×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]CineCynic96 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Meh.

This movie was meh.

Competent but on autopilot. Hanks and Streep were OK but not at their greatest, a lot of the supporting cast were wasted and the script was alarmingly unsubtle and shouldn't have been nominated for a Globe. The themes were pretty much spelled out on the most annoyingly on the nose way possible (like Sarah Paulson's shoehorned speech and that eye rolling court walk scene).

Oh and that ending was just ridiculously goofy and dragged out what could have been a nice ending.

It's not all bad - the score's great and some scenes of the journalism and printing were genuinely quite enthralling. But this is really just bogstandard Spielberg historical drama and is one of his weakest efforts. Certainly of the big awards contenders that I've seen so far this is comfortably the weakest one.

[–]cd637 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What did everyone think of JW's work? I've listened to the score a few times now and I really like it. He wasn't used very heavily in the movie, but when he was he definitely made it count and the music really added to the immediacy of what was happening on the screen. After hearing this score it kinda makes me bummed that he didn't get to do Bridge of Spies. I loved Bridge of Spies, but the one thing that felt off to me about that movie was the score. When I hear Newman's music I don't feel like I'm watching a Spielberg movie because I feel like his music is not as organic as JW's. Don't get me wrong, Newman is a great composer, but I just don't think a Newman-Spielberg collaboration worked for me.

[–]cd637 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thoroughly enjoyed it, but no, it's not perfect. It was a pretty by-the-numbers screenplay, but I think Spielberg did his best with what he was given. And there were actually a lot of pretty riveting scenes powered by dialogue. Yes, there are some scenes with the classic Spielberg heavy handedness, but that's kind of to be expected of him. But I can understand how that's off putting to some. From a technical standpoint though, the movie was top notch. I always love watching scenes unflod, and realizing that minutes have gone by without an edit and I've just been watching two actors do amazing work. Spielberg is truly a master behind the camera. Don't really understand a lot of the hate the movie is getting. Overall it's a pretty middle of the road movie for Spielberg, but that in no way means that it's a bad movie, it's just not OMG amazing. I actually don't think he has made a really great film since Munich. But anyway, the audience I saw it with seemed to be pretty enthralled and applauded at the end. I think the real goal of this movie was to get people thinking and talking, and it certainly had that effect on the audience I witnessed.

[–]dittodot 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Decent although easily one of Spielberg’s weaker films. Loved Streep and Hanks though, they were excellent as usual

[–]ab_ovo_usque_ad_mala 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's amazing how relevant this these days. It's just amazing...

A great film, Spielberg at his finest. A really good story teller.

Huge fan of this film. I'm going to see it again tomorrow night.

[–]outrider567 -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Wow, did this movie bomb or what? $33 million gross after 4 weeks in release

[–]dittodot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No it was only in limited release (about 10 theatres which is normal for prestige films before awards season) where it had very good per theatre averages but now that it’s gone wide it’s earning even more money. It’ll pass its budget by next week

[–]420b00tywizard 1 point2 points  (4 children)

This wasn't peak Spielberg but more like bridge of spies Spielberg.

Can't wait for the watergate sequel.

[–]BigE429 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Hmm...maybe we should cast more heavyweights in the sequel...maybe Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman?

[–]ab_ovo_usque_ad_mala 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Bridge of Spies wasnt peak?

[–]420b00tywizard 1 point2 points  (1 child)

bridge of spies was standard spielberg.

[–]ab_ovo_usque_ad_mala 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it was more. I mean, yes, in the definition of "standard" you're right. A great story, told by a great story teller.

Bridge of Spies was special though.

[–]SuddenStorm1234 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I went into this without having seen any advertisements- just knew it was a new Spielberg/Tom Hanks film.

When the opening scene was a war scene in vietnam- I got really excited thinking it was gonna be another Saving Private Ryan.

I realized very soon after my hopes were ignorant at best, but I really enjoyed the film. Creating tension/suspense through talking only is very difficult to do, and I think they nailed it. Not a perfect film- some parts dragged or felt unnecessary, but overall it was a very well made film.

[–]skinner452 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I love how they tried to make the movie feel super feminist, but when that lady started reading out the results of the trial, that dude just jumped in and shouted out the answer. Literally lol'd.

[–]SRLob 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was a weird moment. I was wondering if he won a role in the movie in a contest or something.

[–]omg-sheeeeep 5 points6 points  (3 children)

So, who's agenda is being served by making 'The Post' look like the hero in all this rather than the Times? Legit question... I can't quite figure it out by looking up who owns both these papers (as it just gives me LLCs).

[–]Amtf232 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The agenda that they're probably going to make a Watergate sequel?

[–]gadgetcool5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Word has it Jeff Bezos secretly paid off Spielberg /s

[–]msmont1 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Just speculation, but the story itself was probably more interesting with the whole underdog angle.

[–]GenghisAres 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I think it's a well-shot, well-acted, and fairly well-paced movie, that is interesting but overall somewhat forgettable and kinda heavy-handed in certain regards. The female empowerment bits were ok, but they didn't seem like a focus of the movie, and we're just kind of tacked on and final scene of her walking out of the courthouse through the dozens of women was a little forced. The focus seemed much more on the separation of the press and the politicians, but then that started to feel a bit overdone by the end. Overall, I think it was a good movie with an obvious message for today's political climate.

[–]msmont1 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yeah that scene in particular was very heavy handed. I'm not even really sure why it was in there but it was really distracting.

[–]Expected_Inquisition 3 points4 points  (9 children)

Only on reddit could you have people ragging on Meryl Streep and Sara Paulson and claim it's not misogyny. This was an incredible film all around, but the real highlight was the acting. Streep delivers a fantastic, nuanced performance. Streep and Hanks have great chemistry. Hanks is electric. All members of the supporting cast play their parts well and there are really no weak points or even awkward moments.

In terms of writing, the plot was engaging and easy to follow. Clearly though, it was of secondary concern to the themes of the movie.

If you felt that messages of freedom of the press and female empowerment were over the top, you are probably exactly the kind of person this movie was made for. This movie critiques the society of the time as well as our own. It provides insight into a larger world of corruption, class stratification, and government deception while shining a bright light on misogyny in the work place and attempts to silence the press by the government. None of this was over the top or forced, it was all a natural part of this true story.

Not the best movie of the year nor my favorite (Blade Runner wins both in my opinion) but I feel this is an excellent movie that could please anyone.

[–]bunnymud -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Only on reddit could you have people ragging on people being critical of Meryl Streep and Sara Paulson and claim it's misogyny.

ftfy

[–]TeddysBigStick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very few of the complaints are about the acting, including Streep and Paulson. I guess we will have to agree to disagree about that the writing felt natural. They straight up monologue to hit us over the head with the message they are trying to portray. That is lazy writing.

[–]ekcunni 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Streep and Hanks have great chemistry.

They do, and I was glad that the movie didn't feel the need for some sexual tension subplot. It was nice to just have it be that they work closely together and get along easily.

[–]Expected_Inquisition 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank goodness they didn't do that, it would have been so forced. I hadn't even considered that not having a romantic plot in this movie was a boon, but you're totally right.

[–]juanprada 1 point2 points  (3 children)

What do you mean when you say someone is 'electric'?

[–]Expected_Inquisition -1 points0 points  (2 children)

I mean that Hanks' performance drew all the other characters to him when he was in the scene, that as an audience member i was anxiously anticipating what he would do or say next. He was volatile in many ways, he was clever, he was the center of attention.

[–]juanprada 1 point2 points  (1 child)

That makes sense. Thank you for your explanation. :)

[–]Expected_Inquisition 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course! Go check out the movie if you haven't seen it yet :)

[–]thocerwan 1 point2 points  (3 children)

I haven't seen the film, but for every person saying the film is a Oscar bait one : all of Spielberg's films are. Not because he wants Oscars everytime he does a film, but because he is that good of a film-maker.

[–]TeddysBigStick 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It isn't oscar bait because of its quality but because it is a period piece about how the media is awesome, two things everyone knows are catnip for the academy.

[–]anti_body 5 points6 points  (0 children)

i think you don't know the meaning of oscar bait

[–]boogiefoot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's not what "oscar bait" means.

[–]lilylemony 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I was disappointed. It felt like Spielberg was just making tropes to get award noms. Loved seeing Bob Odenkirk and David Cross back together, but that's about it.

[–]Amtf232 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Odenkirk would have been good, but he could have also played the role of the Post's legal council.. he has some experience..

[–]anti_body 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i was disappointed as well. i was hoping to learn something from the film but was bored to tears. couldn't finish it either.

[–]24hourlaterrape -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

Best film I have seen since the mid 80s

[–]BroloPie66 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Was this the first movie you've seen since the mid 80s?

[–]Mr_TheKid 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Then you should definitely go watch these movies:
-No Country for Old Men
-Fight Club
-The Usual Suspects
-Pulp Fiction
-Saving Private Ryan
-The Dark Knight
-Groundhog Day
-Almost Famous

[–]HavingALittleFit 4 points5 points  (4 children)

I really hated this movie. I'm not going to say I hated this movie but I really didn't like what the movie claimed to be vs what it actually was. The script was pretty disapointing. I think Hollywood's collective hatred for Donald Trump is going to get this movie all the big nominations at the oscars and with the really great movies that came out this year, I'll be really miffed if it goes home with any of them with exception to Bob Odenkirk for best supporting actor. I don't think he would get it, but he was the one thing I really loved about this movie.

[–]Mr_TheKid 12 points13 points  (3 children)

I really hated this movie. I'm not going to say I hated this movie but...

wait, wut?

[–]boogiefoot 2 points3 points  (2 children)

He already said he hated the movie. He just meant he wasn't going to say it again. Makes perfect sense.

[–]sensualpredator3[🍰] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

No it doesn't

[–]boogiefoot 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That was sarcasm.

[–]mrlesa95 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I didnt think it was a bad movie overall. Just forgetable. Worse than Bridge of Spies sadly, which i quite liked.

This one just seems like most Spielberg-y movie of all. Just Spielberg on auto pilot

[–]boogiefoot 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I don't think Spielberg was on auto-pilot. It had the great camera work we've come to expect from him and he got good performances from his cast. He was just given a by-the-numbers script of an already bland story. Not his fault. He didn't write it.

[–]TeddysBigStick 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spielberg was the one who pushed for the movie to be made as fast as possible, both because of his own schedule and current political events, rather than take the time to punch it up.

[–]TerryfromtheBay 5 points6 points  (2 children)

Overall a good movie imo.

I felt the feminist subplot was very fair and portrayed well. Which was a pleasant surprise, because some reviews I saw claimed it was too SJW. The only time I felt it was forced or over-the-top was when Graham was walking out of the Supreme Court through the crowd of women as if she was Jesus.

As for the movie overall, I liked it. Many people in the comments are saying the first half was boring, and I can understand that. However, I'm not so sure I can agree. My theater was full and engaged throughout the movie, so that could be a factor in my disagreement.

Me and a friend have been trying to see all the potential oscar nominated films lately, and we both agreed that while this movie is deserving of a nomination we think it doesn't quite compete with the other "Oscar-bait" films of this year.

[–]GenghisAres 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yeah that scene was a bit much. I think the earlier scene where she walked through the group of women on her way up the stairs to the stock exchange to make the company public worked much better for that same kind of thing.

[–]TerryfromtheBay 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes! I actually forgot about that, but it worked well because it was very realistic, unlike the SC scene.

[–]withaniel 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The Post is the Rogue One of All the President's Men.

[–]whatisinthedark 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just had a laugh over Meth Damon.

[–]rozzajconXD 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Okay so here is my take on the post, First half is boring and if i were to give it a rating it would be like a 4/10 or something like that, good acting but just boring. second half i would give maybe an 8/10. When everything becomes more intense so does the movie and it gets better. Again though overall this is boring.

Positives include the acting (Of course). Meryl and Tom were once again great but i mean were we expecting anything else. I could tell that some of the scenes were improvised by them two but it wasn't obvious they just worked really well with each other.

Negatives: Lazy, slow and it feels like Steven saw Spotlight 2 years ago and went 'Hey, I think i can do better' so he rounded up his best actors and took a well known story and played it out and in theory it should have worked, In theory this film SHOULD be winning the oscars, not because of the oscar bait but because of the team behind the camera, but theories arent always correct and i would actually be mad if this got nominated, but it probably will so not much i can do

If your thinking of watching it watch it, but if you have your eye on other films maybe try them first before seeing this.

[–]msmont1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sums up my feelings as well. There are parts where it is exciting but quite a bit of it was dull. It just felt like Spielberg was lining up his actors for oscar moments. Here Hanks, here's your monologue about the press, Here Streep, here's your oscar moment. Who needs a supporting Oscar, line it up right here and here.

[–]velmaspaghetti 0 points1 point  (1 child)

The Post was written by the same person who wrote Spotlight. So, it wasn't really a case of Spielberg trying to copy it.

[–]elendinel 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That doesn't really prove he wasn't trying to copy Spotlight; if anything the fact that he hired the same guy to basically write the same movie helps the argument that Spielberg likely knew just how similar they were.

[–]gRod805 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Definitely one of the best movies I've seen this year. The acting was phenomenal. The story line was captivating

[–]Jamesleach 4 points5 points  (5 children)

So we’re getting The Post 2 right? RIGHT??

[–]TeddysBigStick 1 point2 points  (2 children)

They already did, it is called All the President's Men.

[–]Jamesleach 0 points1 point  (1 child)

And I’ve seen it, but nothing wrong with telling the same story again from a different story teller.

[–]SuspiciousScript 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interestingly enough, the final shot of The Post is a direct homage to All The President's Men. See this shot from the first 5 minutes of the latter.

[–]param005raval 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No it was just for the continuation of storyline. It felt weird to me that Spielberg would give such a "Marvel -kinda" ending to the film. But it certainly would be a foolish choice to make "The Post 2" XD.

[–]waunakonor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My thought exactly. The very end feels exactly like a sequel tease.

[–]Shinninggum 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Love Zach Woods' appearance. He's going places now!

[–]Shinninggum 1 point2 points  (1 child)

"News is the draft version of history"

[–]coffeeordeath85 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I liked that line a lot.

[–]17bingo 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I may be the only one, but I loved the monologue that Sara Paulson gives to Tom Hanks. Way on the nose, for sure (as expected with Spielberg) - but it really resonated with me, personally.

I forget the exact phrasing, but something about how your whole life as a woman you’re told what you should be, that eventually you just start to believe it. And to break free from that takes an incredible amount of strength - something that many men aren’t able to understand. And to have Hanks’ character listen and respond to what she is saying (instead of debate or argue) feels so...wonderfully hopeful. Definitely heavy handed, yes. But it worked for me.

[–]azbat7 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I doubt you're the only one, it's a very strong moment. That scene is why you put Sara Paulson in that role - it wasn't to make sandwiches.

[–]Meat_Popsicles 5 points6 points  (0 children)

sandwich

There is something else to that. Through much of the movie, she just seems like a standard housewife: seeing Hanks off as he runs to do Big Things, raising the kids, making sandwiches. But then finally she gets that monologue. It's delivered in her own art studio, which also displays pieces that indicate great talent. It's a significant contrast to hear earlier portrayal.

[–]DeathbyOstrich 4 points5 points  (4 children)

After just seeing the Post, I'm happy that so many others are very disappointed with this film. And none of the Hollywood tricks of the trade seemed to work on most of the viewers here on Reddit.

This is the type of Oscar Bait garbage that critics of Hollywood are talking about. Gender Studies wins again. I may be a tad harsh, but this is just garbage. Do they think we're this dumb? To be forcefed like this? Here is my quick review. Skip it. Read on for a spoiler free review...

I forgot that Spielberg had directed! I was SHOCKED because during the movie I kept thinking how uninspired the directing choices seemed. How "mechanical" everything seemed staged. The lighting heavy handed. Such as the Supreme Court steps scene, or ANY of the "protest" scenes. The Oscar bait of the boardroom meeting, the poor choices of following the boring storyline because it involves the woman being the smartest person in the room filled with men. The female assistant being "inspired" despite her boss. Tom Hanks was trying hard, Streep got too much screen time and her wardrobe sabotaged her character. Was she wearing a curtain as a dress the entire 2nd half of the movie?? Her scene with Allison Brea at the end was just word salad. Meh. Sarah Paulson is wasted here. The first half is a sleeper of a history drag. The music lets us down in keeping the overwhelmingly Baby boomer audience awake. We've somehow seen all of this before, could it be Spotlight?!?!? But done so so much better. Yes, there are thinly veiled reminders of Trumps anti-media biases. That lesson is made clear, several times. But ultimately this movie fails because it chose the wrong characters to focus on. The real intrigue and action should have been with the military analysts who committed espionage with his theft of the pentagon papers, or Bob Odenkirk's character getting back into the old feeling of being part of a "small rebellion" again with his reporting. But no. We are forced to learn again, that women are just as good as men even though they are forced by men to focus on dinner parties, style sections, and making sandwiches. Gender Studies Hollywood is teaching us again. Lastly, think back to that absolutely HORRIBLE opening scene in Vietnam. Is this really the same director who gave us Saving Private Ryan? That was the most cliched Vietnam footage I've ever seen. Including the musical choice of CCR.

Bottom Line, skip this movie and watch Spotlight again.

[–]bard0117 5 points6 points  (3 children)

I couldn't get over how this was a director who created one of the greatest action sequences in the history of war films, yet the movie opened with the blandest Vietnam scene ever...

[–]param005raval 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Exactly. It felt out of place. It would have been better if some of the story was also involving the soldiers who were sent there inspite of knowing that there were gonna die. But again that would feel really out of place, given that it's a film about press and not the effects of war. I agree to your point.

[–]gadgetcool5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well in real life Daniel Ellsberg made the decision to leak the Pentagon Papers after hearing a speech from a conscientious objector. It's a little disappointing they left that part out, but also understandable as it wasn't the main story. The opening efficiently and graphically established a "composite" motivation for his character do it worked.

[–]DeathbyOstrich 1 point2 points  (0 children)

During the open scene, I forgot it was S.S. When the credits rolled I was SHOCKED. He's gotten old, and lazy.

[–]ddottay 6 points7 points  (1 child)

It was ok, clearly Oscar bait. There were some moments where I definitely felt they came so close to what they were trying to do but fell short.

Worth the watch, I enjoyed it, but not incredible.

[–]DeathbyOstrich -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

terrible. Luckily I had moviepass.

[–]mx_birdtwat 2 points3 points  (0 children)

"I've always wanted to be a part of a small rebellion."

No kidding. This was way better than Star Wars. How do I sign up?

[–]AliS83 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I see a few people are saying this would be the prequel to "All the President's Men". If applicable, where would "Frost/Nixon" and "Nixon" be in that timeline? Also, is there any other movie that would fit in that timeline?

[–]da6480 0 points1 point  (4 children)

you mean real life? ...any movie based on real events would fit into that timeline

[–]AliS83 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I meant the timeline regarding Nixon/Watergate/Etc and when the films take place.

[–]da6480 0 points1 point  (0 children)

sorry for the snark

[–]da6480 1 point2 points  (1 child)

for the record- All The President's Men is about Watergate and the reporters who uncovered the story, they also worked at the Post. happened right after the events of this film (the ending scene). then Frost/Nixon took place years later, it's about a tv host who scored the first on air interview with Nixon since his resignment

"Nixon" is a biography of nixon so it takes place before, during and after the events of all those films

[–]AliS83 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Great, that's what I looking for! Thank you so much!

[–]WyngZero 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The 1st half is so boring. It picks up in the 2nd half.

[–]howardtheduckdoe 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I thought this was really good. It was interesting to see the parallels between Nixon and Trump in regards to their views of the media.

[–]IchthysTattoo 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just got done watching, this was apparent to me as well. Very obvious similarities between the Executive Branch now and then.

[–]johnjaymjr 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Man, I saw it yesterday and am very surprised at how many of you are 'meh' on it. I found this movie incredibly captivating. Incredible performances on screen and a pretty focused narrative. I'll admit the start is slow, but the final 2 acts really had me completely invested.

Edit: I think Lincoln was overall a better movie, but this was not far behind.

[–]DeathbyOstrich -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

absolute garbage. Hollywood paint by numbers whitewashing.

[–]interestingprogram 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This movie is astonishingly dull, honestly. Although a half decent cast and perfectly fine directing. No one is doing anything we haven't seen a thousand times before. It's dull and painfully uninspired.

[–]Benevolent_Tyrant 3 points4 points  (0 children)

THEY KNEW

[–]poptophazard 5 points6 points  (7 children)

I thought the movie was OK, if lacking, and definitely Oscar bait. I was getting into it during the second act when the actual papers part of the story came into play and the journalists doing their job came into play, but they stretched the good parts way too thin over the entire runtime and filled it in with dramatized historical fiction tropes.

The movie ended up becoming so cheesy in the end, where everybody not on Bradlee's side was a cookie-cutter bad guy. Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge proponent of journalism (having been one myself professionally), but I hate the pat-on-the-back style movies where it's set up so smugly. Hindsight is 20/20, and the legal threats were very serious. Journalism is never cut and dry, and there's always doubts about doing the right thing, which I don't think they handled as well as movies like All the President's Men and Spotlight did. It's why the Newsroom grated on me so much.

Not to mention, they through in way too many cheesy moments, especially at the end, to the point where they were treating the viewer as dumb. "Oh hey, just in case you can't tell you're the protagonist, we're going to have an aide for the opposite side of the court case come tell you she believes in you and you made the right decision." "Oh hey, in case you didn't realize the significance of a woman in power making a decision and getting a major victory against men, let's throw in a bunch of women clapping close up after the fact." I was able to understand that fine without the cheese factor, thank you.

Also, John Williams' score was way too cheesy.

[–]ion9000 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I don't think they make everyone who's against Bradlee seem like a cookie-cutter bad guy. Bradley Whitford's character, though a bit sexist, had reasonable objections, because of the immense financial risk it would put the company under. And Fritz was always treated as a good guy, but he's also against publishing the papers.

[–]ekcunni 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Agreed.. I found Bradley Whitford's character to be very well-done, actually. He was sexist, but in a believable way, and yeah, his objections were well-founded. He didn't come across as a cookie cutter bad guy.

[–]DeathbyOstrich 0 points1 point  (4 children)

Terrible film. Too long. Wrong plot. You nailed it. Spotlight crushes this and makes it's look amateur. I'm SHOCKED Spielberg directed this. The music couldn't keep the baby boomers awake in the theater! They were all snoring!!!!

[–]trc_IO 1 point2 points  (3 children)

My theater was a packed house at full attention with baby boomers applauding when the credits rolled. To each their own I suppose.

[–]DeathbyOstrich 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Baby boomers are generally self important children. So of course they loved a movie patting themselves on the back how they "saved the world" from the big evil government they created.

[–]trc_IO 1 point2 points  (1 child)

But wait, I thought they couldn't stay awake? Methinks you are telling fibs.

[–]DeathbyOstrich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was referring to YOUR theater showing. Me thinks you don't read to well.

[–]hundreds100 -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Overall a good movie, certainly not Spielberg's best but not his worst either. I think the strong part's of the movie are really good, and if you are a fan of action in movies through words then you will absolutely love these respected scenes. The rest of the movie though was really dull, I can understand why they were apart of the movie and having removed them would have only harmed the movie but it didn't do any favours for it either. I was really impressed by Bob Odenkirk more than I was with Hanks or Streep and I hope to see him doing some more serious roles in movies. Overall it's a good film, that I enjoyed watching, that I would certainly watch again but I would rewind through some of the "dull" parts.

7/10

[–]DeathbyOstrich 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Seven? This is a five at best. So dull, so uninspired. So "phone it in" Oscar bait. Odenkirk was the best, the rest were just showing up. This is an insult to other Journalism movies.

[–]ongogablogian6911 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Meth Damon ?!

[–]GirlNextor123 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know, right? When he showed up at Bradlee's door I yelled "DON'T LET HIM IN!!!"

[–]fatman_cx___ -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

Boring, has to point out too much to the audience, and a cheesy social commentary that could have characters turn and talk to the camera similar to House of Cards. Looks like it cares about awards than being an entertaining movie.

My thoughts after watching the trailers, not sitting through that movie lmao.

[–]DeathbyOstrich 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you nailed it!

[–]billyrivers311 8 points9 points  (0 children)

The plot was stretched way too thin. One of the most blatant cases of Oscar bait in recent memory, the film felt half-finished in a rushed attempt to maintain relevancy but sacrifices quality

[–]maveryh 13 points14 points  (2 children)

This film is "important" in the most shallow sense of the word.

It only scratches the surface of the journalistic process. All the President's Men and Spotlight completely blow this film out of the water in that respect.

There were so many cringey moments that had me rolling my eyes.

It's just okay. 6/10

[–]All_Hail_Krull 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your score doesn't go with your words.

[–]ion9000 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I haven't seen All the President's Men, but I did watch Spotlight pretty recently, and I don't think it's a fair comparison to make at all. Spotlight is about investigative reporting, and building a massive case out of what initially looked like very little evidence. This movie gives us all the evidence right at the beginning. It's more about the ethical responsibility of the news to report the truth, even if it could send them all to jail.

[–]alanbright 63 points64 points  (4 children)

I liked the film, but it honestly feels like something you'd watch in a high school history class. You can tell Spielberg is getting old. It's filled with the Spielberg cheesiness that I love and some social commentary that is a bit on the nose. I am totally for the messages presented in the film, but a lot of it seemed heavy handed, where I almost expected the actors to turn and wink at the camera. Almost felt like propaganda, but for my team.

The cinematography felt strange. It had a very fluorescent light feel. Not complaining, just noting. Did anyone else think Tom Hanks kept slipping in and out of accent?

[–]TeddysBigStick 49 points50 points  (2 children)

I am totally for the messages presented in the film, but a lot of it seemed heavy handed, where I almost expected the actors to turn and wink at the camera. Almost felt like propaganda, but for my team.

What, you didn't like the scene where Streep is walking down the steps with sunlight shining down upon her while protesters looked upon her in reverence, and she somehow picked a path through the group that only had women?

[–]Sven2774 3 points4 points  (1 child)

I just assumed the women were there for Streep's character given that era had a women's empowerment movement that coincided with the hippie movement.

[–]TeddysBigStick 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe I am not remembering it correctly but the protest group was both men and women, it was just the straight line she chose down through the crowd that was homogeneous.

[–]shubhamplank 9 points10 points  (0 children)

but a lot of it seemed heavy handed, where I almost expected the actors to turn and wink at the camera. Almost felt like propaganda, but for my team. The cinematography felt strange. It had a very fluorescent light feel. Not complaining, just noting. Did anyone else think Tom Hanks kept slipping in and out of accent?

True that! I thought it would have been better to make a serious drama than a comic-drama movie. The subject of the story demanded it, just imagine if Lincoln 2012 had the same casual screenplay!!

[–]RustyDetective -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Talk about Oscar bait. Check all the topical socio-political-SJW boxes. Still a great performance from Meryl Streep regardless, but not enough to beat Ronan or Hawkins. What a waste of Carrie Coon though.

[–]zackmanze 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Important to note—this was a huge auditorium.

8 people walked into my screening. 4 people walked out.

Sad to say I was one of them.

[–]imakefilms 12 points13 points  (6 children)

I cannot understand people walking out of a movie unless it's genuinely unbearable. Would you not sit through the whole thing to see how it plays out? What a waste of your money.

[–]DeathbyOstrich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We ALMOST walked out. In fact, halfway through, my girl went to get popcorn and check out other movies and their start times, if there was anything enticing we would have left. There was obviously nothing coming up that we hadn't seen before....

[–]ThereIsNoFirst 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Sometimes a film is just unbearable. I'd rather go do something else or something productive even if I get screwed out of $10.

[–]zackmanze 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I totally agree with you in theory, but I had family in town and we knew we could find something better to do. Also, MoviePass.

[–]XInsects 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If you know that you're not enjoying something though, surely its a waste of money AND time to stay and watch the whole thing. Its a sunk cost, and a fallacy to think that value can be gained when it can't.

[–]imakefilms 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I wouldn't leave though, I'd watch the whole thing so I can actually judge it as a whole.

[–]XInsects 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Good for you, it shouldn't get in the way of understanding why some people would want to leave.

[–]pyre_teh_god 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Average at best.

Maybe I missed something, but the movie was filled with manufactured tension, varying characters with slightly above averages at best, and a sagging plot that fizzled to an inevitable conclusion.

[–]Freudian_ 10 points11 points  (2 children)

I'm loving the Nixon era extended universe! The Post, Forrest Gump, All the President's Men, and Frost Nixon.

[–]DeBatton 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The Nixon Cinematic Universe movies should have Henry Kissinger pop up in cheery cameos, just like Stan Lee.

[–]Darthnixa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

MFW he's still alive.

[–]thebankdick 8 points9 points  (4 children)

Had to look up Liz Hannah. This is her first screenplay. It’s her spec script that got picked up by Spielberg. That’s amazing.

[–]DeathbyOstrich -5 points-4 points  (2 children)

It's not so amazing when Josh Singer , who co-wrote it is Jewish. Amy Pascal, a documented racist, is also Jewish, and of course the producer/director, Spielberg is ....Jewish. Alison Brie, Jewish. And the movie itself? Daniel Ellsberg, a Jewish military analyst who committed espionage when he stole the documents while working for the RAND corporation.

However, Ellsberg’s actions, and the actions of the Jewish media (Graham was Jewish), were specifically intended to bring down Richard Nixon. It was pure political sabotage.

So it's not THAT amazing.

[–]mfranko88 4 points5 points  (1 child)

TIL there are lots of Jewish people in Hollywood. I never knew that, thanks!

[–]DeathbyOstrich -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

A female Jewish first time screenwriter? Go to the FRONT OF THE LINE!!!

[–]Jerrymoviefan3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Amy Pascal bought the script and then got Spielberg.

[–]mikeweasy -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Just saw it, I knew what the story was about and I knew it was gonna be boring but I loved it!!! Hanks and Streep in the same scene OMG. Speilbergs direction was good as well. The supporting cast was awesome as well, there was like ten people I had no idea were in this one. Such a good movie.

[–]TacoCorpTM 9 points10 points  (3 children)

It didn’t break the mold, it did nothing absolutely amazing, and yet it was one of my favorites of 2017. As a social studies teacher, I’m pretty much always a sucker for historical dramas (specifically by Spielberg) and the performances and direction was just great.

9/10

[–]Freudian_ 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I'm also a Social Studies teacher. I loved Lincoln and Bridge of Spies.

[–]XInsects 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How about The Great Debaters?

[–]TacoCorpTM 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh yeah, Bridge of Spies was really good, but Lincoln was amazing.

[–]gadgetcool5 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was a great movie. If you weren't expecting some soapboxing, obviously didn't see the trailer. I learned a lot about Katharine Graham.

[–]SalaciousDumb 19 points20 points  (3 children)

I really hated the part where Sarah Paulson spelled out Meryl Streep’s character arc to Tom Hanks.

[–]poptophazard 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My number one pet peeve of the movie -- they treated the audience as idiots.

  • Sarah Paulson had to spell out Meryl's character's struggles and evolution, as you said.
  • In case you didn't know that the movie was about a woman making a key decision over the advice of key men and about making the right choice, we had to have that scene at the Supreme Court with the gov't paralegal telling Meryl that she's an inspiration and made the right choice ("don't tell my boss lol") plus al the women on the steps clapping in an obvious closeup.
  • Was the ending a victory for journalism? Maybe the audience isn't sure, let's have our characters reference that ENDLESSLY beyond any hope of the fourth wall.

I can keep going but it really started to grind my gears by the end.

[–]TabaccoSauce 6 points7 points  (1 child)

There was a lot of over-explaining of the movie's themes. These things were obvious and shouldn't have had to have been spelled out, yet they were for some reason.

Enjoyable movie for the most part but there were some weird decisions made in the script. Personally I'd give it a 6.5 or 7/10.

[–]alanbright 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yea, I agree. I didn't know if it was just me because I pay attention to screenplay structure and themes etc. That segment felt like one step away from characters just saying how they feel.

[–]Gene_Pool_Sartre 3 points4 points  (3 children)

Very disappointed we didn't get a Woodward and Bernstein cameo, unless I missed it

[–]DeathbyOstrich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you look closely the only reference I notices was a Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid movie poster. Which stared Robert Redford...

[–]neoriply379 1 point2 points  (1 child)

According to Wikipedia, Woodward wasn't a part of the Washington Post until after this wrapped up. As for Carl Bernstein, no clue.

[–]sinsyder2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nobody cares about Carl, haha.

[–]StoneLemons 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Did Allison Brie's accent bother anyone else? I couldn't understand what she was trying to go for or why it changed in different parts of the film. Usually she is great in her roles but she annoyed me in this because of that fact.

I also agree with the "no real tension" etc aspect since it's a simple plot and pretty much anyone interested in this film already knows the story. The theatre I saw it in had people clapping and cheering throughout the entire film which had me groaning and rolling my eyes. I can't stand how this has become commonly acceptable and people think it's ok to disrupt other peoples enjoyment of the film. 🙄

[–]Monkeymonkey27 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah this movie kind of heavily depends on you knowing these people

[–]mikeweasy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah her voice was weird.

[–]benhur217 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Tom Hanks was great, Meryl Streep was meh.

[–]mikeweasy 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Hanks is usually always great.

[–]sinsyder2 2 points3 points  (1 child)

and Meryl Streep is usually always meh.

[–]zneakers 9 points10 points  (3 children)

First movie ever that caused me to fall asleep

[–]mikeweasy 0 points1 point  (2 children)

And??

[–]alanbright 6 points7 points  (1 child)

They woke up later.

[–]billbillbills 1 point2 points  (2 children)

This movie is exactly what I would call "solid." It's well done, the performances are good, everything seems to be in order, except it's not intense or remarkable enough (story-wise) to be truly great.

[–]poptophazard 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Classic Oscar bait.

[–]ReggieLeBeau 8 points9 points  (1 child)

All I could think of during the ending scene was this.

[–]mikeweasy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are not the only one.

[–]Sassy_Severus_Snape 24 points25 points  (2 children)

This movie was ultimately super disappointing. I think they focused on the wrong character. Kay's transformation wasn't interesting enough to back the whole movie. Her 'arch' actually took away from the more interesting parts of the story.

I think the allstar cast actually also killed this movie. I will never by Meryl Streep as an underdog. Also it seems like they remembered that they hired Allison Brie and Sarah Paulson and decided to give both random monologues.

Also, if they didn't want to be compared to All the President's Men, they shouldn't have ended the movie at watergate. Let the characters have their victory and move on. Opening with Watergate reminds a lot of movie fans of the beginning of All the President's Men, in which it pales in comparison.

[–]Monkeymonkey27 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I didnt even realize it WAS Brie until her last scene in the bedroom

Also how the fuck did Sarah Paulson get third billimg

[–]MentalloMystery 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think the film’s original female screenwriter’s focus on female characters shows. Not necessarily a bad thing obviously - for the most part, I enjoyed Kay as a character. But moments like Brie’s and Paulson’s speechifying felt contrived or disingenuous considering the stakes are a little higher than receiving a little learning lesson from domesticates! I think it’s a bit fresh that we don’t see the film largely from Ellsburg’s perspective, but when unecessary, cloying scenes like those come into play, I totally get why people are arguing that he and other figures should’ve been given a greater role.

[–]buizel123 7 points8 points  (2 children)

I saw this yesterday with some friends. It was good, def worth checking out, but basically inoffensive. The appeal of the film is watching Streep and Hanks. The material itself is so dry, trying to build an entire movie around it (Will she or won't she approve the paper to leak the papers)... it's not that compelling enough...

[–]Zoophagous 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well, that sucks because we know the answer.

[–]Nimbus2000 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It was kind of boring TBH. You know that IRL the Post published the papers, so, there was no real tension.

[–]santa_is_black 35 points36 points  (6 children)

The scene of Kay walking down the steps after the Supreme Court hearing into a crowd of hippie women had me rolling my eyes.

[–]Shinninggum 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Though I did like the scene on the day of the IPO and she passes a group of secretaries up the stairs.

[–]FullmetalVTR 10 points11 points  (1 child)

It was the "subtle" lighting changes that occurred as she walked down the court house steps that had me rolling.

It was as if it wasn't on the nose enough that Kay was suddenly surrounded only by women that were all looking up at her in admiration, Spielberg also needed to put a ray of light on them to emphasise the insultingly obvious message.

[–]Continental_0p 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was my biggest gripe with the movie as well. Trust the viewer to get the point of the movie.