Worth watching, is it offensive?
I'm catholic, how should i feel about this.
>>70061793
It's worth a watch, not very offensive, would have been better as a documentary.
You should feel like the leaders of your religion participated in a massive, worldwide cover up of children being sexually abused, and most of them have never/will never faced justice
it's not offensive or anything. Unless you've been living under a rock your entire life and never heard that priests are child molesters. Either way whoever your local priest is probably isn't one of them.
>>70061793
The entire movie is bullshit tb-h
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/29/oscar-hangover-special-why-spotlight-is-a-terrible-film/
it's a well made oscar bait drama, you'll enjoy it and then forget about it hours after seeing it
>>70061793
It is a well made, competent snoozefest. It is praised more because of its subject matter than its execution. The movie focuses on the least interesting aspects of the coverup. I was never emotionally invested in the movie and I actually forgot about it completely until now.
>>70061934
It already was a documentary.
deliver us from evil (2006)
>basically asleep the entire time
>they actually start talking to one of the rightly accused priests
>wake up
>they shuffle him off camera asap
>>70063396
> is praised more because of its subject matter than its execution.
Though it is a perfect representation of what journalism was before "ACTOR SAID NIGGER ON TWITTER HOW WILL HE RECOVER"
>>70063510
I agree. I thought it was a pretty good reepresentation of actual journalism. Back when people wrote complete stories instead of stories written in 140 characters.
>>70063396
It was very well executed. You not having the attention span to sit through a drama doesn't make it bad.
>>70063614
The subject has been approached much more viscerally and unflinchingly a great many times by people with less money than any one person on the poster, whereas spotlight basically flinches every chance it gets. Hell, even the actual investigation/story was harder hitting than spotlight.
So the problem is because of the subject matter, people are expecting something either new or visceral from a two hour movie devoted to it, when, instead, the movie's focus is on actual journalism.
>>70061793
Unless you're a pedo sympathizer there's no reason for you to be offended
>>70063846
/pol/ likes to bring up the "jews attacking catholicism" thing though.
It's worth watching once.
There's nothing really memorable about it.
Wow I forgot this won the best picture Oscar this year
In the future it'll only be remembered as the answer to a trivia question, like The Artist
>Catholic abuse gets blown out of proportion and the media uses terms like "institutionalised abuse" as if the Church organised and encouraged it when less then 5% of priests did something wrong or knew about it
>Meanwhile the case into abuse in Jewish schools in Australia has a suppression order barring the media from reporting anything
>>70066007
I dunno where you're getting the percentage, but even 5% is still pretty damn high for one of the largest world religions.
>>70065649
The Artist is watchable though
its fucking garbage, a lifetime movie with a supposedly good cast
>its a mark ruffalo overacts movie
>>70061793
It's boring unless you believe the church is innocent and has absolutely nothing to hide.
>>70063818
>the movie's focus is on actual journalism.
And it's all the better for it.
I appreciated the lack of melodrama. No scenes where a frightened kid is backing away from a horny Priest or reliving the assault in his head while he tells the journalists all about it.
I fucking hate that shit, it's blatant emotional pandering.
>>70066128
>its a mark ruffalo overacts movie
Get your paws off my husbando, you fucking freak.
>>70061793
>I'm Catholic
You should be more concerned with how to feel about yourself.
>>70061793
You should watch it and feel ashamed because your' church harbored and protected kid touchers.
>>70061793
>actors names arent above corresponding actor
every fucking time
>>70061793
If you're still Catholic despite the readily available evidence that your clergy has a kiddy diddling problem then I don't think this movies going to tell you anything new.
>>70061793
It's very offensive if you're a pedophile, which I assume you are, since you claim to be christian and currently on this board.
>>70061793
They only offensive thing about this is Rachel McAdams stays clothed the entire movie
It's not worth watching. Boring story (at least from the journalists perspective which is the focus of the film) and flat characters.
Watch The Insider instead if you want journalismkino
>>70061793
>I'm catholic, how should i feel about this.
You need to apologize for killing all us Protestants.
>>70061793
It's not bad but it's not really good either. Pretty standard "all priests are pedophiles" schlock even though they were very isolated incidents and 99.9% of church officials and priests had nothing to do with any of it.
Mark Ruffalo's character is way over the top in a lot of it too.
>>70061793
you must feel stupid as your religion
>>70066007
>>70066070
It's way less than 5% and multiple Harvard studies concluded that incidents of pedophilia among priests are per capita less than those among the general population.
>>70061793
Literal Jewish lies.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/29/oscar-hangover-special-why-spotlight-is-a-terrible-film/
>Besides normalizing the presumption of guilt, the Globe’s courtroom of panic made a high and punishing principle out of cheap popular opinion: Well, maybe he didn’t do this, but he had to have done something! Where there’s smoke, there’s fire! Where the victim has to be believed, it doesn’t much matter if one person is telling the truth and one person is a money-grubber (or, to put the kindest interpretation on it, just looking for a simple explanation for all the troubles of his or her life). It doesn’t much matter who is in the dock or behind bars for what because, after all, statutes of limitations are limiting, and the notion that guilt might go unpunished is intolerable. Someone must pay. The church must pay. Priests must pay, because even if they didn’t do something, they said something; or they said nothing but they should have spoken; they knew nothing but they should have known; they should have acted. We “thought they were God”, and we must have our pound of flesh.
>To suggest, as the movie does, that MacLeish was not passionate about his clients is outrageous. To suggest, ditto, that Mitchell Garabedian, another prominent personal injury lawyer, played by Stanley Tucci in the film, was a selfless worker among the downtrodden, wanting nothing beyond justice and the thin gruel of his lonely lunch, is more outrageous. Both men thundered about morality, both got richer in the process, and the only journalist I’m aware of to have investigated the lucrative legal business of the church scandal was Daniel Lyons, whose revealing articles appeared in Forbes in 2003.
>>70063408
That movie was blatantly dishonest.
http://www.themediareport.com/2010/08/03/part-iii-deliver-us-from-evil-2006-even-more-factual-errors/
>>70063510
>>70063587
>actual journalism
You mean sensationalist scandal mongering? The press has never been honest.
>>70063396
Most people generally agree its execution was very solid.
>>70067067
The Catholic Church isn't a monolithic organization, the cover-ups were done locally.
Doesn't really shit on Catholicism as a religion just the priests and higher ups that enable it
>>70061793
>Make the most horrible Adam Sandler movie yet
>Make a movie that's an "expose" on something everyone already knows about
>win best picture
>>70063941
Found the oven-dodger.
http://www.culturewars.com/2002/boston_ped.html
>That is the psychological basis of the Boston pedophile media assault, which is turning out to be a classic instance of Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church. Demonization is followed by calls for reform by "concerned Catholics" like Andrew Sullivan and William F. Buckley and Anna Quindlen, who all predictably call for measures that are tantamount to pouring gasoline on the fire, by, in other words, lowering the moral standards even further. When the Vatican in response to the pedophile crisis said that homosexuals should not be ordained as priests, The Boston Globe criticized them for being homophobic and intolerant. "People with these inclinations just cannot be ordained," said Joaquin Navarro-Valls in an interview in The New York Times. The fact that a statement like this unleashed a storm of protests exposes the hidden agenda behind all of the indignation against homosexual pedophilia.
>What was Cardinal Law's crime? His crime is that he listened to psychologists. His crime is that he did what the dominant culture told him to do. He was told, on the authority of psychologists, that that pedophilia was curable and so he reassigned the priest in question to another parish. The molestations happened 20 years ago, and the changes that created the atmosphere that allowed that disaster to happen in the Church, the culture of saying yes to appetite, happened 20 years before that, which is to say in the '60s, when the Catholic Church, fatally docile when it comes to the dominant culture of control through appetite, started running seminaries and religious orders according to the principles of Carl Rogers and Sigmund Freud. If the Catholic Church is at fault, it is at fault for listening to the dominant culture, specifically psychologists of this sort, in the first place. The vehicle for the demoralization of the Catholic Church was modern psychology.
Forgettable: The Flick. It's a disgrace for it to have won BP. But blowing the horns of >MUH JOURNALISM, >MUH JUSTICE and >MUH ENSEMBLE it won over way more remarkable works.
Nevermind the whole Catholic angle, it's just a piece about journalism, it could have been about the Watergate or Tobacco lobbies. Although it doesn't shy away from revealing the new newspaper boss pulling the strings is a Jew, I found that refreshing. The script is pretty good, subtle and meticulous in its depiction of politics and human interactions, also has a sharp low-key sense of humor. Any scene with Keaton's character and other high-ranking journalists or lawyers is delightful, as this world is full of compromises and double meanings, people being nice to each other just because they can use each other. It's no Aaron Sorkin but at its best it has similar qualities.
Scenes with lower journalists like Ruffalo and McAdams are one-dimensional and full of pathos, I didn't care for them.
The direction is competent but very flat. It obviously wanna fight in the same category as The Insider or All The President's Men but it has zero inspired moment in cinematography or editing. It could have been a HBO TV movie.
If you want better journalist stories just watch the two other movies mentioned or The Newsroom.
If you like kinda bland but not completely soulless either Oscar Baits like Imitation Game, then give it a try.
