-key in order to maintain that smooth easy going rhythm his actors have going. I mean, the first thing you notice when taking a look at the film probably isn't the technical aspect. Again, not saying the director's job is the expertise on form and flash.

And the knock on the much better journalistic film All the President's Men is a head scratcher, as this film owes a hell of a lot to it. But to each their own and all that jazz.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

I can't speak for bookcase, but I'm pretty sure, from what I gather from others regarding this topic, he's referring to the craft itself, which is pretty laid back with a standard approach. This isn't a knock against it coming from me. More of an observation that McCarthy kept his stylistic choices low-key in order to maintain that smooth easy going rhythm his actors have going. I mean, the first thing you notice when taking a look at the film probably isn't the technical aspect. Again, not saying the director's job is the expertise on form and flash.

And the knock on the much better journalistic film All the President's Men is a head scratcher, as this film owes a hell of a lot to it. But to each their own and all that jazz.

Of course it owes to it, and of course that's a big classic movie and this one most probably won't be. But I think it's pretty inarguably less repetitive in its depiction of journalistic process. I think even most big fans of that movie will admit that it starts dragging down in the last half. Ebert's review kinda nailed it. I was giving an example of a way in which Spotlight was superior to that one in my saying how the filmmaking is anything but mediocre.

The CINEMATOGRAPHY might be "mediocre" if you're a flash-lover, but that's only one of many aspects of the filmmaking. And you're right that the film would have been actively undermined by a more stylish approach. With dialogue and acting like this, you don't want to get in the way of letting it breathe by sticking in helicopter shots and rapidfire editing and dramatic closeups and whatever else is often mistaken for "good filmmaking." I'm still curious what this guy's problem was, because it very well could be something else entirely that I didn't notice.

[bookcase]

Originally Posted by SammyJankis

I can't speak for bookcase, but I'm pretty sure, from what I gather from others regarding this topic, he's referring to the craft itself, which is pretty laid back with a standard approach. This isn't a knock against it coming from me. More of an observation that McCarthy kept his stylistic choices low-key in order to maintain that smooth easy going rhythm his actors have going. I mean, the first thing you notice when taking a look at the film probably isn't the technical aspect. Again, not saying the director's job is the expertise on form and flash.

For the record, I don't need flash and crazy cinematography -- quiet moviemaking oftentimes results in some of the most effective films for me. But you touched upon one of the reasons I said it was mediocre filmmaking. I felt the characters were one-dimensional and the storytelling was prosaic. The most compelling aspect, of course, was the story they were telling, but I felt it lacked the emotional punch because of the way it was presented. I'm glad it wasn't sensationalistic or saccharine, but like I said initially, I walked away underwhelmed. I didn't think it was a bad film (it was certainly eye-opening), but I also didn't think it was the masterpiece critics deemed it. Just my opinion.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by bookcase

For the record, I don't need flash and crazy cinematography -- quiet moviemaking oftentimes results in some of the most effective films for me. But you touched upon one of the reasons I said it was mediocre filmmaking. I felt the characters were one-dimensional and the storytelling was prosaic. The most compelling aspect, of course, was the story they were telling, but I felt it lacked the emotional punch because of the way it was presented. I'm glad it wasn't sensationalistic or saccharine, but like I said initially, I walked away underwhelmed. I didn't think it was a bad film (it was certainly eye-opening), but I also didn't think it was the masterpiece critics deemed it. Just my opinion.

You're right, the storytelling is very prosaic, I just didn't mind it at all in this case since that seemed to be what it was going for the whole time. As for the characters being one-dimensional, I felt that was kind of also besides the point. It was about the investigation, and we saw into some of the character's lives a bit, but for the most part it was just about the brilliant investigation work and the character's personalities were only explored in how it was relevant to that. So basically, I think you're right with both of those criticisms, I just don't think they count as "mediocre filmmaking," they're just very good reasons that some people wouldn't react to it. It's definitely quite clinical and I did come out of it thinking "this was awesome but not emotionally engaging," but then that quickly changed to "it was awesome and did what I think it set out to do nearly perfectly" and I figured if I wanted emotional engagement I'd watch Brooklyn again or something. I think it's a very good movie, but yes, your observations are correct!

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

I think even most big fans of that movie will admit that it starts dragging down in the last half.

I've never thought of myself as a particularly zealous fan of All the President's Men, but I completely disagree with this; it's tight as a drum.

[Wally Q]

Spotlight is a film that tells a very important story, it's well casted and well performed, and is a good film. But is Tom McCarthy's direction masterful? Any filmmaker could have taken the material and done exactly the same job TM did with it. So while I do believe it's worthy of a Best Picture nomination, I wouldn't put TM in the Best Director category this year.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Wally Q

Spotlight is a film that tells a very important story, it's well casted and well performed, and is a good film. But is Tom McCarthy's direction masterful? Any filmmaker could have taken the material and done exactly the same job TM did with it. So while I do believe it's worthy of a Best Picture nomination, I wouldn't put TM in the Best Director category this year.

BS. Many, many directors wouldn't have been able to resist more flourishes and pauses and all kinds of stuff that would have bogged it down and made it maudlin or draggy. Imagine Tom Hooper with it. Or Michael Bay! There was a lot that could have gone wrong.

[Leonidas King]

Possibly this year's Oscar winner for BP.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Leonidas_King

Possibly this year's Oscar winner for BP.

I doubt it, too workmanlike. We'll probably get something with a lot more mugging like The Big Short or The Martian.

[Leonidas King]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

I doubt it, too workmanlike. We'll probably get something with a lot more mugging like The Big Short or The Martian.

The Academy goes for these type of films. Mainly the ones that depict a true story.

[Wally Q]

Originally Posted by cakefactory

BS. Many, many directors wouldn't have been able to resist more flourishes and pauses and all kinds of stuff that would have bogged it down and made it maudlin or draggy. Imagine Tom Hooper with it. Or Michael Bay! There was a lot that could have gone wrong.

I'm not sure what flourishes Hooper would have brought and to be realistic here, there's no way Bay would come near material like this nor would he be asked to direct a film like this so that's a bit of a stretch in your defending your point against mine and there's not very much with this material that extra flourishes could really be applied.

[cakefactory]

Originally Posted by Wally Q

I'm not sure what flourishes Hooper would have brought and to be realistic here, there's no way Bay would come near material like this nor would he be asked to direct a film like this so that's a bit of a stretch in your defending your point against mine and there's not very much with this material that extra flourishes could really be applied.

I don't watch enough bad docudramas or thrillers to really tell you categorically what made them bad that could be blamed on the director, but the director definitely can have a lot of input into how they want each actor to portray scenes, and what kinds of takes by actors are ultimately used, which is part of the reason why you can get the same actors giving great performances in one movie and terrible in others. Things like pacing within a shot is largely up to the director, shot choices, etc, and even things like not drowning the movie in terrible overdramatic music (like Selma did). I just think that the movie didn't make itself and to say the good stuff is 100% the fault of the actors and the script is devaluing things. I think a lot could have gone wrong here that didn't.

I most definitely wouldn't want it to win best director oscar or anything, but it's more deserving than some of the directing jobs that have been nominated recently, or some of the insane upsets where they just get handed the oscar because voters liked the movie, with no regard for directorial input. Ex the Hallmark Home Entertainment-y "The King's Speech" winning in a year where something with HEAVY, HEAVY direction like Inception wasn't even nominated and every single one of the actual nominees was also more deserving.

In a fair world, George Miller would get it this year

[Karmasux96]

Originally Posted by Wally Q

I'm not sure what flourishes Hooper would have brought and to be realistic here, there's no way Bay would come near material like this nor would he be asked to direct a film like this so that's a bit of a stretch in your defending your point against mine and there's not very much with this material that extra flourishes could really be applied.

Much of the success in this movie comes from the screenplay rather than the directing, but McCarthy should be commended. The screenplay was subtle, focused, and realistic and McCarthy directed this movie in a way that matched that. He chooses to pull the camera back and allow the actors to do their jobs. He doesn't focus on dramatic close-ups or zoom-ins and he doesn't encourage melodrama where there should be none. Many of the scenes with the Spotlight team show the entire team within frame for large parts of a scene, allowing us to witness conversations/arguments/phonecalls in a documentary-like fashion. Not to mention he kept the pacing of the movie spot-on.

I agree his direction isn't in the same vein as Inarritu in the Revenant (who IMO had issues with pacing in his movie) but a lesser director might be tempted to outperform in many of the scenes in this movie.

[soarinsteven]

Important, intelligent filmmaking. One of my favorites of the year, and looking forward to adding this to my collection.

[Akijama]