Excellent Movie, but get Both Sides of the Story
581557
Michael Moore always has a witty way to approach things such as his ice cream truck stunt (where he reads the PATRIOT act to congress through an ice cream truck's speakers because they didn't read it). It really get's you thinkin' which is good today because it seems that there is so much dribble on TV and in the movies, but his fight is very one-sided.

I suggest that anyone, be you Republican, Democrat or Green, that see's this movie also read what the Republican-Conservative enemy has to say as well. Slander-By Ann Coulter is a pretty fierce Conservative book that combats many of the things people like Al Franken and Michael Moore say. Just do your own research as well as watch this movie and develop you own opinion to the topics it brings up.
2017959
If you want the truth, you need to watch this
2381618
This excellent film should be seen by everyone -- particularly those looking for insight into why the U.S. has pursued the policy it has in the Middle East, and Iraq in particular. Consider this film to be anti-spin, helping to counter the various Bush administrations' myths and lies about Iraq and the motivations of our policy toward this country.
You will notice the only slightly veiled racism of some of the critical reviewers: "The Distributor is worth noting" says the reviewer from D.C. -- as if calling itself 'Arab Film Distribution' is something the distributor should be ashamed of. I mean, most normal people don't watch "Schindler's List" and say: "Oh look, Stephen Spielberg is a Jew! Gosh! Can't trust this film!" ... if you know what I mean.
Anyway, if the issue is supposed to be the film's objectivity, one should note instead that the filmmaker is from Switzerland, a neutral country. I would trust a Swiss journalist to report objectively about U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East a lot more than I would trust, say, Fox News (which provided targeting information to the U.S. military during the most recent Iraq war, totally destroying any credibility they may have had as objective journalists and seriously endangering their journalist colleagues), as that reviewer probably does.
In any case, great work, great film -- it's nice to know that this information is out there and readily available, any time you want to know part of actual history that you won't read in the official text.
4373625
I rarely purchase movies, but I did this one. Having been unfamiliar with how the Roman Catholic priest scandal broke as widely as it did I found Spotlight to be an eye-opening and riveting account of its revelation. I appreciated the film's fast-paced and factual approach and that it avoided sensationalism. I agree with its sleeper Best Picture Academy award.

It's hard to imagine now so many years later the impact that the story originally had especially breaking out in Boston, a predominately Catholic city. But the movie effectively brought the viewer back to 2001-02.

I think the best performances are Michael Keaton's and Stanley Tucci's.  Mark Ruffalo was good overall but I felt that a couple of his scenes near the end that although plausible as stand-ins for the viewers' outrage, struck me as gratuitous - his flare-up at Robby's delay and the scene on the porch with Sascha. I speed through them now on replay.

As to the Church, its lawyers and enablers' own despicable parts in the massive scandal, the film kept focus on the Globe's role and let viewer indignation rise over the facts.  I suppose that's why Ruffalo's part, to me, seemed a bit overplayed.

The Phil Saviano character was effective in demonstrating the long-lasting effect of ritual adult sex abuse on minors.  His frustration over institutional cover-up which included the Globe's earlier near-indifference in going after the full scope of the communal horror lent Spotlight an even-handedness the movie needed for complete credibility.

I liked Liev Schreiber's unruffled manner as the new editor-in-chief Marty Baron but not his delivery. It was hard to catch what he was saying as he was sometimes nearly mumbling. That seems common anymore in modern movies seeking to capture realism in the conversational tone of speech people have. But it makes them as bad as modern singers who leave their listeners in "Mondegreen land." In older movies (and songs for that matter) you could hear everyone articulating distinctly.  Baron was also one of the few characters not to use vulgarity. I don't need to hear it on the screen to understand strong negative emotion just because people do talk that way.  I'd drop my rating to 4.5 stars if I could over it but I don't think it deserves only a 4 either.

I'll watch this quite a few times yet, it's that good.
4547520
I can only reiterate much of what the other reviewers have already said. I really enjoyed the film, which is the bottom line. Yes, the acting is not very inspiring, Robert Taylor never did know how to act, but evidently was a pretty face at that point in time (I was born the year it came out.) But the Technicolor is gorgeous, and the story itself is a powerful one. If the movie makes anyone want to read the historical literature, then it is useful, as well as entertaining. My only gripe is that the disc itself seems to be flawed in its manufacture. I sent the first back and got a second, but it is the same flaw. The picture suddenly changes its dimensions as if it is about to "go out" and then suddenly straightens itself out. I've played both copies on multiple players, it is the same on each one. How do we contact the manufacturer to tell them of their quality control error?
813485
While this is a very good movie it also gives a very raw, realistic look at sex trafficking. Much more so than the recent Taken movies. Its sobering not only in that its based on true events, but that certain law enforcement organizations we would think trustworthy would be involved in this darkest side of abuse of women. I'll leave it there to keep from spoiling the plot for you - it really is a good film but I rarely cry at films and this one got to me. I'll often watch movies I love more than once, and this was definitely important to see I think but i'll never watch it again.  So, YES I'd recommend it (especially if you're a Rachel Weisz fan as I am), but please use your judgement before letting your kids watch it. It is UGLY, it does not hold back.  Heartbreaking, but very well done.
4390323
Superb!, And it stays close to the truth, but how could you invent anything more dramatic than the truth in this case? The interview with the late Louis Zamperini, who is the person the movie is about is very interesting and informative and well worth listening to. While it is set in WWII, in reality it is not a war movie as such. It is a movie about one man - two it you count "The Bird" his Japanese tormentor and the Bird's relentless attempts to break Louis. You need to see this one three of four times to really get the full meaning of it as  each time you seem to learn more about each character.
739611
Even if the facts are a bit off...Entertaining movie
4123003
Star Trek is very difficult to review, as it is on its own merits an excellent movie.  Very entertaining, good action, great characters, and is one of those great summer movies.  As such, I highly recommend it to movie goers.  However, as a star trek fan there's quite a few issues.  For instance (spoilers) has there ever been a star trek story where the plot involved someone going back in time and negatively altering history, where the crew didn't go back in time to fix it?  I mean, First Contact, City on the Edge of Forever, Yesterday's enterprise, the list goes on and on.  Here, they destroy the whole vulcan world, and decide just to stay in this altered timeline?  (END SPOILERS)  Also, the characters in some cases are very different.  Scotty wasn't really a silly crazy guy, but a respectable officer, and very capable.  Others are slightly different, but that's most likely a result of age, not the performances.  As such, the movie is very well made, but feels less like a star trek, and more like a great sci-fi movie.  I very much recommend watching this movie, but note that if you're a long time star trek fan, you're going to have some issues with it.
1445787
Here is a great story about a real-life person and ongoing social issues. It is about a Pennsylvania biker and former alcohol/drug-addict ex-convict, who is converted to Christianity, goes to Uganda and South Sudan, and decides to dedicate his life to saving children, building an orphanage there. His name is Sam Childers (played by Gerard Butler) and he intends to protect these children, some of whom are abducted by a militant group the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army), and he does so, no matter what it takes.

I will not discuss here the serious issue of "child soldiers" that has been around for many years, a topic that has been also taken up in such films as "Johnny Mad Dog" and "Blood Diamond." Director Marc Forster provides enough information for us to understand what Childers aka Machine Gun Preacher does to rescue the children in the social context of Africa and its political situations. The film includes several action set-pieces in which Childers fights back the attacking soldiers, but I think they are one or two too many. Violence is discreetly presented, but what is suggested is sometimes shocking.

Gerard Butler, charismatic as ever, carries the film throughout almost single-handedly. Audiences may either admire or dislike the character he plays, but either way they will be fascinated by his strong performance. Part shot in South Africa, the on-location photography is credible. Soulymane Sy Savan as Deng, a Sudanese telling Sam the harsh reality of his land is impressive.

But most supporting characters are underwritten. It seems the subplot of Sam's friend Donnie (talented Michael Shannon, wasted) is heavily shortened, and so does the back story of Sam's wife Lynn Childers (Michelle Monaghan), even though some (including me) may find her character more intriguing than Sam Childers himself. Kathy Baker as Sam's mother is almost non-existent.

Based on Sam Childers' memoir "Another Man's War" (which I haven't read), "Machine Gun Preacher" is an average biographical film with a powerhouse performance from the lead. But to really know this complicated character, perhaps we should read the book first.
1717820
I seem to fall between the two camps of critical reaction. The majority who feel this is a classic, great film,
or the sizable minority who call the film boring, historically inaccurate, and all surface. I lean strongly
to the positive, but I understand the complaints, e.g., being bothered that the film never really examines
how hated the French were for their earlier colonialism. That larger context is part of what makes these
Brothers targets. One passing mention is hardly enough to deal with a huge element of the underpinnings
of the story.

Exploring that would only make the Brothers seem even more brave and help us understand that they took
a huge risk just to be there even before things get 'bad'. At the same time it would make the hatred they
faced from the terrorists and the Army not just seem like random 'evil' but something that had roots.

To be clear, that hatred and violence is unforgivable. But understanding how something happened, or why
your enemy hates you is part of the path to peace. It is something these wise, well-read monks would have
known about and must have been part of their thoughts and discussions, though its largely avoided here.

I also agree that the film is slow in parts, sometimes needed to establish the rhythm of the monks' lives,
but other times getting repetitive with no seeming advantage.

In addition, besides the two main characters, the other monks are largely one-note sketches, and the
sudden turn around of those who wanted to leave - maybe the most fascinating action in the film - is
largely under explored. Some of the time spent used on repeated rituals or re-tread conversations could
have been used to deepen the understanding of those men and their heartrending confusion.

It also bothered me that those who wanted to leave are never given strong or convincing arguments.
They're almost made to seem cowardly, or 'wrong'. The film could have gone further in it's compassion
towards these men, understanding that this was a complex decision, even on a theological level. When
does God want us to martyr ourselves and when would God rather we not sacrifice the gift of life to find
a way to live to fight another day? I can think of a number of third choices between surrender and simply
running away. These men must have examined those options, but there is little sign of it here. I have no
problem with the film's conclusion, but I wish it had felt both sides presented with equal weight and
seriousness, as I assume must have happened among the real monks.

But my biggest problem is that the film's style, while inviting thought, is somewhat emotionally distancing, so
while my brain was deeply engaged, my heart was less so than I wish it was. I wanted to weep for these men
and for the world, but I found myself more caught in mind than in emotions. I believe the story was strong
enough to carry both sides.

Now, all that said, I still think, unlike many of the professional critics that raised these points, that this is a very,
very good film, made with intelligence and passion. It is visually simple but stunning to look at. Its slow pace adds
to the meditative feel that eschews inflating drama for its own sake, and allows us a taste of the peace these men
experience by living in their simple, giving way, even in the midst of war. And there are scenes of sheer brilliance,
where whole stories are told on peoples' faces with little or no dialogue. Scenes where a combination of photography
and acting capture a huge range of complex emotions. We watch fear, joy, transcendence, defeat, and loss run through
the hearts of these men within seconds of each other without a word needing to be said, That is film-making of a high order.

Ultimately, this is a film that deserves and needs to be seen. A plea for peace and courage in the face of hatred. But that
doesn't mean it isn't a flawed work, or that acknowledging those flaws dismisses those very good things the film does
accomplish.
2045736
Although this movie was based on "The Bible" miniseries that came out earlier and it has some of the same footage as that miniseries, it is nonetheless very well done, IMO.  Very nice to see a modern film about Jesus - one that wasn't done in the 1950s.  The acting in this movie was well done, and in particular the actor who played Jesus did an outstanding job.  Whether the actor's skin was the same color as the skin of Jesus is irrelevant, even though some people may try to argue otherwise.  If you read "the Book" first, you know the plot of the movie -- haha -- but it's one that is of the utmost importance to all mankind.  The movie will be very well received by Christians, I think, and is great for Evangelization.  At times this movie is very gripping and awe-inspiring.  The best part about it is that it represents real events, and a real Son of God who is alive today and calls us to follow Him.  People who think it is okay to be spiritual, but not religious, or that it's okay to follow tenets of various religions but to disregard Jesus' teachings, should keep in mind what Jesus said in John 14:6 -- "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."
1004656
Great movie, and while it is a difficult subject matter, there aren't any scenes that I found terribly hard to watch (as in, don't worry that you'll have to actually see actor's enacting scenes between children and abusers, there is nothing like that.)  It's a great movie if you like investigative reporting or movies about actual events, like The Big Short.  Excellent and important film.
3837946
This is an excellent film which rewards repeated viewings, whatever your politics. It's not a film that's opposed to the Iraq War itself, and it never properly addresses the rights and wrongs of the conflict. Rather, it's a depiction of what can happen to the individuals involved.

It's also a film with shifting perspectives. Tommy Lee Jones' character makes a lot of good calls-- and a few bad ones, just like the people he's working with. And the soldiers are not damned by any means-- they each achieve varying degress of redemption.

The fact that a film like this can come out while the conflict is ongoing and still find an audience is a tribute to the film industry, and The United States generally. Consider the Vietnam War and look at how long it took for Hollywood to start getting into those issues.

It's a tremendous, affecting film with spot-on performances, and strong messages, and it will stand the test of time.
2742913
The story shows the conflict Christians college students often face- how to respond to those who think Christians reject science and just blindly believe the "fairy tale" story of the creation in the book of Genesis.  The conflict is real, many assumptions about Christians are not.  There is an attempted scientific (very long) explanation given in the film as to how both the idea of creation involving evolution and millions of years can be reconciled with a six day belief in creation.  Just use time dialation and, voila, everyone now agrees, the students and teachers are now reconciled in belief, and everyone is happy.  The problem is that in reality that explanation can't resolve the conflict. There are bigger issues than just the time it took for the world we know to come about.  According to the Bible, death and evil entered the world as a consequence of Adam and Eve's sin against God.  That is the whole point of the Bible message of God providing a saviour.  If, as the movie's explanation says, evolution was true, then death entered before Adam and Eve showed up and therefore wasn't a consequence of sin and thus there's no need for a saviour to conquer sin and death.  There are several inconsistencies of thought elsewhere throughout the film.  There were a few insightful elements in the film that demonstrate the nature of mankind.  The film was valuable as a discussion of logical thought processes and how they are often violated. I do appreciate though the attempt to portray Christians as thoughtful, intelligent people.  There really are excellent Christian scientists.
3556678
I like that dvd releases make more movies available to the masses.  I never heard of this movie but I was glad to have the chance to view it.  The film did a very good job of telling a tough story - the trafficking of children.  It deals with one specific story of a young girl named Holly.  She was sold by her mother and ends up in Cambodia (she is from Vietnam) in a brothel.  She runs across an American (Ron Livingston) who is stirred by her plight.  He is a compulsive gambler who makes money through black market deals. I think it involves illegal artifacts but it is never made clear.  He is all too familiar with the darker side of life but when he is face-to-face with the child market, he is appalled but does what most of us do - he ultimately turns away.  He doesn't think he can change anything but his conscience makes him go back.  I'll leave the rest alone but I, also, had a problem with the uneven ending.  I detracted one star for the ending and some bland acting.

This movie tried to explain the problem as a cultural one.  This area is poor and girls' families have sold their children for decades for survival.  Girls have been brought up to understand the importance of sacrificing themselves for their families and that this gesture would ensure their next life was a good one.  Holly envisions her next life as a princess to help her deal with her fate.  These moments were poignant.

I recommend this film for the story that outshines everything else.  It tells a compelling tale of one girl's plight.
601928
I saw this movie in the theater opening day, and I, like everyone else in the theater, had no clue there would be a surprise ending, so we didn't get a chance to figure it out before it happened (because the moviemakers did  an incredible job hiding it, and until the second time through, you didn't  even catch the hints).
Unfortunately, there's now a lot of Sour Grapes  about people having figured out the ending before seeing the movie.  Don't  listen to them (and, better yet, DON'T think about the movie -- just watch  it)... it's still an incredible movie -- perhaps a little too slow for the  action/teen-flick/Scream crowd, but amazing for the fans of things like  "The Shawshank Redemption".
The acting is great.  And some of  the scenes will freak you out more than make you jump.
I recommend it  whole-heartedly.