An important story told very poorly. The direction is sub-par and the script is boring and self-important. Being timely doesn't mean you don't need characterization, narrative or dramatic tension. Meh.
I have to say I find The Post just a tad overrated. If you haven't seen it, it is the Oscar baity drama you would expect, but a very well-directed, well-shot, and well-acted one.
When it works, it is absolutely riveting. I'll find myself glued to the screen when the characters encounter a particular conflict.
But when it doesn't work, it's a bit of a slog. Particularly when sometimes writers Josh Singer and Liz Hannah feel the need for characters to explain what's going on in monologues and overlong conversations.
Back on the positive note, I found the ending EXTREMELY satisfying, and so did the theater in a nice round of applause.
I find it a bit overrated, in that I think its structure and rhythm are somewhat untypical for the genre and its climax too weak, but again, this is not All the President's Men and it's not as much about an investigative report as it is about moral choices.
What The Post does for sure is taking an empathetical stance towards women and their position: it is Graham who has everything to lose, and even though the very Hollywood-like ways in which this is underlined may seem redundant, maybe they are still necessary. The film seems to suggest that, though belittled even when holding roles of responsibility, women may lead the way to a different, less egotistical and egocentric way of shaping the social and political debate. This is debatable, but it’s a point that comes across clearly in various scenes: for example when Graham refuses to comment to the press while exiting court (in contrast to the New York Times' men), proceeding to go down the stairs among a literally "enlightened" crowd of women who look up to her; and in the choice of delivering the victorious verdict - to us, the public, and to the Post newsroom - not through the voice of a male judge, but through that of a female reporter. Victory and progress are of those who fight for them and defend their rights, they are not bestowed by patriarchal authority alone. And this is as true for press freedom as it is for gender equality.
I find the reviews a bit harsh on this movie. That is a biography based movie and it tries to shed some light into a time period. It is not boring at all. If you expect to see a Marvel Universe, may be then so.
Liked the casting and acting. I liked how Streep conveys the feelings. That lady is not overrated at all. Script may be a bit on the weak side however year and incidents are eye catching just by themselves.
The first half is a slow build to the very satisfying ending. There are also some poorly written and directed characters in the film and that was a bit of a disappointment.
A model of how a historical drama should be done. The Post takes about 1/3 its running time to get properly rolling, but that's in part because of its admirable willingness not to dumb down or oversimplify a complicated series of events. (For the opposite approach, look no further than its Best Picture competitor, The Darkest Hour.) But the suspense soon ratchets up, and even if you know the story in detail, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat.
Streep is fantastic as Graham, and I'd be glad to see her win another Oscar for this one. Hanks has less to do here, but does a better job with the abrasive Bradlee than I expected. And aside from a few clunky moments with Graham at the Supreme Court, it's an admirably restrained film from Spielberg, reining in the sentimentality that slightly marred some recent dramas like The Terminal or Bridge of Spies.
It's still no Spotlight, and there have admittedly been better movies this year, but I'd still highly recommend this one. 9/10
Sono riuscito a seguire poco la storia perché ci sono molti riferimenti a fatti che non conosco perché a scuola la mia insegnante spiegava con i piedi (infatti si è data malata l'ultimo mese di lezione perché si era infortunata alla caviglia). Inoltre è un argomento molto più sentito negli USA piuttosto che qui.
Comunque il concetto è abbastanza chiaro e, per chi volesse approfondirlo dal lato della Stampa, lo consiglio.
The prequel to All the President's Men, AKA The Post, is a timely film to be sure. Not only does it mirror the current White House's attacks on the media, with Nixon conspiring to keep the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing leaked documents about the Vietnam War and the decades-long cover-up they reveal, but it also chooses to make a woman the central focus of the story. There's still some journalistic action, but we the burden of the decision to publish or not always comes back to the Post's publisher who had fairly recently inherited the paper from her deceased husband (and as such shows the inevitable board room struggle - my female friends felt this resonated strongly with them). Spielberg assembles a strong cast and lets them do their thing, but the timeliness of it makes me think it was rushed into production. Some scenes feel unnecessary or are poorly integrated or given context, and while I'm always game for an aspirational journalism story or an inspirational woman's story, the script makes its points rather blatantly. When you're preaching to the choir, you don't need to hit them over the head with a hammer to get the right notes out. All a bit obvious for me.
If you suffer from insomnia, I've got great news for you. Just watch this film and I guarantee you will be snoring after 15 minutes. What a waste! Poor dialogues, great actors badly directed, etc etc. Tom Hanks needs to try harder next time, his role is way too monotonous.
Good entertaining movie. Unfortunately Streep and Hanks are in no way a representative of Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee. Graham vivacious and beautiful, Streep starting to look extremely frumpy. Hanks couldn't play Bradlee if his life depended on it. Not nearly the range and also the endearing charisma. Pretty much a stock Hollywood movie, nothing new.
Meryl Streep chews scenery in a cynical attempt to ride the wave of feminism to oscar glory. Not that we should expect less from the woman who publicly supports Roman Polanski - remember, its ok to excuse drugging and buggering 13 year olds to progress your career, and its ok to use an anti-sexual abuse movement as a vehicle to an oscar.
The film was nothing special, the main thing I took from it was that Streep is a cold, cynical and selfish woman. An ego on legs and a dangerous hypocrite who is cynically exploiting what should be an empowering movement by chasing awards for tokenism.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 14 of 14
BadFluffy
An important story told very poorly. The direction is sub-par and the script is boring and self-important. Being timely doesn't mean you don't need characterization, narrative or dramatic tension. Meh.ntan
I have to say I find The Post just a tad overrated. If you haven't seen it, it is the Oscar baity drama you would expect, but a very well-directed, well-shot, and well-acted one.When it works, it is absolutely riveting. I'll find myself glued to the screen when the characters encounter a particular conflict.
But when it doesn't work, it's a bit of a slog. Particularly when sometimes writers Josh Singer and Liz Hannah feel the need for characters to explain what's going on in monologues and overlong conversations.
Back on the positive note, I found the ending EXTREMELY satisfying, and so did the theater in a nice round of applause.
3/5
chunkylefunga
Tries to emulate all the presiden'ts men but falls short and just ends up being an average film.Afonso da Costa
9/10windysmiles
I find it a bit overrated, in that I think its structure and rhythm are somewhat untypical for the genre and its climax too weak, but again, this is not All the President's Men and it's not as much about an investigative report as it is about moral choices.What The Post does for sure is taking an empathetical stance towards women and their position: it is Graham who has everything to lose, and even though the very Hollywood-like ways in which this is underlined may seem redundant, maybe they are still necessary. The film seems to suggest that, though belittled even when holding roles of responsibility, women may lead the way to a different, less egotistical and egocentric way of shaping the social and political debate. This is debatable, but it’s a point that comes across clearly in various scenes: for example when Graham refuses to comment to the press while exiting court (in contrast to the New York Times' men), proceeding to go down the stairs among a literally "enlightened" crowd of women who look up to her; and in the choice of delivering the victorious verdict - to us, the public, and to the Post newsroom - not through the voice of a male judge, but through that of a female reporter. Victory and progress are of those who fight for them and defend their rights, they are not bestowed by patriarchal authority alone. And this is as true for press freedom as it is for gender equality.
Earring72
Low key absorbing real life historical (but still topical) political drama and the freedom of press.heat_
I find the reviews a bit harsh on this movie. That is a biography based movie and it tries to shed some light into a time period. It is not boring at all. If you expect to see a Marvel Universe, may be then so.Liked the casting and acting. I liked how Streep conveys the feelings. That lady is not overrated at all. Script may be a bit on the weak side however year and incidents are eye catching just by themselves.
catherinefrances
The first half is a slow build to the very satisfying ending. There are also some poorly written and directed characters in the film and that was a bit of a disappointment.All in all, worth the watch.
Shazaaaam
A model of how a historical drama should be done. The Post takes about 1/3 its running time to get properly rolling, but that's in part because of its admirable willingness not to dumb down or oversimplify a complicated series of events. (For the opposite approach, look no further than its Best Picture competitor, The Darkest Hour.) But the suspense soon ratchets up, and even if you know the story in detail, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat.Streep is fantastic as Graham, and I'd be glad to see her win another Oscar for this one. Hanks has less to do here, but does a better job with the abrasive Bradlee than I expected. And aside from a few clunky moments with Graham at the Supreme Court, it's an admirably restrained film from Spielberg, reining in the sentimentality that slightly marred some recent dramas like The Terminal or Bridge of Spies.
It's still no Spotlight, and there have admittedly been better movies this year, but I'd still highly recommend this one. 9/10
DaniloFreiles
Sono riuscito a seguire poco la storia perché ci sono molti riferimenti a fatti che non conosco perché a scuola la mia insegnante spiegava con i piedi (infatti si è data malata l'ultimo mese di lezione perché si era infortunata alla caviglia). Inoltre è un argomento molto più sentito negli USA piuttosto che qui.Comunque il concetto è abbastanza chiaro e, per chi volesse approfondirlo dal lato della Stampa, lo consiglio.
Siskoid
The prequel to All the President's Men, AKA The Post, is a timely film to be sure. Not only does it mirror the current White House's attacks on the media, with Nixon conspiring to keep the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing leaked documents about the Vietnam War and the decades-long cover-up they reveal, but it also chooses to make a woman the central focus of the story. There's still some journalistic action, but we the burden of the decision to publish or not always comes back to the Post's publisher who had fairly recently inherited the paper from her deceased husband (and as such shows the inevitable board room struggle - my female friends felt this resonated strongly with them). Spielberg assembles a strong cast and lets them do their thing, but the timeliness of it makes me think it was rushed into production. Some scenes feel unnecessary or are poorly integrated or given context, and while I'm always game for an aspirational journalism story or an inspirational woman's story, the script makes its points rather blatantly. When you're preaching to the choir, you don't need to hit them over the head with a hammer to get the right notes out. All a bit obvious for me.jm_london
If you suffer from insomnia, I've got great news for you. Just watch this film and I guarantee you will be snoring after 15 minutes. What a waste! Poor dialogues, great actors badly directed, etc etc. Tom Hanks needs to try harder next time, his role is way too monotonous.-1flb2-
Good entertaining movie. Unfortunately Streep and Hanks are in no way a representative of Katherine Graham and Ben Bradlee. Graham vivacious and beautiful, Streep starting to look extremely frumpy. Hanks couldn't play Bradlee if his life depended on it. Not nearly the range and also the endearing charisma. Pretty much a stock Hollywood movie, nothing new.Klondike Bongo
Meryl Streep chews scenery in a cynical attempt to ride the wave of feminism to oscar glory. Not that we should expect less from the woman who publicly supports Roman Polanski - remember, its ok to excuse drugging and buggering 13 year olds to progress your career, and its ok to use an anti-sexual abuse movement as a vehicle to an oscar.The film was nothing special, the main thing I took from it was that Streep is a cold, cynical and selfish woman. An ego on legs and a dangerous hypocrite who is cynically exploiting what should be an empowering movement by chasing awards for tokenism.