Spotlight

[OldCorpse]

An interesting case - the role of the director. I enjoyed the film. Interesting subject matter, well paced, involving. Biggest thing: simply excellent acting from pretty much everyone, a real treat. However, it was directed in a very by-the-numbers way, to the point where it felt like the director was doing a sitcom. Which makes one think yet again about the role of the director in the success of a movie. Clearly in this case, the subject matter and the actors is what made this film successful.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

I also enjoyed the film. I thought it was very well done. It also struck me as a very simple film technically. Worked really well for me and set the content and acting up to shine.

 

[Jimmy Pierce]

Definitely agree about it being directed by the numbers. I read into the history a little bit, and think they left a a lot. At times it seemed to be skipping from one part of the story to the next without really dwelling on important details, just giving enough to move the film forward. A few scenes i think shows this especially is Mike Rezendes' (Mark Ruffalo) continuing research. Maybe I wasn't paying attention enough but I didn't see him DO a lot to validate his findings every time he returned to the Boston Globe with information. I know the team is called spotlight, but they kept saying it repeatedly either as a question or in excitement like it was their catch phrase ("spotlight!" or "spotlight?") and became almost parodic. It didn't have to be a series or a novel on film but it's no Network of newspaper movies for me.

It was still well done but I think could have been better.