Spotlight (9/10): A Love Letter to Investigative Journalism

"It could have been you, it could have been me, it could have been any of us. We gotta nail these scumbags! We gotta show people that nobody can get away with this; Not a priest, or a cardinal or a freaking pope!"

Good investigative journalism is a dying medium in today's world where most media outlets are in a rush to get the exclusive and tell the story first. The same could be said for the film industry, but there are always exceptions because for every dozens of films like Alvin and the Chipmunks, we get a Spotlight. Director, Tom McCarthy, takes his time to tell this brilliant true story through a tight script that slowly begins to uncover the truth behind one of the Catholic Church's greatest cover-ups. It is a reminder of how important good journalism can be in today's world. Hopefully after watching Spotlight more people will begin reading their news from trusty newspapers instead of simply reading headlines from any internet article. It was refreshing to see a film like this portraying what good journalism is all about without taking any shortcuts. As a communication major the subject matter really appealed to me and I felt very emotional during a couple of scenes. McCarthy did a fantastic job at going through the every day ordeal of investigating. If you notice there is barely any reference towards these characters backgrounds or their family life. The entire film focuses entirely on their profession and that is what makes this such a powerful film because it avoids any kind of manipulation into character development. I loved the attention to detail that McCarthy brought to the film and how he decided to exclusively build it all around the investigation.

Bringing the true events of an investigation concerning the child molestation cover-up by the Catholic Church to life in a film might not seem like an interesting subject matter, but McCarthy handles the material with grace. He manages to slowly build the tension by going through the everyday ordeals of serious journalism. Spotlight is the name given to the investigative section of the Globe comprised of four reporters that take their time to research an important issue and build a compelling story. In this case they discover a link between several child molestation incidents with some priests from the Boston area and how the Church has repeatedly covered up for them by simply relocating them to other areas. These four reporters are given the gigantic task of trying to unmask this secretly huge system of defense built by the Catholic Church. The film accomplishes what it sets out to do from the first frame and it delivers one of the best films about investigative journalism in years. 

This is a team effort, there are no lead performances in this film. Michael Keaton might be the leader of the Spotlight team, but Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d'Arcy James all deliver strong performances. Ruffalo has received much of the acclaim because he has some of the more emotional moments on screen, and that verbal standoff off with Keaton is powerful, but everyone on screen delivers solid performances. Liev Schreiber is also outstanding as the new editor in chief who arrives at the Globe and comes up with the idea for the story. And Stanley Tucci of course is always mesmerizing any time he's on screen. Spotlight has probably my favorite ensemble cast of the year. I was a huge fan of this film and of course comparisons with All The President's Men are justified.

Birdman (9/10): The technical ambition pays off for Iñarritu and Lubezki.

“You're doing this because you're scared to death, like the rest of us, that you don't matter. And you know what? You're right. You don't. It's not important. You're not important. Get used to it.”

No matter how people feel about this film, there is no denying that Birdman is a technical marvel. Emmanuel Lubezki is one of the best cinematographers in Hollywood and he should continue working and experimenting with his fellow Mexican directors. Birdman is visually astonishing and one of the most unforgettable moviegoing experiences of the year. He blew us away last year when he took us to space in Gravity, and now he astonishes audiences once again by giving us the illusion that the film is taking place entirely in one single shot. From the opening shot, Lubezki is letting us know that we are going to get our heads spun and so he circles around a table with four actors discussing their roles in the play they are about to act in. Birdman is unlike any other film I’ve seen in that sense, where you feel like you are watching actors in a live theater. The audience becomes the camera which follows around these egocentric and troubled actors as they interact with one another. The film has stuck with me and it is one of those rare movies I’d like to experience once again in the theaters. I can’t think of another film that manages to portray the passage of time so well without having to cut from one scene to the next the way Birdman does. 

Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu is better known for his realistic and depressive films focusing on separate characters whose lives intertwine someway or another (Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel). This was quite a fantastic change of tone from his previous and more depressing films. He has crafted one of the best films of the year with groundbreaking editing effects that magically make us believe the film is all a continuous shot. He also uses dark and satirical humor to critique egocentric Hollywood actors, critics, artists, and even audiences who eat up anything they are served as long as there are loud explosions and non-stop action scenes. Iñarritu takes a shot at just about everyone.

Alexander Dinelaris's script was wickedly smart and satirical with some great and memorable dialogues that complement the technical achievements of the film very well. Birdman has a lot to say about our human nature and our desperation to become relevant and important. It is a complete film that deserves all the recognition and awards it has been receiving.

The performances in Birdman also stand out above most films released this year. Michael Keaton is fantastic as Riggan Thomson, a once popular actor who starred in a superhero franchise but hasn’t been able to do anything relevant since. He is known for the character of Birdman, but he wants to prove he is a real artist and not just a washed up celebrity. That is why he is risking everything in a play he is directing, writing, producing, and starring in. His good friend, Jake (Zach Galifianakis) is co-producing the play with him. Lesley (Naomi Watts), Laura (Andrea Riseborough), and Mike (Edward Norton) are the actors he hires for the play, while his daughter Sam (Emma Stone) is working for him as his personal assistant as she tries to recover from her former drug addictions. The supporting cast is excellent in this film, especially Edward Norton and Emma Stone who share several great scenes together along with Michael Keaton. Galifianakis also impresses in a much more serious role than what we are used to seeing him in, but this is still Keaton’s film who displays a wide range of emotions. Birdman has become such an important part of his life that he actually interacts with him in a surreal way. The film balances this magical realism very well and Keaton pulls off the feat of having these inner conversations with himself. The intimate camerawork only enhances these performances even more. 

My Review: RoboCop (6/10)

"They want a product with a conscious. Something that knows what it feels like to be human. We gonna put a man inside a machine." 

You don't necessarily have to be from the 80's to have heard about the cult classic and ultra-violent RoboCop which served as a witty and funny satire of its time. As with most remakes I always go into them with very low expectations, so when I heard Brazilian director, Jose Padilha (known in South America for his successful film Elite Squad and its sequel) was working on a reboot of the franchise I wasn't very excited. Despite not loving this remake, I was surprised that this film took such a different approach from the original and stood out on its own. Fans of the original might be disappointed that this isn't a fun action film. Padilha has made an ambitious film that differs greatly from the original one by focusing on modern political themes and powerful corporate agendas. It also humanizes the main character and tries to explore his emotions as he has to learn to deal with his new robotic self. There are some very important scenes Joel Kinnaman shares with Gary Oldman as Padilha plays on the dynamics between them and raises various ethical questions along the way. Oldman's character struggles with how much freedom he should give to his creation while being pushed by Corporate greed to deliver a product. Padilha does explore these political and social issues pretty well, while dealing with other concepts such as the illusion of free will and media bias (which we see through Jackson's character). Where this film failed for me however was in the action sequences which at times felt like a video game. Many scenes felt like I was watching my friends play Call of Duty, and I felt detached. So I can see why this film might upset fans because it isn't an action packed film, but more of a sci-fi exploration of modern political and social fears. It isn't groundbreaking, but Robocop stands on its own apart from the original as a somewhat different film.

Joshua Zetumer adapted the screenplay for this remake and he did a decent job at modernizing several of the issues the story presents. It's clearly more character driven than the original, but lacks that witty and sharp humor that made the original such a beloved classic. The film opens in 2028 as we listen to a news report from Pat Novak (Samuel L Jackson) setting up the stage. He's a pro-robot TV host that is trying to convince Americans to embrace robot technology like the rest of the world has. OmniCorp is the multinational corporation that runs this robot technology that has functioned as the military force keeping peace across the globe. Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton) is the billionaire running OmniCorp that realizes that if he's going to change American public opinion about robots he is going to need to present a more human one. OmniCorp finds the opportunity they were looking for when a Detroit cop named Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is critically injured after trying to bring down a couple of corrupt cops and a big local dealer. Sellars convinces Dr. Dennett Norton (Gary Oldman), a pioneer in robotic prosthetics, to save Alex and turn him into a part-robot, part-man police officer. With Alex's wife, Clara's (Abbie Cornish) permission they save his life, but they plan to keep him doped so he will follow their orders. However Alex proves to be stronger than they expected and he sets out to find justice against those that tried to murder him.

This new RoboCop turns out to be a very different movie than the original taking itself too seriously and trying to raise important ethical questions along the way. This isn't something we were expecting as viewers from a RoboCop film, but somehow Padilha manages to make it enjoyable in a very different way. I liked the way how the true villains of the film were not the criminals on the street, but the corporate giants who were trying to force their agenda. That is why the film focuses much more on those characters than the ones we usually expect, which in this case would be the criminals Alex was pursuing first. RoboCop has many flaws and is overly ambitious lacking the humor and poignant satire from the original, but it works if judged on its own without having to compare the two films. I barely recommend this one so go see it at your own risk.

My Review: Penthouse North (2/10)

¨Sarah just tell me where the diamonds are.¨

Penthouse North is a thriller that unfortunately never manages to thrill because of the terrible screenplay. This is one of those movies that you know is going to be bad from the opening scenes, and despite starring two reliable actors like Michael Keaton and Michelle Monaghan the film is really dull and predictable. The film was directed by Joseph Ruben, who is mostly known for his 1991 film Sleeping with the Enemy, but is responsible for other titles such as The Forgotten, Money Train, and The Good Son. Most of the movies he´s directed have been bad, but this is probably his worst film.  Ruben teamed up with the screenwriter he worked with in Money Train, David Loughery, and if you thought the action in that movie was laughable just wait until you see Penthouse North. The only positive thing I can say about this film is that it is only 80 minutes long, but even at that amount of time it still felt long because of how dull the story was. I was excited to see Michael Keaton back in a bigger role (I think the last time I saw him in a lead role was in White Noise) and he is probably the best thing about this movie, but it is still not worth the watch.

Sara (Michelle Monaghan) was a photographer during the war in Afghanistan where she suffered a severe accident in an explosion and was diagnosed with permanent blindness. Three years later we see Sara living in a nice penthouse with her boyfriend, Ryan (Andrew Walker). It{s the last day of the year so she decides to go out to the store to buy some drinks and when she returns she finds her boyfriend´s body covered in blood. The killer is still in the house and  begins to ask her about the whereabouts of the money that Ryan had stolen from him. The criminal´s name is Chad (Barry Sloane) and he holds her kidnapped in her home until she tells him about the money. Michael Keaton also has an important role in this film, but I don´t want to give too much of the plot away despite the twists being rather predictable.

This is yet another failed attempt at a home invasion thriller (as bad as the one starring Nicole Kidman and Nicolas Cage; Tresspas). The plot is predictable, the dialogues are stupid, and the performances are nothing out of the ordinary. There is no character development whatsoever and the flashbacks with Monaghan´s character are completely pointless. There is no tension at all in this movie and there isn´t even a moment of suspense. Everything is pretty much just unremarkable. This is an early contender for worst film of the year, but no one is probably going to see it anyway. 

My Review: The Other Guys (7/10)

¨ You have the right to remain silent... but I want to hear you scream! ¨

It was about time 2010 gave us a comedy that was actually funny. The Other Guys isn`t a perfect comedy, but it does have several laugh out loud moments. This is one of Will Ferrell`s best movies since Talladega Nights. It was good to see him team up with Mark Wahlberg in this buddy comedy and their chemistry was great. Most of the movie focused on them, leaving the supporting cast kind of flat, but it did pay off at the end. Eva Mendes, Samuel L. Jackson, Dwayne Johnson, Michael Keaton, and Steve Coogan had good supporting roles, but the main attractions are actually Ferrell and Wahlberg and the movie keeps us focused on them. Director Adam McKay knows Will Ferrell really well since they have worked together before in Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers. This is probably not as good as their two first movies together, but it is definitely an improvement over Step Brothers. McKay wrote the screenplay along with Chris Henchy who had also written a screenplay for Ferrell`s other movie Land of the Lost. Ferrell is back to his old self mixing his calm behavior and nature from Ron Burgundy in Anchorman with some outbursts here and there. Wahlberg`s comedic timing isn`t the best, but he is funny nonetheless when he is screaming and insulting everyone. The movie could have been a lot better since the first half of the film is actually much funnier than the second, but it is still worth a watch considering there haven`t been great comedies released this year so far.

Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell) works as an accountant for the New York police department. He is very happy with his safe job and is always in the mood to do all the paperwork for the true heroes of the city: street officers P.K. Highsmith (Samuel L. Jackson) and Christopher Danson (Dwayne Johnson, better known as The Rock). Danson and Highsmith have just tore up half of New York City chasing a pair of criminals in a car pursuit. They catch the criminals who only happen to possess a quarter pound of cocaine, but are still received as heroes by city citizens because they are willing to do what it takes and even defy the laws of physics in order to catch criminals. Allen`s office partner is Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg), who is really unhappy with staying indoors all day and wants to be in the streets fighting real crime. The problem is that Terry has had a funny incident in the past (which I won`t give away) and therefore he isn`t allowed to work in the streets anymore. The police captain is Gene Mauch (Michael Keaton) who needs more men in the streets after he loses Danson and Highsmith. Hoitz forces his partner Gamble to accept a case in order to stop from being simply the other guys. Gamble isn`t too happy about leaving his job because he doesn`t like taking risks and he enjoys his happy life with his beautiful wife Dr. Sheila (Eva Mendes). Forced to take a call Gamble and Hoitz head to the streets where they accidently run into David Ershon (Steve Coogan). Gamble has been building a case on Ershon because he believes him to be a shady capitalist, and now he and Hoitz have an opportunity of a lifetime to become heroes if they can uncover his fraud.

The Other Guys may not end up being a very memorable comedy, but in a year with lack of good comedies, this was a fun and entertaining experience. Will Ferrell may have other funnier comedies as well, but it had been awhile since he had had one, and teaming up with Mark Wahlberg was a great idea. The chemistry between them worked really well and they made for a good couple in this buddy comedy. The beginning of the movie was pretty funny, Samuel L. Jackson and The Rock were hilarious during the opening scene and they also have a very memorable one when they are at the rooftop of a building chasing some criminals. I laughed really hard during these opening scenes. Will Ferrell was his usual self, without overacting this time and playing the nice guy. He does have a secret past which really works in this movie and makes up for the funniest scenes. He also happens to be a chic magnet which also brings several laughs throughout the film. Mark Wahlberg may not have the perfect comedic timing that Paul Rudd has for example, but he is still funny and makes for a good comedic partner. Eva Mendes also had some funny lines and we have seen her do comedy really well in the past as well (Stuck on You and Hitch). The action scenes in this movie are actually pretty well done and a lot of fun. The scene where Wahlberg fights off a bunch of guys on motorcycles is really well choreographed. I ended up enjoying this movie quite a bit, but I am still waiting for this year`s The Hangover.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/