So I watched this last night after it won best picture.
So why do you anons not like the film? It was fucking brilliant. Only "bad" thing about it is that it more historical then most films.
Best acting as a group, best movie scene of the year. Why do you hate it? What do you think should of won best picture? Mad Max?
>>66537960
Spotlight's not a bad film in any way. however, it's not a great film. Mad Max and The Revenant are great films. Room is almost great but should have included another scene with William H. Macy. okay, back to Spotlight. the film is a newspaper procedural that hits all the beats, is competently directed, acted, shot, etc., but there is no single great moment in it. the film depicts institutional corruption of 3 or 4 major institutions that let, or more accurately, didn't stop kids get molested for decades. very important story. yet the film lacks that ephemeral greatness. now, think if this film had been directed by Scorsese or early Coppola. they would have elevated the adapted the material in a far better manner, i think.
>>66538250
>Mad Max and Revenant are great films
They really aren't. Your thoughts on Spotlight are reasonably accurate though.
This was an incredibly weak year for best picture.
>>66538250
Also, Scorsese would have ruined everything Spotlight was trying to do. It's understatement was why it was so good. Scorsese would have made it about his style.
>>66538250
>not a bad film in any way. however, it's not a great film
>okay, back to
>hits all the beats
>no single great moment in it
>the film lacks that ephemeral greatness
>they would have elevated the adapted the material in a far better manner, i think.
These kind of "critics" need to be executed.
>>66538250
I actually think that the movie has two great scenes, the phone scene when they think they have the handle on the story with 13 priests, and they find out the number should be 90. It a chilling and brilliantly done.
Also the twin interviews with the victims was just a flat out brilliant scene. They could of easily got exploitative, but they kept it as a showing the facts without losing the narrative.
I think Mad Max is a great action film, but it not best picture (Though I think Miller should of had best director), and Revenant really wasn't a great film, it look amazing, but the actual film is mostly noteworthy outside of the cinematography is Hardy great job supporting role. Which I thought was 2nd best this year. (Behind mark rylance who was the reason why Bridge of spies was nominated.)
The Room if the 2nd half was done better would of been Best Picture. I really think the two options for best picture where The Big Short and Spotlight, and I really think Spotlight is better then The Big Short.
>>66538250
Can't disagree. I liked the movie, however, it was nothing spectacular
>>66538447
This, we would have a montage of priests patting alter boys on the head to the sound of Gimme Shelter
>>66537960
WHY DID YOU POST THIS?
IT COULD HAVE BEEN YOU, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ME IT COULD HAVE BEEN ANY OF US!
>>66537960
It's decent but generic and uninspired. It's like they ran the script through a movie machine and then it came out. It won because of the theme, another best picture decided by politics
>>66538323
i think Mad Max is one of the greatest action films of the decade. yes, it's silly and ostentatious, but the action scenes are among the best ever filmed and it had me feeling like that kid from Cinema Paradiso.
The Revenant less so. Yet the immersion-style cinematography, acting, and direction was amazing.
i guess it's what you enjoy more. I personally enjoyed Room and The Hateful Eight more than Spotlight or even The Revenant. taste is subjective and one man's great is another man's not really.
>>66538323
Mad Max was great.
The Revenant fucking sucked.
>>66538682
You sort of summed up how I feel about Mad Max. It's a great action movie...but it doesn't set itself apart as being a great movie.
Room and spotlight were my top 2. Revenant distant 3rd. The rest were mediocre choices for best picture.
>>66537960
If you think it's easy, why don't you make a video of you being a priest without raping kids and post it on Youtube, then send us all a link so we can get a peak at your clergy chops? Show us your high and mighty performance and prove us all wrong.
>>66538709
>Mad Max was great.
>The Revenant fucking sucked.
Plebs say the darndest things.
yeah its a very proficient film but like many best picture winners its not gonna stand the test of time and be hailed as one of the greats or come up on anyones top ten personal favorites of all time, its mainly upsetting because spite being really good it was simply the easy choice and to put it bluntly the most oscary movie that was up this year
>>66537960
I had legitimately never even heard of this movie before last night.
>>66540383
Considering that there are 80+ best picture winners, it hard to say that all of them will be a "Top Ten" movie. It really was the best movie this year, and it a lot better then some other recent winners. I would put it at the level of King Speech.
>>66540475
>King Speech
Which should have lost to The Social Network. This shit happens almost every year.
>>66540475
yeah i cant really say im too disapointed, seeing as i really liked spotlight, just sucks that it had to win over what was probably the most interesting best picture nomination well ever see
>>66537960
>I only watch movies after they win the biggest award in hollywood
>>66540648
what's wrong with that?
>>66540529
Social Network is overrated. Hell, Gone girl was better then Social Network.
>>66540648
Yes, after all, Spotlight was a major hit that everyone saw. Hell, it didn't even play in a lot of markets. I had to drive a hour to see it where I live.
>>66540707
They're both better than the King's Speech.
>>66537960
Spotlight is a masterpiece. I'm absolutely sick of "well made" flicks who have nothing to say, no social and human relevance whatsover, that are just essentially circus. I don't give a fuck about aesthetic originality anymore, I've had enough. Spotlight was fucking interesting, deep and important.
>>66538682
someone being reasonable about their opinion on /tv/....
wow its been so long, thanks
>>66538682
>taste is subjective
>>>/r/eddit
It's really not. Jack and Jill is not "subjectively" the greatest movie of all time.
>>66537960
There are better 30 for 30s
>>66541412
>mixing the concepts of "taste/opinion" with with "fact"
shouldn't you be at school, kid?
>>66540781
>living in bumfuck nowhere
>>66538709
Pfft... child.
>>66541650
City of 100k and it didn't show anon.
>>66541158
>I don't care about some king's autistic problems so its bad
ok
>>66541700
>living in a city that nobody cares about
>>66538451
What's wrong with anything he said? Spotlight was a by-the-numbers drama. Nothing about was bad, but nothing about it was great.
>>66541778
The writing was great and the Ensemble acting was great.
I would also say that it is great due to the fact it restrained from cheep thrills or exploitation of the material. But that falling more into taste.
>>66537960
>It was fucking brilliant.
No, All The President's Men was fucking brilliant, Spotlight was bland and derivative.
>>66541842
>The writing was great and the Ensemble acting was great.
Would you seriously remember the writing and the acting a year from now? It all felt so flat and overdone, didn't bring anything new to the table at all. At least Birdman last year did something innovative with its cinematography and even subject matter. Spotlight was boring old social issue movie number thousand.
>it's great because it exercised restraint
Is that really your criterion for greatness?
>>66542026
In this era, restraint is refreshing.
And yes, I will remember that it was a movie without a bad acting job. I am a old fag, so I think you have to be older to get why this film is so good.
>>66542207
>In this era, restraint is refreshing.
Not to the point of bland, genetic made for TV movie aesthetics.
>I'm old that's why my opinion is correct
Appeal to yourself? That's a rare one.
>>66542269
I am just saying that unless you are 30ish you will have a hard time understanding the tension of the movie due to the fact that you do not comprehend what some of the main characters are going though.
As for restraint, they could of easily made the sexual abuse sections much more exploitative, and they chose not to go down that road. The movie was anything but bland.
>>66542367
*Unless you are 30ish or older.
>>66542367
>I am just saying that unless you are 30ish you will have a hard time understanding the tension of the movie due to the fact that you do not comprehend what some of the main characters are going though.
Are you for real? What does being over 30 and investigative journalism have in common? Do I have to be a 70 year old to understand Wild Strawberries?
>As for restraint, they could of easily made the sexual abuse sections much more exploitative, and they chose not to go down that road. The movie was anything but bland.
As far as the PR campaign for this movie goes, it's supposed to be about the journalists, not the abuse victims, hence why it's called Spotlight and not "Confession" or "Torn Apses" or something. But then again, you seem to think that not being exploitative is apparently a sign of greatness in a film, never mind that actual content of the film itself.
>>66542572
No, but you have to be over 30 to understand how much was at risk with the personal relationships and the good old boys club.
I didn't say it was great since it wasn't exploitive, it just another item, of many that turns a movie that could of been not that great into the best movie of the year.
>>66542675
>No, but you have to be over 30 to understand how much was at risk with the personal relationships and the good old boys club.
Please. Risking personal relationships and keeping a good standing with a group is not something that's exclusively the domain of 30+ year olds, no matter how much you think it is. If you were 50, you would've added 20 to that 30 to fuel your false sense of self-importance for being older on this site. It's probably more of an embarrassment for you that someone as old as you still uses this website.
>I didn't say it was great since it wasn't exploitative, it just another item, of many that turns a movie that could of been not that great into the best movie of the year.
Seems like the only thing that made it great in your eyes was a "great" script and acting, and a negative, the fact that it wasn't exploitative, even though the narrative focus wasn't even on the victims of abuse. You seem to have a pathetically low standard for greatness if half of your argument rests on your opinion that a film was great because it treated the subject matter respectfully. I guess that makes Driving Miss Daisy a masterpiece in your eyes.
>>66542897
You are just being a troll at this point.
It had the best script, It had the best acting (as a group)
It had very good direction and was perfectly plotted. The only bad side about this film is inherit to its story, we know the story gets published, and there is not a spectacular shot film and its cinematography is not on the level of say, Sicaro or The Revenant.
Still, it was the best film of the year. The first half of Room was better, and other films had better individual acting jobs. That said, it was the best film as a whole.
>>66543281
>You are just being a troll at this point.
You are just being stupid at this point. Learn to argue better.
>It had the best script
Lackluster with mediocre characterizations (how do I show this character has lost her faith, I know, let's add in a plot point about her grandma) and it was based on a historical event so it's not even completely original
>It had the best acting (as a group)
Are you one of those people who think doing a funny voice or an idiosyncratic walk is good acting? Mark Ruffalo seems to be the master of this kind of lazy acting. The others were as lifeless as the narrative.
>Still, it was the best film of the year.
If you honestly think so, you need to watch more movies outside the standard Hollywood claptrap. 30 isn't too late to start, assuming you get over your age related pomposity.
>>66537960
Spotlight was a good presentation of a great story. It wasn't brilliant.
I personally think Room should've won. It's the only one I'd watch again.
DUDE RAPE LMAO
maybe michael mann should've won for the insider
>>66538451
All you did in your post was greentext a bunch of what he said and then say he should be executed. You dont give any explanation for why his criticism was flawed or provide a counter-argument. Further, you then suggest that anyone who doesnt agree with your (unstated) views should be killed. You're an autismal retard on so many levels. The worst part is, you are allowed to vote (you are undoubtedly a /pol/tard or a leftist, based on your abject horror when presented with differing views).
to people who think the movie is bland or not dynamic:
its almost a strength that the production feels low key and the characters don't have personal arcs, for me it made it actually feel genuine as a movie about regular people standing up and taking down something that loomed large over them, never feels like you're watching Rachel McAdams in a role, just a normal woman.
that's why Ruffalo stuck out and kinda wasnt the best part of it
>>66537960
>why do you anons not like the film
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxo0pSNYMXE
>>66538250
>Mad Max and The Revenant are great films. Room is almost great
stopped reading right there
>>66538250
>mad max and revenant are great films
>there is no single great moment in it
>yet the film lacks that ephemeral greatness
>now, think if this film had been directed by Scorsese or early Coppola
this movie was not made for children like you
>>66544712
>>66544772
>i have nothing interesting to say so i'll just stick to criticizing other people's opinions
It's a good film that's entirely forgettable and based entirely on the story and performance. There is literally nothing exceptional about it w/r to how it is constructed as a film. It had good actors and performances trying to save a mediocre script and a soundtrack that was way too bad to be that prevalent.
>>66537960
>So why do you anons not like the film? It was fucking brilliant.
98% of idiots here hasn't even seen the goddamn movie, they are just memeing contrarians pretending they're offended /pol/tards Catholics to keep shitpost the board when even the Vatican thought the movie was respecful towards the Church and only blamed corrupted individuals inside the institution for hiding the pedophile priests.
