New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

All the while, the movie navigates a difficult topic and does it almost to perfection. The story is of the journalists - it is not the story of the victims or of the abusers even - and that story is told meticulously and conscientiously. One begins to feel the different moral judgments and questions that the reporters have to answer about themselves and their beliefs. To be sure, victims and abusers figure in the movie, but they are not the focus. Perhaps that is the one flaw one can ascribe to this otherwise genuinely gripping story (it feels like a 20 minute, not 120 minute movie), that the filmmakers took a facile road by not engaging with the characters that would have been more controversial to audiences.

Also noteworthy are the subtle but energetic performances by the entire cast, but most prominently by Mark Ruffalo and Michael Keaton, both of whom are now solidly in the lead for Best Supporting Actor nominations. At first, it seems as if their delivery is deadpan and lacking a proper accent. But we had a chance to sit through a Q&A with the reporters these two actors portray in the film, and I have seldom been stunned by such an exact imitation of voice, tone, and mannerisms. Both were that good.

In a day when journalistic integrity appears to be a pipe dream, where print media and investigative stories fade into the ether of the quick, 140 soundbite, Spotlight tells an urgent story, a resonant story about the importance of supporting that medium. The movie has no frills - no explosions, no chase scenes, and few unnecessary emotional outbursts. It is a simple, straightforward narrative, and I cannot run out of good things to say about it.

The Martian: Crowd-Pleaser, but Awards Status Uncertain

Perhaps my expectations were too high going into The Martian, and that is unfair to the movie. Indeed, Ridley Scott did a remarkable job of unpacking a highly complex novel into something digestible by audiences - if you are looking for the highbrow science of the book, look elsewhere - without completely detaching the viewer with incredible plot twists.

As far as it goes, the movie is entertaining, beautifully shot, and actually gripping even to those of us who knew what would happen at every turn. But in trying to simplify the book into the movie the filmmakers may have overreached and not trusted the audiences enough. The book had a general message about the good of the human collaborative spirit that came out of nowhere and sort of fell flat - the story had been mostly about the Martian until that twist strangely inserted itself. The movie, by contrast, had a great buildup into that message (they managed to make it about more than just Damon’s character - not surprisingly, given their bloated cast list), but then essentially failed to deliver on that promise as the movie unfolded. It made some of the characters and plot twists from the novel seem unnecessary and irrelevant in the movie. Nevertheless, it is a well-made and highly entertaining adaptation of difficult source material.

Other prognosticators still think that this movie is bound for a Best Picture nomination. I suppose that, with enough audience support at the box office, it would be too difficult for the Academy to ignore. As it stands, however, I have trouble seeing it get into the top category.

Continued:       1       2       3