×
top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Hamster_P_Huey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

huge Spielberg fan, and i'm a huge sucker for these types of movies, but this was a by-the-numbers snoozer. seemed like he did it just to check a box. Spotlight did it way better. Streep was the only light in the blandness, for me. everyone else just looked like they were trying too hard to keep up with her.

no one will remember this film a year from now, and i suspect most people have already forgotten most of it. heck i watched it a few hours ago and it's already a fuzzy blur. no shining moments to latch onto. shame.

[–]fobby_fabi 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Spielberg is the quintessential filmmaker. A couple years ago I went into 'Bridge of Spies' thinking I'd be bored of Spielberg after all these years, but I ended up loving it. Same deal here. And how can you go wrong with all that talented cast.

Not a masterpiece by any means, but only because it's not that ambitious. The film is aware of it's scope. Absolutely solid film making.

[–]manzoire 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I didn't know anything about this movie, I didn't even know it was directed by Speilberg. It's a great movie because you can constantly feel the tension. Every choice they make, every little thing that happens, can prevent the people from getting justice. There were times when I saw someone walk in a parking lot, and I was legit scared they would assassinated. The fear ran through the whole movie, and you really felt that it was a small paper fighting an empire.

The scenes when Meryll had to make the decision between profits and justice were incredible. In a time where everyone chooses profits, it was refreshing and exhilarating to see someone make decisions for the good of the country instead of quarterly profits.

[–]ztirk 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like how the press solidarity thing came full circle. Hated how there's always a almost-hit-by-taxi scene in NY every time ... I feel if I ever visited NY my trip wouldn't be complete without being almost hit by one.

[–]mushpuppy 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I just saw this movie, and it made me weep. We need such courage today. We are facing a threat unlike anything this nation has faced, perhaps ever in its history, as the threat is coming from those who we chose to lead us. They are threatening every freedom we love, for if there is any one liberty which underlies every other right that matters to us, it is the freedom to speak truth to power.

Long live a free press.

[–]I_Enjoy_Taffy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Maybe it is just the people I follow online who have been critiquing it negatively. But I loved this movie. It was very fast paced and tense and had a nice sprinkle of humor in it. I truly enjoyed it, don’t get some of the people hating on it.

[–]winterswithmoni 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just finished and can honestly say I'm blown away by the themes of truth, justice, and courage in The Post. As a former film student, this movie reminded me of something my professors always taught me:

A film should always portray what is, and what ought to be.

[–]prostitutepiss 5 points6 points  (0 children)

So Good! Cant believe the lukewarm responses I'm reading around here. I guess maybe the MCU is what people are looking for these days. Either way, after watching Black Panther last night, this movie was such a refreshing change.

  • The Pacing was tight and the story moved along nicely

  • I don't watch much Streep movies but I see what all the hype is about now. She definitely is a legend

  • Hanks was also good. I realized how much I missed watching him after seeing this

  • Spielberg's directing was great. I see a lot of comments about how it had no visual appeal. Are people crazy? I mean firstly, its a movie about a newspaper releasing a story, your not going to get landscapes and CG and stuff that people would call beautiful. BUT every was well shot, and the shots of the newspaper printing machines and presses were definaately visually interesting

  • The dialogue was well written. There was some genuinely funny/cute moments

  • The acting all around was spot on.

  • And the movie DOES have an important message. This movie needs to be seen by more people.

[–]BixmanJ 6 points7 points  (5 children)

I went in expecting it to be great and was pretty underwhelmed. I have one more film to go to complete the 2018 best picture list and so far this has been the only one I've questioned whether it deserves it's spot. Not bad but in my opinion it falls short.

[–]fede01_8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

it's an ok drama. not bad, not great. just ok

[–]orange_lazarus1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Totally agree with this if it wasn't for Hanks' and Streep's acting chops this would have been a below average poorly written movie.

[–]bostonbedlam 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Many saw "timely", I saw "pander-y".

[–]fede01_8 0 points1 point  (1 child)

are you a trump supporter?

[–]bostonbedlam 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not even close haha

[–]I_Am_Dynamite6317 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This was fine. Not sure how it’s better than The Florida Project but whatever.

[–]FairWarning7102 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This was just do dry and dull. Speilberg just isn't what he used to be.

[–]brooklyn_stompa 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I did not think this movie was boring or slow at all and had a solid all around pace. But to each their own, some people are interested in historical moments that changed history and some are not. If you are on the latter, I can see why you were bored.

[–]fatman_cx___ 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Can't believe I just sat throug that oscar-bait circlejerk, never been so bored during a movie. Thank you movie pass.

[–]Scuzzfest 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Bob Odenkirk caressing plot devices: the movie.

[–]Cole_Dammett 1 point2 points  (1 child)

[–]Seamlesslytango 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I assumed it was the lady from the beginning. When the guy left the pentagon with the papers and brought them to the place where they started photocopying, there were two other people there. I think the one woman was the one who dropped off the papers later. If not, probably just some random woman who they hired to keep them from getting caught.

[–]yash920 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I see a lot of discussion here that this movie moves at a slower pace, but I think it does service to all the intricately moving pieces that came together to cause the bruh-hah that became the Pentagon Papers.

I immensely enjoyed the movie "Spotlight", and I can't imagine fans of that would be disappointed in this one. The storytelling also reminds me of courtroom dramas like "The Lincoln Lawyer", "A Time to Kill" and "The Pelican Brief". Okay, yes, there are a number of Grisham adaptations here, but when it comes to procedurals you want to be immersed in the details. Even something like FX's fantastic "The People vs. OJ Simpson" doesn't feel like it earns its payoff unless you've vested yourself in all the details. And when the details have factual basis, it makes it all the more gripping.

An interesting accompanying piece to this film is HBO's documentary "The Newspaperman: The Life and Times of Ben Bradlee". I watched "The Post" first and then this documentary, and while I loved Tom Hanks' performance it seems to hit different notes than what the real Ben Bradlee was like.

[–]Jorge777 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Post is a very slow movie but I really liked it! Especially the beginning were the politicians are coming home from the plane in Vietnam and they all acknowledge that we can't win the war in Vietnam and when they arrive in the US they start talking about how we are winning the war! History repeats itself! The politicians remind me of Pinocchio Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtz4TEcQ-y4

[–]VACANTAMANIA 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Such a slow, boring movie. I guess it wasn’t made for me.

[–]Oikeus_niilo 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Same here. I thought there was not much happening in it. The characters didn't get very interesting or anything. It's just like...

  • There's a big secret that the paper is about to publish

  • Oooh are they gonna do it or are they not

  • The boss lady is talking emotional talk about how she's a woman and she wasn't expected to rise to such a high position

  • They go through with publishing, yay! They win in court, how touching.

Okay. Cool story bro. Seriously, I wanted to like the movie, but now that I think of it, I actually hope I watched the new Fifty shades instead. I'm serious.

[–]your_mind_aches 11 points12 points  (1 child)

Absolutely loved it. Every performance was great.

[–]prostitutepiss 1 point2 points  (0 children)

SAME! Can't believe the lukewarm responses around here.

[–]szeto326FML Summer 2017 Winner 12 points13 points  (2 children)

The second half was definitely more engaging than the first - it's kind of a shame that they breezed through that portion so quickly and that it took so long for the movie for them to get The Papers. Overall, it was fine - definitely not a bad movie, but not a great one either and not something that almost anyone would want to watch multiple times.

The way it ended to tie into Watergate was kind of an odd choice - felt more like an ending that someone would do if they were planning on hyping people up for a sequel, except that All The President's Men already exists - and that movie, along with a number of other journalism-related movies are vastly better than this. You could definitely tell that it was rushed into production, but it kind of speaks to the talent involved that they were still able to put forth something as well made as it was.

Definitely going to be one of those movies that is going to be played (and bore) countless numbers of American high schools in the many years to come.

[–]Vlookup_reddit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah, i agree with u The first part really confused me I even got difficulties in remembering the names

[–]gpm21 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd say it was decent. Not his best, but way better than Bridge of Spies. Mildly amusing and a fun ride, not deserving of a BP nod though if you ask me. Really wanted the phone call at the end to be Forrest Gump though, I'd pay good money to have had that.

[–]Jezamiah 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Wow seeing far negative reactions than I expected for this. I thought the movie was fantastic and the performances were strong (as expected) and carry the film throughout without making it boring.

[–]prostitutepiss 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Movie WAS fantastic. Directing was great. Pacing was spot on. Performances were great from every participant. People just have bad taste.

[–]mncs 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I just came from seeing this and I just wanted to say how mad I am about the Nixon miming nonsense. I don't think the actor playing him was listening to the tapes when they filmed, they just told him to wag his finger around and bang his fist on the table once or twice completely out of time with what's actually being said. Drove me nuts.

[–]1080TJ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

My favorite part of seeing this was when my mom (a geeky liberal journalist who misses newspapers the way most people miss their dead grandparents and used to do professional-level editing on my middle school book reports) turned to me during the scene where the reporters sift through thousands of pages of unorganized, un-numbered documents and said "that looks like so much fun!"

[–]Danzarr 2 points3 points  (6 children)

one detail that annoyed me, who puts their pencils point up in their pencil holders? seriously, 3 scenes in the movie had this tiny detail, and it bugged the hell out of me. Do you want to get stabbed when you reach for a pencil? because thats how you get stabbed with a pencil.

[–]Chris_Shiherlis 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In the 6th grade I was in the emergency room with a nasty cut on my head, we were playing football and I collided with another dummy. While sitting in the waiting room there was a kid about my age with his hand up in the air. I was like, "what's wrong" he turned so I could see his armpit...a pencil was sticking about 3 inches out of his armpit. He was wrestling with a kid and he reached over the kids back to roll him backwards and the kid had a fully sharpened new pencil, tip up, in his back pocket. It stuck in there about 3 or 4 inches. He was afraid to pull it out and looked white as a ghost.

[–]Xdexter23 0 points1 point  (3 children)

[–]Danzarr 0 points1 point  (2 children)

[–]Jezamiah 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I hope that's fake

[–]Danzarr 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nope. Now you see why that one detail annoys me?

[–]BuckeyeBentley 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe they're more worried about breaking a point than stabbing themselves?

[–]NotificationsOff 9 points10 points  (2 children)

I aim to see every movie nominated for best picture at the Oscars every year, but for this one... I could give two shits about. Oscar bait at its finest.

EDIT: What makes it even worse, is how this was nominated over I,Tonya. Very frustrating.

[–]IchiBen82 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also over Florida Project, and over Blade Runner 2049. smh

[–]Jorge777 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I Tonya was surprising very good! I didn't expect much from the movie but the story and the performances were excellent!

[–]Groovy_Raff_Raff 8 points9 points  (0 children)

When they were going to court, that felt like it should have been the tipping point into act two, but it was pretty much the climax of the film. Boring. Oscar bait, the movie: the movie

[–]Chuck___Noblet 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Were the Nixon tapes played throughout the movie the actual tapes or recreations of them? If they were recreations, who voiced Nixon?

[–]wtfisthisnoise 7 points8 points  (1 child)

Those are the actual tapes.

edit: note that this tape that plays at the end was recorded after the Watergate break-in and the subsequent reporting, where I think the movie wants to present the tape as if it's a response to the publication of the Pentagon papers.

[–]POP_L1F3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think they did that because it was two Post reporters that took him down with the Deepthroat tip.

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

I just read a perfect, great review of this movie that sums of every single thing about it.

Here is the link: Oscar Bait

[–]makeittriple 9 points10 points  (3 children)

Drinking game for those who want to get drunk: Take a shot every time movie cuts to someone smiling.

This movie is truly uninspired and lazy. Worst performance i have ever seen by Meryl Streep.

[–]prostitutepiss 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Your crazy. Streeps performance was on point, and I don't even watch much of her movies.,

[–]makeittriple 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Well i have watched many of her movies and i am confident that she was reduced to a cliche rich-old woman in The Post.

[–]prostitutepiss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yup pretty much the old lady from Titanic.

[–]cloutbot 4 points5 points  (1 child)

boring ass movie

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

The Post is a well-made movie where I didn't care about any of it. I didn't care for the characters, the newspaper, nor to the importance to free speech of publishing the Pentagon Papers. It's a confusing and dull and curious and boring feeling. I am not sure if I should be praising The Post for teaching me this new feeling or I should be annoyed at The Post for wasting my time and the importance of the story while Trump is trying to discredit the White House press.

[–]joeb1kenobi 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I think the irony of it is if it were made in 2003 or something, it will feel fresh and be well reviewed. But thats exactly what it feels like, a movie made in 2003.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I suppose. With All The President's Men, Network, Wag The Dog, Frost/Nixon, Spotlight, .... . There are too many political journalism movies which are far better than The Post.

And I thought The Post would be more relevant than ever with all the classified leaks in recent years, and Trump not allowing media into the White House - which George W Bush didn't do (as far as I remember).

[–]hoppi_ 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Hm... kind of bored and interested. Somehow overall, the story felt ...just slowly stepping on.

Well, about the actors and roles:

  • Meryl Streep was quite underwhelming.

  • Tom Hanks played a roarier and bossier version of Chesley Sullenberger.

  • The converastions in general felt like they were specifically orchestrated to feel hectic or something, when they talked over one another.

In some scenes, Spielberg's way of blocking came through. Or something, that felt quite distinct and at points if felt too weird, even in relation to watching a movie. Like when they all watched the cardboard box that Bob Odenkirk's Ben brought in.

[–]EachBoth 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Loved Bradley Whitford! Anyone else think he was a dead ringer for Harry S. Truman? Would love to see him tackle that role.

[–]TheTrueRory 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Tom Hanks was great as Popeye.

[–]makeittriple 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Tom "Rolling my shirts sleeve" Hanks

[–]idreamofpikas 6 points7 points  (1 child)

The last scene made me more excited than the majority of the actual film (though I actually did enjoy it, despite its pace).

Maybe too many Marvel films has warped my mind, but was Spielberg setting up the sequel in the last few minutes?

[–]TheTrueRory 15 points16 points  (0 children)

It's actual the opening film from All the President's Men, basically. Perfect film to watch after this.

[–]jkha17 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's quite a relevant film in these times (esp with the current US President's ongoing war against a critical news media), but artistically too tepid. And to someone who is already aware of the history of the Pentagon Papers, Daniel Ellsberg etc and attuned to issues of freedom of the press, it really has nothing new to offer with its cliches...I'd recommend it though to people who are oblivious of politics/history, since it could be a good starting step to develop some feeling and passion about these issues

[–]BoxedWineGirl 6 points7 points  (3 children)

I left feeling "meh" about this movie.

The last 45 minutes or so were great, but it really dragged until then. And I'm someone who likes a slow burn of a drama... but to me I never felt like anyone had stakes. I know she did because it was her family paper but I didn't feel like there was a larger backstory of why she cared about the paper other than owning it, why she cared about the truth, etc. We know her son went to war but it barely registered as a one line throwaway.

I don't know. I also felt like, especially for a Spielberg film, it was painful how poorly done the sets were. You could tell so clearly they were on a studio lot in the streets of New York. The protest scene was so fake it hurt. I don't know, the sanitized nature of everything took my out of the viewing.

But the last part was good. I don't know, I feel like they could have cut 25 minutes out and i would have liked it but I'm only glad I saw it since it's nominated for the Oscar's

[–]shadowCloudrift 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That was something I didn't get, how did Kathy decide to go through with publishing the papers? The son line was very throwaway like you said, and she had a lot to lose especially when she pour out her fears to her daughter.

[–]BoxedWineGirl 0 points1 point  (1 child)

My other hot take is that this was nominated for Best Picture over I, Tonya was a mistake

[–]Deathsuxdontdie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wait, that's a hot take? I just thought that was a scientific fact.

[–]MotherBeef 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Saw it yesterday, it was certainly watchable but I left feeling a little underwhelmed. It was relying really hard on Hanks and Streep, yet Streep's character was so basic that I never was blown away. The whole movie just felt 'safe' and I never felt that same level of interest or investment as I did in say, Spotlight.

Weird movie, I would tell people its decent but to not expect anything great. The movie kinda just...happens.

[–]mlk960 -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

I honestly hated this movie just because it was trying so hard to be artsy.

[–]prostitutepiss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL. What? It was pretty straight forward movie making. What made it too "artsy" for you?

[–]ElTuco84 26 points27 points  (2 children)

I loved this movie, I live in Venezuela and used to work in a local tv station banned by the regime, it touched a nerve in me. I'm disappointed by some of the comments here, I guess you don't know what you have until you lose it.

The right for free press must not be taken for granted.

[–]polocolo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can find shitty a film about free press without disregarding free press in any way. why the confusion? I only saw comments about how the film let down its viewers, I didn't read anything about how "unimportant" the freedom of press is.

[–]H0kieJoe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Likewise, the press must no abrogate their commitment to telling the actual truth. The mainstream press simply isn't what it used to be. The 24hrs news cycle and internet sensationalism have combined to make conventional press outlets more like E! and less like Brinkley or Concrite.

That said, I absolutely agree with you that freedom of the press (and free speech) is crucial to a free country. However, the signal-to-noise ratio is ridiculous at times. That's why no one news agency is my source. I read articles from various perspectives from a news aggregation service on the internet.

[–]utopista114 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I liked this more when it was centered on the whistleblower, it was a real-life documentary and it was called "Citizen Four".

[–]Aileos 3 points4 points  (7 children)

Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep were amazing in this movie. You understand immediately that you have legends here.

[–]Devaginey 7 points8 points  (6 children)

Out of curiosity, what did you find amazing about their performances? I felt like they were just thrown into basic roles and played them well, but they were still basic. That is my opinion, but I am by no means a movie critic.

[–]prostitutepiss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Streep conveyed so many different emotions with subtlety and showed so many sides to her character and psyche without actually having to overact or spell out for audiences what she was going through.

[–]GourdGuard 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I expected a lot from both actors. Streep was decent throughout the move and I think she did a great job in the big scene where she finally takes control and decides to publish.

Hanks... was distracting. I never was able to stop seeing Tom Hanks and it kind of ruined his character for me.

The worst scene for me was their breakfast scene. It almost felt like each side was shot on different days. They didn't seem to be playing off each other at all.

[–]SitrukSemaj 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Hit the nail on the head regarding the breakfast scene. Really not an inspiring way to begin the movie.

[–]SpoopyButthole 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Felt the same way. If the film had been like that the entire time, I might not have gone through and finished it.

[–]zoethebitch 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I agree with you. The acting was adequate for the roles but I never felt blown away. Like with Sally Hawkins in The Shape of Water.

The most powerful scene in the movie for me was when Katherine Graham was walking through the crowd of women outside the Supreme Court.

[–]MatttheBruinsfan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The most powerful scene in the movie for me was when Katherine Graham was walking through the crowd of women outside the Supreme Court.

For me it was when Kay Graham shut Parsons down by telling him that she wasn't talking to him at that moment. Up until then she'd been kind of wishy-washy and meekly let the other board members tell her what she should do; in that moment you saw her realizing her power and taking control of the company.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

All in all a good movie, won't be watching it again. Not what I expect from Spielberg, the dude can direct brilliantly in his sleep, and that's what he did on this movie.

Hanks was miscast. There's an constant disadvantage while casting that role, everyone will have Jason Robards in their head, that character is fucking iconic. Not even for a single second did I buy that role. He was too "nice" for that role. I didn't see a newspaper editor in Hanks, I didn't see his leadership skills. I could see people getting scared of Robards in All The Presidents Men, I could see him motivating people. I think even Hanks phoned it in. Maybe a Liev Schreiber or Crowe or even DDL (if he could've gotten him).

Taking the point of view from Streep's character was a mistake. I thought the most interesting thing in the movie was the friendly rivalry between Hanks and Stuhlbarg. Also Mathew Rhys character was more interesting. Should've stuck with him more. Streep's character was boring. She should've been supporting at best. Instead of revolving the story around Streep and Hanks, should've been an ensemble story like Spotlight with few people getting their character arc's.

Also I got out of the movie at two places. When Hanks get's a call from Assistant Attorney General and Streep and Letts were there in the scene. It was a oner, but when the Hanks hangs up the call, the camera is on the phone, then it cuts to close up on Hanks, Streep and Letts (great blocking), it was obvious they used a different take, I think originally, the camera was supposed to pan up to that close up. Second was when Stuhlbarg receives the envelope, it was an obvious cut from a oner.

How great was Lett's? 2 Best picture nominations in a single year. Polar opposite of his role on Lady Bird.

The scene where Hanks shows Streep the other papers was brilliant. Even the scene where Coon's character reads out a justice's decision, what a brilliant scene. Would have killed it 20 years ago. But now things have changed, we need more subtly.

The way they recreated the offices of The Post was brilliant... Felt like it popped out of All The President's Men. Very nicely recreated.

[–]Vitamin-A- 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I have read several comments about how the ending was odd, or felt a bit too on the nose or heavy handed. On the flip side, I really liked the ending. I was thinking how well timed it was (obviously intentionally) with whats going on, and how history is doomed to repeat itself if we aren't careful and learning from it. It went from one scandal to the next - kind of like: we got through this, it took all this courage, and then BAM, we got hit with another. Only luckily (for us as viewers) we have hindsight, and know how that ended. I am not at all political - but it definitely had me considering the current state of politics, the agenda of he who sits in the white house, and how the phone conversations of Nixon (where one man truly thought he was the state, and not serving the state) are just too similar for comfort from the banning of certain media outlets from press-breifings.

Overall, I thought this movie was a solid 7 or 8. Certainly not the best 2017 had to offer (for me, that was Blade Runner or Molly's Game) but I enjoyed it.

[–]RedundantOxymoron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was old enough to remember this history. I was in high school when it happened. When the security guard Frank Wills finds the tape on the door to the Democratic National Committee headquarters, I started laughing, because that was the next thing that happened, the Watergate burglary.

[–]wintermute15 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree - the ending ties in well with the beginning of All The President's Men, making this movie almost like a companion piece or even prequel.

[–]Lewis_Cipher 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Spielberg phoned this one in. He took what should have been a very interesting, timely story and made it boring. The dialogue was meh, the camera work was uninspired and the score (from John Williams, no less) was forgettable. Honestly, I thought that Odenkirk probably had the most interesting performance, even though everyone is only buzzing about Streep/Hanks.

2017 was an extremely competitive year. I understand that the Academy is apparently obligated to give noms to Spielberg, Streep, and Hanks, but I'll be very disappointed if anybody actually wins anything for this one.

[–]zwhitbuck 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree 100% that he was phoning this one in. The camera work and film overall was cookie-cutter. He just got a bunch of amazing actors to due a sub-par telling of this story. The only shots that really stood out for me are when the group is arguing with the lawyers in the house as Tom Hanks is walking from the phone to the kitchen and when they open the box that contains all of the top secret documents. Outside of those two shots and some good acting by amazing actors it was an incredibly boring movie.

[–]control_09 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He did this during the post-production for ready player one.

[–]mikeyshaw67 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The post is an interesting movie that holds attention but there is minor misconceptions like the financial talk and the fact that journalists held extreme amounts of wealth as shown in the several restaurant and home shots. Another big issue is Meryl Streep plays someone who is not very smart and even though she plays the role well, it is definitely different. Overall I feel the movie is a strong seven because Tom Hanks and Bob Odenkirk steal the show.

[–]fancyfrenchtoilet 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There's an old rumor that Steven Spielberg directed The Lost World via phone, while in another state. You could say the same about The Post and I'd probably believe it. Whether or not he literally did this, he definitely phoned it in.

I came in ready for this to be a boring, "adult" movie, a la Goodnight and Good Luck. That kind of tweedy, low-key movie that venerates and lionizes 60s media figures. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours, if you go in knowing what to expect. The Post, at its best, is a slightly-lame version of that.

Also, I'm convinced Donald Trump thought being the president was the same as being Kay Graham. He expected to just live in a big, fancy house, host a party every day, and have a bunch of celebrities constantly visit to ask his permission to do things.

[–]dirtymick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just saw it last night. The whole thing felt very slapdash, kind of cobbled together. There were lots of weird uses of greenscreen where you could tell folks' schedules didn't align. I couldn't tell if it was Hanks' movie, Streeps, or it was supposed to be ensemble. The story assumed the viewer already knew a lot of the history, so seemed to gloss over some moments that could have been unpacked better. There was just enough screen time for the rest of the cast to make you interested in their contribution, but their development never got past a name drop and scenes of furious phonecallery. Overall, a meh out of meh rating.

[–]smokestacklightnin29 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Meth Damon as Roger Clark

Brilliant

[–]utopista114 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For a moment I could not understand if he was Meth or Matt. Really.

[–]Codependentte 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Saw it last night and still thinking about it, so I gave it an 8. I thought the selection of background stories portrayed, combined with the overall historical view, and the atmospherics all combined with the triple black diamond expert- level acting worked really well to show this historical event.

I read the Katherine Graham autobiography a while ago. What a life. She really was an historical figure, and rose to the occasion despite being a product of the times. She came from a privileged white southern background, and was thrown into the world of 1960's men to be their boss after her husband, who everyone loved, committed suicide. So I don't quibble with this being her story. She deserves it.

The other aspect was that Washington was a small town. So the press wouldn't report on the politicians unfavorably. They were at dinner parties and knew each other's children. So reporting on MacNamara was another conflict. (No one liked Nixon it seems.) But, she was an outsider as a woman, and perhaps that's why she made the decision to publish.

The movie portrays her as a female whistleblower, at great personal risk. The movie portrays Ben Bradley as trying to get personal glory by being the cowboy who isn't going to be pushed around by the Nixon whitehouse, and would gladly let her go to jail.

All this is framed in the newspaper era, with printing presses and delivery of bundles, and Royal typewriters, smokey offices and Xerox machines and steel file cabinets and pay phones. Time deadlines. And struggling financials. Arguments over morals versus sales.

The acting was terrific, of course, with the big names. The acting for the young lawyers and interns should also be called out, as these were memorable roles, kind of the canaries in the coal mines.

The movie pulls you into this world, from a high vantage point, and show how the right decisions are not easy. Timely lesson.

[–]EffectiveFilm 6 points7 points  (2 children)

I mean it was good, but I wouldn’t consider this to be in the conversation of best picture. This was total Oscar bait and the academy fell for it.

This was an okay Spielberg film. I’d rank it towards the middle of his filmography. I’m a pretty big history buff and was pretty excited to see this, but left kinda disappointed.

The ending scene with Watergate that basically leads into All The Presidents Men was great though.

70/100

[–]zoethebitch 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Film trivia about the movie All the President's Men: In the scene at the very beginning of the movie that shows Frank Wills the security guard discovering the break-in at the DNC HQ, Frank Wills was played by Frank Wills. He played himself in the movie.

[–]RedundantOxymoron 0 points1 point  (0 children)

JaQwan Kelly played Frank Wills in The Post. He was credited as "Watergate Security Guard."

[–]BackOff_ImAScientist 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Of the Spielberg civics lessons this one was the worst of the bunch. Still good because Spielberg is still Spielberg but it felt like they could have done another draft on everything.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Logan got snubbed for this. I'm not surprised or angry, just predictably disappointed. At least most of the other nominations this year have been solid.

[–]prostitutepiss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL Logan. Yeh the X-kids scene at the end was movie making magic. LOL.

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

This was vasty better than Logan.

[–]supermanbluegoldfish 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Just saw it, was predictably underwhelmed. I wish Spielberg would take his time rather than cranking out movie after movie, this one just felt completely thrown together, with the best of the best to make up for the fact: Meryl Streep, Tom Hanks, famous side characters (Bob Odenkirk and David Cross...why?).

Mainly though, I thought it was fascinating how this was essentially the same movie as Spotlight - same plot, same conflict: corrupt super power is covering up a scandal, intrepid journalists uncover the story and fight for it to go to press. Only everything works in Spotlight, only some of the stuff works in The Post - which sucks, given that the topic is still pretty interesting in and of itself.

There's also more twists and turns in Spotlight, we watch them uncover the story bit by bit - in The Post the story is set from the opening 30 minutes, all there is to do is to decide whether to publish or not...so we get scene after scene of handwringing and people talking about the pros and cons of going to print...which is frustrating, because it's slow, you know they're going to, and then the consequences barely seem to happen. What should be the third act (the government's response) is condensed into a footnote.

I don't know, this movie felt like wasted potential.

[–]Raziel66 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Just watched it last night. I thought it was ok. It depicted an event I honestly wasn't very familiar with, which was cool, but I didn't really feel any tension or attachment to the characters in the film. It ended and I thought "cool, that's a thing that happened."

I dunno... I didn't hate it but I didn't love it. I feel like most of the press and hype around is just due to Trumps whole "fake news" thing and news outlets standing up to him. The movie seemed like a clear commentary on that, especially with the ladies dramatic phone recitation of the supreme court decision.

[–]KieRanaRan 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Saw this today. Quite enjoyed it, although I was confused by the very end. I couldn't make out what the security guy said and feel like I missed a reference. Can anyone fill me in?

[–]fletchindubai 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It was the infamous breaking at the Watergate Hotel.

If you go and watch All The President's Men then it continues the story from where The Post ended.

[–]Raziel66 4 points5 points  (0 children)

He caught Nixon's goons breaking into the Watergate. It was a huge political scandal that they teased right after depicting the scandal around the Vietnam report. The security guard was calling the cops and just said something along the lines of "there's a break in at the watergate"

[–]Gain007004 7 points8 points  (2 children)

Just saw it and it kinda reminded me of Hidden Figures last year: cool source material (particularly relevant in America these couple of years), mediocre film-making. It didn't feel genuine or authentic, parts of it were cringey af.

I find this the best work Meryl Streep has done since Angels in America, though. She was far more subtle and understated in this role than her previous 20, which worked. Tom Hanks was really vanilla, however.

[–]supermanbluegoldfish 5 points6 points  (1 child)

parts of it were cringey af,

I can't believe they thought the Nixon guy miming in the White House window was a good idea...especially at the end when they just play the "evil music". That was pretty cringey.

[–]utopista114 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Looks like an homage to the shadow journalist in "Citizen Kane", and yes, it was cringey.

[–]DeathbyOstrich 10 points11 points  (0 children)

The fact that this got an Oscar nom for Best Picture and Streep for best actress just shows how political they've gotten , how terrible the choices offered from Hollywood are, and how Oscar bait works so well in a town that just wants to promote itself. This was GARBAGE compared to The Florida Project, 3 Billboards, and Ingrid Goes West.

[–]inasimplerhyme 3 points4 points  (7 children)

I quite enjoyed the film, but after sitting through the credits, I'm baffled as to why there's at least 20 stunt people listed. What scene am I forgetting?

[–]Superpineapplejones 8 points9 points  (3 children)

Your forgetting the opening Vietnam scene.

[–]MatttheBruinsfan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Probably needed stunt coordination to have people in that giant pressroom and not get one of America's Treasures eaten by a conveyor belt.

[–]inasimplerhyme 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yes! That's what I forgot. Thank you!

[–]Superpineapplejones 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yea I understand if you forgot it. Felt like a completely different movie.

[–]baronspeerzy 7 points8 points  (2 children)

There are a few parts with people running full-speed across crowded spaces, sometimes carrying heavy packages.

[–]Sharpes_Sword 1 point2 points  (1 child)

And some even run straight across the street, nearly getting hit by a car. Only a stunt-person could be good enough for this kind of a work.

[–]baronspeerzy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Correct. Insuring a stunt person is far less pricey than insuring an actor.

[–]p_toad 2 points3 points  (1 child)

What purpose did cutting off the page numbers and the "top secret" marking serve?

It seems like everything was in order in the hotel room, how/why did they get out of order?

[–]DDaddyDunk 4 points5 points  (0 children)

By cutting off the TS markers they can feign ignorance if those documents were eventually made public and they were questioned about their participation. You'd be surprised at the number of times classified material was found in personal garbage bins purely because the classification marker was still present. Remove the marking, and only those that know it is classified would know to report it. Bringing all those documents together to comb through would have been nearly impossible if there was TOP SECRET sprawled all over each document because each person that came into the room would be liable to report their existence (like the lawyers or law enforcement).

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

How many times did a phone-ringing mark the end of a conversation, interaction, or scene?

[–]allthebacon_and_eggs 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I didn't care for this movie and it honestly should have been a slam dunk for someone like me. I like all the actors, I'm a Spielberg fan, and I like the subject matter. I am having a difficult time remembering a movie that was edited worse than this one that was supposed to be high-caliber. There were countless times that i thought "why are we watching this scene?" "Why did he pick THAT camera angle? It seems weird for this scene." "I need to look away because the text is moving by the screen so quickly it's making me nauseous trying to read it." (Why show us newspaper headlines if you don't give us any time to read them?) There were also several "emotional" scenes that felt tacked-on and unearned. I was totally unmoved by Streep and Alison Brie's conversation in the bedroom about the husband's suicide; and then unmoved again at the climax where Carrie Coon announces the SCOTUS decision. Coon's character is barely touched on and hardly has any dialogue. Plus, given the message of the movie (that women were often excluded and looked down on in the workplace), it struck me as bizarre that the male characters who are more senior than her would have allowed her to read it or that anyone would have contacted her first. I thought during this scene, "I am supposed to be moved by this. This is where Spielberg wants me to cry." Also, I actually laughed out loud in the closing scene where it turns out to be...WATERGATE!!! That reminded me of a superhero franchise movie, where the closing scene is actually a "cliffhanger" to get you interested in the upcoming sequel (The Post 2: Watergate Boogaloo), which was tonally bizarre for a straight Prestige Drama.

In short, I felt like i saw the first draft of this movie and would have liked to have seen what they would have come up with had they spent more time editing it.

Another critique: I feel like I am (early 30s) at the younger end of people who know this story and the people involved well enough to understand who most of the people were. However, I think Spielberg makes a LOT of assumptions that the audience already knows who all the people are that will be alienating to younger people. For example, he doesn't name Robert McNamara until several scenes in, assuming you must know that the Secretary of State at the time was him. Older people will have no problem, but even though I'm familiar enough with the story, I had to think to myself, "Hmm. I THINK that's Bob McNamara, but I'll wait and see." Spielberg is casting himself well as the Director Who Makes Movies Your Dad Likes But You Think Are Just OK. Generational directorial assumptions like this one further solidify that reputation.

The biggest asset of this movie was Meryl Streep (surprise, surprise). Even with lousy editing, the audience still knew exactly what Kay's motivations were, why she made the choices she did, and what her conflicts were. That's actually really remarkable in a movie as poorly edited as this one.

[–]twizzwhizz11 5 points6 points  (7 children)

Not much else new to say - I liked it but think All The President's Men is a better overall film (and maybe more compelling subject matter), but I like the connection between the two.

Loved the shots of the newspaper getting printed and how they created the typeset for the letterpress, etc.

Most of the people in my theater cheered when Kay said, "I'm talking to Ben" after Arthur interrupted and disrespected her for the umpteenth time in the movie. For me, it was one of the most powerful moments of a great, feminist movie.

[–]utopista114 2 points3 points  (0 children)

a great, feminist movie

Oh boy.

[–]Unseen_but_heardYYES 2 points3 points  (4 children)

ive been thinking of watching all the presidents men. is it really as good as it sounds?

[–]zoethebitch 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Watch it immediately. The Post is an adequate movie. All the President's Men is outstanding.

Several years ago I showed it to my high school aged son who is more into shoot-em-ups and video games. He thought it was excellent even though it's far outside his wheelhouse.

It's fantastically well made, written and acted and it holds up very well even decades after its release.

[–]twizzwhizz11 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yes - one of my favorite movies and a really well-done movie. Hoffman and Redford are great in it. If you liked this movie, you'll definitely like All the President's Men - more intense and a lot more journalistic investigation in that one too.

[–]Unseen_but_heardYYES 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! Definitely will see it

[–]DeathbyOstrich 6 points7 points  (0 children)

eeewwwh. this isn't a great feminist movie.

[–]bamv9y2000 4 points5 points  (4 children)

I liked the film. I couldn't help but smirk at how it ended - it was as if they gave it the Marvel cliff-hanger twist ending, but for the next embarrassing chapter of American history.

One thing that flew over my head though: I did not understand their nervousness about being legally held in contempt for sharing the same source. Can somebody explain how having the same news source would be a legal liability?

[–]lordcheeto 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The injunction the Justice Department received against the New York Times barred the NYT, their source, and anyone working with them from publishing the documents. Based on the wording, since they had the same source, they were also barred from publishing.

[–]quinncuatro 2 points3 points  (1 child)

I actually didn't like the cliff-hanger. The Post stood perfectly on it's own, and now there's this idea that there might be a sequel.

[–]ifhairsbewires 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yeah I didn't really need that to be honest. Has the weird sequel vibe to it, and it just felt like they were trying to hammer it home that Nixon really was an asshole, jut in case we thought what he did in regards to The Post and The Times wasn't so bad.

[–]arcangeltx 3 points4 points  (0 children)

collusion

secret or illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to cheat or deceive others

[–]IntrovertedPendulum 6 points7 points  (6 children)

I feel like the movie would have been better if the ended just after the 6-3 verdict was announced, but before the quote was relayed over the phone. As it is, I felt like it was good for the first 75% then turned the ham up for the last quarter just in case someone in the theater didn't get the message.

[–]Sharpes_Sword 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The quote was pretty important and I think they had to have it.

[–]IntrovertedPendulum 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Was it? I don't think it was. It felt very heavy-handed and without subtlety.

[–]Sharpes_Sword 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When we analyzed this supreme court case back when I was in school, we discussed the quote, so I thought it was important.

I felt like 75% of the movie was kind of heavy-handed to be honest though.

[–]RevengeOfTheDwarfPig 5 points6 points  (2 children)

The quote was fucking cringeworthy levels of cheese.

[–]thejealousone 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The quote is a real one though

[–]RevengeOfTheDwarfPig 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know, it's just the delivery & scene were way too over the top.

[–]TJeffersonsBlackKid 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Lol at the cast listings actually saying “Meth Damon”.

[–]dackots 4 points5 points  (8 children)

We get it. Democracy dies in darkness, the only way to protect the right to publish is to publish, journalists are the real heroes, any White House that censors the press is evil. We get it. I don't need two hours of hokey lines and hack midscene cuts to spoon-feed me that message.

The cinematography was overdone and overly dramatized for no reason. It was such intense build-up to see Meryl Streep say two words or Tom Hanks reveal an arm full of newspapers. The acting was fine, but it seemed like everyone was phoning this in, Spielberg especially. He apparently directed this and Ready Player One at the same time, and that doesn't surprise me. This feels very much like a piece of art that didn't have the full attention of the person making it, and I'm worried that Ready Player One will have the same feel, and that we'll get two half-assed movies instead of one full-assed one.

3/10.

[–]fede01_8 0 points1 point  (4 children)

The cinematography was overdone and overly dramatized for no reason.

you really have no fucking idea what cinematography is

[–]dackots 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I do, actually, but great point. You really got me with that zinger.

[–]fede01_8 0 points1 point  (2 children)

no zinger. what you said makes no sense

[–]dackots 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It makes perfect sense, but thank you for a non-substantive reply to a 2-month-old comment. You're doing the Lord's work, keep it up.

[–]fede01_8 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It makes perfect sense,

...

non-substantive reply

lol

[–]MatttheBruinsfan 1 point2 points  (2 children)

We get it. Democracy dies in darkness, the only way to protect the right to publish is to publish, journalists are the real heroes, any White House that censors the press is evil. We get it. I don't need two hours of hokey lines and hack midscene cuts to spoon-feed me that message.

Then you're probably not the person the message was intended for.

[–]fatman_cx___ 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It was intended for spank material for /r/politics users

[–]prostitutepiss 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So... real Americans.

[–]Em2pag 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Definitely a little “heavy handed” at times, but overall an enjoyable film.

[–]MidEastBeast777 17 points18 points  (5 children)

The scene with the secretary tearing up after delivering the speech from the guy on the phone was the cheesiest and corniest shit I've seen in years.

Also, I really hate how Spielberg chooses to have like 50 scenes end after someone says "we need to look at this" "there's a problem" "look in the box then cut to next scene". It feels like a very outdated directing technique.

[–]BananafishGlass 9 points10 points  (4 children)

Honestly, I feel that way about Spielberg in general. He's a good director still, but it all feels very...outdated.

[–]quinncuatro 4 points5 points  (3 children)

To be fair, he kind of set the stage for modern directing.

[–]BananafishGlass 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Oh, absolutely. He's incredibly influential and important.

But, it's like the Beatles.

They laid the ground work. But because so many other artists have been inspired by them and have built on their craft, the original artists now seem simplistic and outdated.

[–]eyeaim2missbehave 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Listen to Sgt. Peppers, Abbey Road and The White Album again. I don't know how you can say those are simplistic and outdated.

[–]DeathbyOstrich 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Beatles are overrated.

And this entire film felt OLD.

[–]goteamnick 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I saw it in a cinema full of retired women, who murmured at every slight of Meryl Streep's character, then applauded at the end. Far be it from me to suggest r/movies is a fanboy hivemind, but I feel most people in this thread don't understand what makes the movie so true to life.

[–]edwartica 9 points10 points  (3 children)

I was really unhappy with Meryl Streep in this movie. She really lowered the bar for herself in this one. It was very clear to me I was watching her, and not her character in this film.

[–]ifhairsbewires 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I thought she was good, but she was trying to play this unsure of herself, somewhat vulnerable woman, and that didn't always come off as genuine for me because I kept just seeing this very sure of herself, not very vulnerable, will probably survive the nuclear apocalypse Meryl Streep.

[–]prostitutepiss 1 point2 points  (1 child)

She was VERY good. Lots of subtlety in her performance. Lots of conveying her character without outright saying or showing some hamfisted acting emotion.

[–]ifhairsbewires 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I think she was good, I just struggled at times because it was Meryl. I know that's on me rather than her though.

[–]KokiriEmerald 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Can we talk about the year Michael Stuhlbarg had? He had a pretty small role in this movie but he we fantastic in Call Me by Your Name and Shape of Water, especially Call. That's 3 huge movies/award contenders in a span of a few months.

[–]LabyrinthConvention 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Shape of Water

ty! now i can stop calling him round face Joaquin Phoenix

[–]Vitamin-A- 1 point2 points  (1 child)

haha I didn't know that was the description I was searching for. But now that you've said it - thats exactly how to describe him.

[–]LabyrinthConvention 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I saw shape of water first and didn't make the comparison. But for some reason in Post I couldn't help checking for phienix's lip scar every shot...I was almost sure it was he

https://www.biography.com/.image/ar_1:1%2Cc_fill%2Ccs_srgb%2Cg_face%2Cq_80%2Cw_300/MTE5NTU2MzE2NTg3NzIyMjUx/hbos-boardwalk-empire-season-three-new-york-premiere.jpg

[–]lukaeber 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Did anyone else feel like Tom Hanks didn't really work in this role? He wasn't awful, but it feels like he plays every character the same way. Really starting to think he is quite overrated as an actor.

Streep, on the other hand, deserves all the accolades she has gotten.

I really like this movie, although not as much as I was hoping I would. Seemed like pretty standard Spielberg fair. I was hoping for something a little better.

Also, I've got to think there is a lot of revisionist history going on here. Certainly Katharine Graham is a great role model, and I'm sure it took quite a bit of courage to back Bradlee during the company's public offering, but to portray her as the central hero of this story fighting against the patriarchy trying to pull her strings behind the scenes seems to be a bit of stretch. Nice story, but I highly doubt there is much truth to it. Seemed totally contrived as bait for Oscar voters.

[–]ifhairsbewires 1 point2 points  (0 children)

According to this article it seems like the portrayal was mostly faithful, with some events condensed; there were men around her who didn't think she was up to the task, but by the time the Pentagon Papers came along, she had been publisher for 8 years. Despite having done some journalism, her father passed over her and gave most of the stock to her husband because "no man should be in the position of working for his wife." Some parts were contrived, but that's movies I guess. Personally I thought the movie shared the balance well between Ben and Kay.

[–]arcangeltx 3 points4 points  (0 children)

His mouth bothered me the whole time haha

[–]edwartica 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I felt the same way about Meryl Streep. I was just way too aware of the fact that it was her. I feel like a lesser known actress would have filled the role more.

[–]ladylattemotif 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Certainly Katharine Graham is a great role model, and I'm sure it took quite a bit of courage to back Bradlee during the company's public offering, but to portray her as the central hero of this story fighting against the patriarchy trying to pull her strings behind the scenes seems to be a bit of stretch.

I totally agree, it was condescending. And she changes from unable to speak in a meeting to being a boss newspaper lady in what, two days?

[–]itsthedub 2 points3 points  (0 children)

He has been coasting for a while imo.

With that said, I still love his work.