Spotlight (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 128 minutes
Director: Tom McCarthy
Writers: Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy
Cast: Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, John Slattery, Liev Schreiber, Brian d'arcy James, Stanley Tucci, Billy Crudup, Gene Amoroso, Jamey Sheridan, Neal Huff

Spotlight is now showing in Australian cinemas and is distributed by eOne.

Absolutely engrossing and the stunning example of story driven tension, Spotlight is a superb film with an incredible screenplay that brings to light terrible issues while not actually telling a story about them.

In 2001, members of The Boston Globe's Spotlight team were given the assignment of looking into allegations of child molestation by Catholic priests within the city and determining whether there was any evidence of a pattern among them. What they discovered over the year that they spent investigating and speaking to the victims was sufficient evidence of a cover up within the church on a much greater scale than they or anybody else could have ever imagined.

Spotlight is ultimately not a film about the actions of the Catholic Church and it's priests, although it will no doubt stimulate thought and conversation about the subject. It is a film about the journalists who were part of the Spotlight team and how they came to expose the cover up. So at it's core, Spotlight is essentially about investigative journalism and how it has the power to increase knowledge and awareness and bring about change.

Tom McCarthy's film is in the same class as All The Presidents Men, the 1976 film about the reporters who uncovered the Watergate scandal. Like All The Presidents Men, Spotlight will become a film for all journalists and journalism students to watch as it is not only an example of extremely good investigative reporting, but it is also what all journalists strive for, which is to put the pieces together and uncover something that nobody else has. Of course All The Presidents Men and Spotlight are extreme and very rare examples of what journalists can achieve, yet they remain inspiring for those who are in the profession.

The power of investigative journalism is at the heart of Spotlight, but again the actions of the Catholic Church are brought to light in the process. It is impossible not to be moved by the revelations that the Spotlight team make over the course of their investigation, but the wonderful thing is that it is not the witnessing of these atrocious acts that bring about emotion. It is all in the dialogue spoken by those who uncover the shocking information and by the victims telling their stories. There are no confronting visuals of the actual acts of molestation in the film. This may be comforting to some, but the truth is that the imagination can conjure up mental images that are just as frightening.

This is what makes Spotlight such a brilliant piece of work. It is not a film with a great deal of action, but it is it's story and dialogue that are so powerful that they create emotion, tension and suspense by themselves. The outcome of the investigation is inevitable, yet there is still a build up with a sense of heightened tension leading towards the conclusion.

While the film's strength lies in it's screenplay, it's visuals help support the story and say the things which aren't being verbalised. The investigation by the Spotlight team takes place over the course of a year and this time period is shown with the cinematography involving the changing of seasons. Visually, the film is very neat and refined. One particularly special moment of the film is at Christmas time, when all the main characters are shown in a montage that expresses how they are feeling accompanied by the sounds of children singing a Christmas carol. It is a rather haunting moment.

Spotlight is essentially about the team of journalists who uncovered something truly incredible and were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for their work. However, the film does not glorify the individuals or make them out to be heroes. They were just people going to work each day and doing their jobs. Despite this, the cast of Spotlight all give strong and memorable performances. Mark Ruffalo gives the most passionate performance as Mike Rezendes. His character's commitment demonstrates how the deeper into the investigation he got, the harder it was to not get emotionally involved. Michael Keaton stars as the head of Spotlight, Walter Robinson and gives a strong performance, but it is not one that requires much emotion or variation.

As Sacha Pfeiffer, Rachel McAdams gives the best performance of her career thus far. Her character develops the most throughout the film as she is the one who had the greatest connection to the church beforehand and her internal struggle while she sympathizes with the victims is rather moving. Stanley Tucci gives a very interesting performance as Mitchell Garabedian and although he is rather hostile, is intriguing to watch and has a great deal of character.

Spotlight demonstrates not only the power of investigative reporting when all the pieces come together, but how suspense and emotion can be achieved by superb storytelling and direction.

9/10

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014) film review

Year: 2014
Running Time: 119 minutes
Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
Writers: Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Nicolas Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo
Cast: Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough, Zach Galifianakis, Amy Ryan

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) will open in Australian cinemas on January 15 and is distributed by 20th Century Fox. Now showing in the United States and United Kingdom.

Michael Keaton playing an ex-superhero actor in Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu's Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) sounds like it could well be autobiographical. However, that it isn't and that's a beautiful thing. Birdman is a remarkable cinematic experience that showcases exquisite cinematography and editing, wonderful performances and a highly entertaining screenplay, which all show beyond doubt the filmmaking brilliance of director and co-writer Inarritu. Though the film is mostly bleak in it's outlook of life and love, it does have it's underlying uplifting themes hidden in it's black humour and slight surrealism.

Riggan Thomas (Michael Keaton), the film actor who's most memorable role is that of superhero Birdman, is trying to make his acting comeback on the stage by directing and starring in an adaptation of 'What We Talk About When We Talk About Love". He puts everything on the line for this play including his finances and reputation, but also his relationship with his daughter, Sam (Emma Stone) who is fresh out of rehab and acting as his PA. Riggon can't seem to catch a break on his stage with the actions of his erratic actors (especially the unpredictable latecomer Mike (Edward Norton)) and mishaps stopping the company from having a perfect run through before opening night and making Riggan believe that maybe he really is just Birdman.

Birdman is absolutely superb film making. The screenplay is incredibly detailed and unpredictable with colourful dialogue that is witty, hilarious and entertaining. Riggan's story treads the line between realism and surrealism which could make it hard for some to figure out, but is an unique method of ensuring the films unpredictability. Inarritu ensures that the characters of Broadway and their situations are realistic to those of the world theatre world, but has fun in letting anything go with Riggan and his Birdman alter ego. The relationship between Riggan and Birdman is a particularly interesting one. Like many actors who are typecast as a result of an iconic role they have played, Riggan is trying to be rid of the Birdman persona he is known by and the voice of the character who has become a part of him in his head. However, it would seem that Riggan cannot be separated from Birdman so the two are actually one in the same. What the film is saying here is that rather than be ashamed of the past, one needs to take the best of what the past gave you and believe that you are special for it and only then will others believe that you are special. Birdman does this in an extremely innovative, memorable and unexpected way.

Birdman's brilliance is not at all limited to it's screenplay. Inarritu's piece of cinematic art plays with the technical side of the form and makes the film visually captivating. The impression is given that Birdman is filmed in one shot, but it is the incredible use of sly editing which makes this possible. The camera produces what seems to be one long tracking shot, in which characters are followed by the camera to where the next scene takes place. This was extremely ambitious, but executed so well that it is genius. It feels as though the camera is a living being running after each of the characters and moving from side to side with haste as if listening to and watching characters address each other. The musical score is also unique with the large majority of it being primarily percussion and this fits right in with the Broadway atmosphere. Although the majority of the film is set inside the St James Theatre in New York City, when the characters step outside one can feel the cool city air and the bustle of being on the ground or the feeling of freedom being removed when looking down on Times Square.

With this role, Michael Keaton completely reinvents himself. No one ever doubted Keaton's ability as an actor, but with his portrayal of the desperate Riggan he undoubtedly gives the best performance of his career. It would have been expected for his character to be distraught about not being able to break free of his Birdman persona and although there are hints at this annoyance, this is not what his performance is about. It is about a man who is desperate in every area of his life and who's life keeps intercepting with the role he is playing on stage. Keaton has many shining moments and his Riggan is a character which the viewer truly cares about and connects with.

Emma Stone, like Keaton, gives the best performance of her career. She gives a controlled but evolving performance throughout the film, though she has one truly spectacular scene with Keaton filmed in close up in which her dialogue is brilliantly delivered but her expressions speaks louder than words. Edward Norton is also very good as Mike, an actor who relies greatly on the practise of method acting and struggles to understand who he is away from the stage as a result. Norton captures the notion of being confidant in not knowing who you are perfectly. Naomi Watts, Andrea Riseborough and Zach Galifinakis all also shine in their roles.

Birdman is a cinematic triumph in so many areas. Inarritu has not only brought out the very best in all of his actors, but has also created a fine piece of cinema artwork.

9/10

The Other Guys

The Other Guys
Year: 2010
Director: Adam McKay
Cast: Will Ferrell, Mark Wahlberg, Eva Mendes, Michael Keaton

In My Own Words
I love a movie which gets mixed reviews. I’m not referring to the movie reviews you see on TV or read in magazines, but the reviews from the people who really matter in your life. The one’s who’s opinions you really care about like your family and your friends. The majority of people will listen more to the ones close to them regarding whether they should see a film rather than the media. So it intrigued me to no end when one half of the people I know tell me to see a movie and the other half tell me to wait until the DVD. When a situation like this arises, damn it I am going to see the movie at the cinema! If someone normally hears that a movie is bad from a friend, they normally won’t see it, even if someone else they know says that it is good. Me on the other hand, my mind works another way when it comes to movies. If people are conflicted on whether it is good or not, then I’m sure there is going to be plenty to talk about after I see the film! Nothing like a good debate about film! Who needs parliamentary question time when we can all sit around and talk about movies? Maybe if Australia had got Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to discuss their favourite movies before the election, it would have been over and done with a lot quicker.

Maybe the difference in opinion for many people in this film comes from whether they are Will Ferrell fans or not. I don’t believe Mr Ferrell’s humour is quite for everyone. He does definitely have a cult following though. However, like everything, there is always one film which will break through the haters expectations and a wider audience will enjoy it. I don’t think this is one of those films though.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“The Other Guys” is funny. There is no denying that, but oh does it try hard to be. Subtlety is definitely not the order of the day in this film and although it is not a fantastic film, it is not a complete dud either. Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell) and Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg) are two cops who are not the heroes and do not have any hope of being so. They are always in the background watching everyone else take all the credit and are the laughing stock of their beat. Not only that, but they intensely dislike each other. Even when they do happen to tap into something that doesn’t seem quite right, no one seems to take any notice of them. Gamble and Hoitz find that by working together and remaining outcasts, they are actually able to accomplish more than what they and anybody else would’ve thought.

“The Other Guys” tries very hard to be funny. This is more so at the beginning of the film where the jokes just seem predictable, old and forced. It is as though director and writer Adam McKay was almost worried that people wouldn’t find the movie funny, so he had to try and cram as many things that the audience may find funny in so that he couldn’t lose. However, this lack of subtle humour seems to calm down towards the middle of the film and there are actually some very funny parts. The film is not deep by any means and one cannot take it seriously, mainly because of the presence of Will Ferrell. Not to say that Ferrell cannot do a serious film or carry on a serious role, because he did so in “Stranger Than Fiction”, but in a film which is first and foremost a comedy and has him in it, there is no hope for a tearful moment. There is definitely good character development though. Each main character has a back story and an entertaining one at that which does make the film more enjoyable to watch. The special effects and action sequences are very impressive, but unfortunately there isn’t nearly enough of them throughout the film.

Will Ferrell is much like he is in the majority of his other films. He is very funny in parts of the film, but he doesn’t give anything in “The Other Guys” that sets his role as Allen Gamble apart from his others. Gamble is a very entertaining character and it is obvious that no one else could have played this role besides Ferrell. He does play it perfectly to his ability, but it won’t be one of the characters he will always be remembered for. Mark Wahlberg gives an easy performance in his role as Terry Hoitz. It is a different role compared to what he has done in the last few years and it is interesting to see him in a comedy role. He is not the funniest person in the film, but doesn’t do a bad job by all means. Eva Mendes plays Gamble’s wife, Sheila and although Mendes isn’t known for her comedy roles, is really quite funny. However, it is almost painful to see Michael Keaton in a role such as this.

“The Other Guys” could almost be described as a try hard comedy in its first half, but redeems itself in its latter half. It’s interesting and colourful characters also help to save this film from being completely terrible. It could be so much better than what it is, but those who love Will Ferrell movies will love it.
5/10