( +9 hidden )
November 19, 2017 at 11:02 pm #1202415580
Two reviews on Letterboxd that are probably going to get taken down:
The occasionally canny dialogue and obvious directorial decisions (looking at you, Boring John Williams Score) notwithstanding, this is a good, lean picture about process, and the sometimes intersections, sometimes conflicts between loyalty, responsibility, and accountability—both in work, and in life. If not every performance is of equal quality (while he certainly isn’t terrible, Tom Hanks does strike me as trying terribly hard), it is a rare a delight these days to see Meryl Streep contribute to—color—a film, rather have to hold the thing together with her bare hands. Her performance and Bruce Greenwood’s are favorites.
You know, in 1975 I was very lucky to have gone to a public “sneak preview” of JAWS. That was an incredibly exciting event, a game changer, of course. Since then sneak previews have pretty much disappeared – at least as far as I know. I can’t remember going to any sort of preview to another Spielberg film since then, not for forty-two years. But tonight I did go, to an “invitational” preview for members of The Industry, for Spielberg’s latest film, The Post, about the publication of the Pentagon Papers, in 1971, especially the decision by The Washington Post and its owner, Katherine (Kay) Graham, to continue publishing material from the Papers after the New York Times had been enjoined from further publication. With Tom Hanks as the Post’s editor, Ben Bradlee, and Meryl Streep as Kay Graham.
Blah, blah, blah. What’s keeping me from telling you how wonderful a film this is? How impossibly good Meryl Streep’s performance is? This is a film where the elements that have been brought together are blended to such a peak of craft and talent that one shivers not only with the emotions of the scenes, but with the sheer joy of such a work of film.
I don’t want to pretend to be a critic. It’s not my job to articulate the experience in several hundred words, to adequately handle the threads of story-line, as well as the thematic elements which are so pressing as I write, of Freedom of Speech, of the strength of women and the resistance of men to that strength, and the willingness of men to – try! – to crush that strength.
Meryl Streep has won many awards, Steven Spielberg, too, and Tom Hanks, too. Who can say if they will again? But here’s a film where noone really should say, they don’t deserve it.November 19, 2017 at 11:14 pm #1202415584
I’m curious about which supporting performances standout. Is it Sarah Paulson? Bob Odenkirk? Matthew Rhys?
Also, until when is the review embargo for the film?November 19, 2017 at 11:15 pm #1202415585
THE POST …the most anticipated, OVERRATED movie of the year !
Three famous names will not be able to disguise the fact that the movie is a total bore-fest about a political cover up of a war that few people care about anymore …..not only will this movie NOT win best picture, it’s very likely to be a B O flop !November 19, 2017 at 11:19 pm #1202415586
Thank you Donald for your franknessNovember 19, 2017 at 11:45 pm #1202415608
You don’t know how to read between the lines !
The King is wearing no clothes !
This is the kind of ”important” movie that many will claim to have seen, where in reality few will venture into the dark recesses of a movie theatre for two hours to be patronised by SMUG self righteous liberals …I’d rather have a tooth yanked than endure this movieNovember 20, 2017 at 1:00 am #1202415659
It doesn’t really matter because of the political climate we are inNovember 20, 2017 at 2:51 am #1202415715
Nothing conclusive really came out tonight, but I do not need anything cleared up in terms of acting anyway.
Regardless of the film’s quality, Meryl Streep will get nominated. She always does, lest we forget last year’s Florence Foster Jenkins, a comedy that received only one other Oscar nomination, for costumes.
It was always an uphill battle for Tom Hanks and I have not had him in my predictions at any point this season, but his chances died when it was revealed that he had second billing. Nobody is ranking Hanks first because he already has two Oscars. He comes close every year though and this is a weaker year than most, so I entertained him as a contender. But a borderline supporting performance—Hanks is not going to miss top billing if he is a clear lead—is not going to get him a nomination when he has missed recently for two sole lead performances that legitimately deserved nominations, not to mention a showboat supporting part and a performance in a film that won an acting Oscar.
None of the supporting people are going to be nominated. People flipped out about Bob Odenkirk when the trailer came out because he was the only supporting actor who had scenes by himself. Really? Is that the bar these days? Bruce Greenwood emoted more. Any kind of split like that is not going to help, especially with this coming out so late. Sarah Paulson apparently does not have the material in the script and she is billed ahead of the supporting actors. But what about Spotlight? Mark Ruffalo was the top-billed actor in that film. He would not have had such juicy material if Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks were dominating his film. And despite his borderline leading role, his ticks, his Oscar clip, his having won a SAG Award the year before and the film winning Best Picture and SAG Ensemble, Ruffalo struggled in the precursors.November 20, 2017 at 2:57 am #1202415722
Someone (Daniel??) from Goldderby had to be there last night to record the Q&A videos that have been posted on YouTube. Any teas?November 20, 2017 at 4:59 am #1202415777
Don’t take my word for it, but as per the tea i got it’s apparently “…very good. Streep, Odenkirk and Hanks standouts, the score not so much, especially for a John Williams effort. Very talky, very paint by numbers, as with Bridge of Spies. It’s still Spielberg 2000’s, not Spielberg in his prime”.
I want official reactions/reviews. I don’t trust secret screening reactions. Especially after American Hustle and Joy.November 20, 2017 at 5:12 am #1202415779
Lol if The Post is “2000s Spielberg”, that’s fairly successful with the Oscars, not anything spectacular at all.November 20, 2017 at 5:55 am #1202415789
People flipped out about Bob Odenkirk when the trailer came out because he was the only supporting actor who had scenes by himself. Really? Is that the bar these days?
Forgetting the freakout and extremely nascent hope that Carrie Coon was going to snag a supporting actress nomination when she was first announced in the cast.November 20, 2017 at 6:08 am #1202415803
When does the embargo lift. I want REAL reviews. I mean it’s a film about freedom of speech/press, yet it won’t let people post reviews.November 20, 2017 at 6:16 am #1202415808
Even if Hanks is bad in this, I still think he hasn’t had it easier in terms of competition for a nomination in years (especially if you look at the snubs), and this COULD be the closest to a Best Picture winner from his last films. I also think that the thing that drove people away from him in the past (he’s a boring nice guy we can trust) could turn out to be an asset now that every actor seems to be a perv with these assault allegations lolNovember 20, 2017 at 6:22 am #1202415812
It’ll be tragic if Tom Hanks fails a third (arguably, fourth) time to get a nod for a category so dire.
Weird connection but Into the Woods screened around the same time a couple of years ago and the embargo lifted December 19th. So maybe The Post is lifted around that time or a little earlier.November 20, 2017 at 8:31 am #1202415915
Tom Hanks always felt like a natural three-timer to me. His two consecutive wins did not stop him from two subsequent nods. Enough time has past and the fourth decade is almost up without any Oscar nods to extend his record.