There are a couple of different ways to start the review for Spotlight. I could talk about the cast (quite possibly the ensemble cast of the year). I could talk about the hypocrisy that is organized religion. I will mention both of these in this post. But I will start with the old-fashioned newspaper reporting that used to be our number source of reliable news. In many ways, it is unfortunate that newspapers aren’t what they used to be, nor will they ever be again. With the invention of the Internet, it was only a matter of time before most newspapers folded while others had to majorly trim their staff, editions, and the number of pages produced with each issue. Where will The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, and The New York Times be in 20 years? Well, if the changes in the previous 20 years are any indication, I’m not sure these newspapers will even be around in 20 years. If they are, they might be entirely electronically based. There will still be a place for prominent metropolitan newspapers, but it will not be in the print variety. There are still things that I am interested in in the Washington DC area that I feel can only be fully addressed in something like The Washington Post. Still, I haven’t purchased a physical newspaper in over a decade and only read one if I saw it sitting at a bar when I’m eating dinner, in the school library, etc. Likewise, I go online to The Washington Post to get the same information that I cannot find elsewhere, but their website isn’t nearly as user-friendly as some other sites I go to. And finally, after I read several articles, I’m told that I reached my limit for the month and that I need to pay for a subscription to read anymore. Well…how hard is it to use a different device that hasn’t yet recognized me to access the same material? And am I going to need to read more than five articles a month? Nope. I have other resources that I still have at my disposal. Long story short…I still want and need these major newspaper articles to survive. Yet, I haven’t given a cent towards any of these papers in over a decade, and I don’t plan to. If these newspapers are going to survive, they need to do something to tap into my monetary resources.

So that is a significant sidebar. Sorry. Spotlight might be the best movie on newspaper reporting ever made. Yes, I am fully aware of All The Kings Men, which is why I am not already declaring it number one. If you liked All The Kings Men, you’ll absolutely like Spotlight. I think it might be impossible to like one, but not the other. Most of the other great films about newspapers that I researched were well before my time, and I wasn’t even fully able to tell if they were actually about newspaper reporting. Ironically, one of the other great movies about newspapers in recent years (1994’s The Paper) also starred Michael Keaton (Birdman, Beetlejuice), the lead actor among this if you had to pick one great cast. While The Paper was a good movie (88% on Rotten Tomatoes), it was not based on a true story. All the President’s Men and Spotlight both were. Furthermore, these two movies exposed two of the biggest attempted cover-ups in the last 40 years. So which one is a better movie?

I have no idea. I’d need to re-watch All the Presidents Men. I do realize that this movie did win four Academy Awards. It’s still early in awards season, but, as good as it is, I don’t see Spotlight winning any Academy Awards in what is proving to be a challenging year. Nonetheless, Spotlight is a riveting drama about a handful of people working for The Boston Globe who were committed to exposing Cardinal Law, the Catholic Church, and an extraordinarily high number of Catholic priests who had been accused of molesting children in Boston, Massachusetts.

This movie takes place in 2001 and 2002, a few years before the mass public knew about high members of the faith abusing their power and doing all kinds of inappropriate things with members of the congregation who turned to these men, and in some cases, women, for advice. I won’t even focus on the other atrocities committed by these high officials of the church. I will focus on the incredibly high numbers of inappropriate sexual acts committed by priests. And I know that the focus shouldn’t just be placed on priests. I understand that the focus shouldn’t just be on Catholicism. There are high-ranking officials in all of these faiths behaving highly inappropriately. If it seems like this review so far it’s closer to home than a lot of my other reviews, it does. The married pastor (and father of two daughters) who confirmed me in my church had multiple inappropriate relations with married women in our congregation who were seduced by him when they had sought him out for advice. While I did not know this at the time, I knew this person was not a good person. I anonymously called priests and pastors in other churches about how I could report inappropriate activities by my pastor. Keep in mind, I was a 16-year-old kid having these conversations. When this pastor did leave our church (saying he was called to his next mission in life), we had a huge celebration and send-off for him. It wasn’t until months (maybe even a year later) when we had a meeting in our sanctuary after a Sunday service in which it was explained that he did not leave because God chose him for his next mission. He was forced to leave because of what he had done. I had never felt so duped in my entire life and have sworn off organized religion ever since.

I mention this because when I see stories about sexual abuse or inappropriate sexual activities by clergy members, I don’t even bat an eye anymore. But, unfortunately, it’s been grained into my brain to expect this. It’s unfortunate, but it is what it is, and this belief will not change. But this is neither here nor there. It has no relevance to my opinion of this movie. I am just surprised that the reports in this movie were surprised by their discoveries, but I need to remind myself that this was 2001 and not 2015. The number of public allegations against clergy in 2001 wasn’t nearly what it is today. It doesn’t mean that it was happening anymore or any less in 2001 than it is today. It’s just that they didn’t report these things.

This story begins in Boston with a nearly unrecognizable Liev Schreiber (Showtime’s Ray Donovan, A Walk on the Moon) as the Marty Baron, the new editor-in-chief of The Boston Globe. He’s coming off a short stint from the Miami Herald and previously worked for one of the papers in New York. He’s not a Boston man, has no Boston ties. While respected, he has a reputation of not staying very long with his previous employers. What is ironic about Schreiber here is that his role as “a fixer” in  Ray Donovan stems from the abuse that he and his brothers suffered as kids from a priest in their native Boston. Schreiber’s portrayal is so far from Ray in the Showtime series that it further exemplifies that he might be one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood. He was so quiet, calm, and able to look at the significant picture long-term as Marty. To say his character is the complete opposite of the intimidating, lawbreaking Ray in Ray Donovan might be the understatement of the year. Marty wants to make his mark, just as any good editor-in-chief would like to do. Specifically, he wants his Spotlight Team (basically the Feature section of The Boston Globe) to dig deeper into a news story that alleges a Catholic priest molested a boy. 2001 Boston was a highly Catholic city, so this wasn’t the most popular move in the world. However, he knew that his team would be greeted with much resistance and knew that stories such as these needed to focus on American journalism.

But Marty believes he has a good Spotlight team that he believes in. This begins with Walter “Robby” Robinson (Keaton), who heads a group of three dedicated reporters. This was Keaton’s first movie since his near Oscar-winning performance for Birdman, and it was good for me to see him return to a role that I was more accustomed to seeing him in. I loved a bunch of Keaton’s stuff in the ’80s (Beetlejuice, Mr. Mom, The Dream Team, Batman), but I like Keaton 2.0 just as much. In this role, he’s what you would expect in an editor. He is willing to listen but doesn’t hesitate in his decision-making. He is there to support his staff and speak his mind when necessary and knows that empowering his writers and reporters will bring out the best in them. His team of reporters includes the quirky but compelling Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo – Foxcatcher, The Kids Are All Right), the persistent Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams – Red Eye, Midnight in Paris), and the do a little bit of everything Brian d’Arcy James’ (Matt Carroll – television’s Smash). It’s a lovely little team with great rapport with some in the office, including Marty and deputy editor Ben Bradlee Jr. (John Slattery – television’s Mad Men).

The team thrives on Marty’s objective and Robby’s leadership. However, there are many obstacles along the way. It is evident from the beginning that many want this story squashed (it has been several years since many of these accusations were made, and the statute of limitations on many of these have passed). Still, witnesses are willing to come forward who are extremely upset with the media (including The Boston Globe) because they had reported these accusations 10-20 years ago, and nobody did anything about it. There are also people like Mitchell Garabedian (Stanley Tucci – The Lovely Bones, Margin Call) who will rub you the wrong way when you first meet him, and you think he might be hiding something, but it turns out he might be the most caring actor in the whole movie. He fights for the victims’ rights, and you can tell he’s beaten down by the hours he puts in that lack of results he’s hoping to find.

Another part of what made this movie great was when the Spotlight team had enough of a story to expose these corrupt priests who not only hadn’t been brought to justice but who looked like they had gotten off scot-free for their misdeeds. Marty said not to publish yet because there was a much bigger story. The story was not about exposing individual priests. It was about going after the people who were protecting them and moving these accused priests from one situation to another in an attempt to protect the church. Much credit to guys like Marty Baron, Walter Robinson, and others for not backing down in the face of adversity and breaking this important story that ultimately served as the template for exposing child-molesting priests from Catholic cities all over the world.

This movie is full of outstanding performances. Director Tom McCarthy (Win Win, The Station Agent) really stepped up and delivered, in what is, his biggest film to date. The care given to those they are interviewing shows a sincerity that you would hope a reporter would have. Ultimately this movie succeeds because of its acting and the idea of seeing a story broken by a newspaper that we don’t find anymore. Nowadays, anyone and everyone with a phone or access to a computer can be a reporter. You can break the news on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. Many times that information isn’t necessarily accurate. Worse, there are no consequences these days for average Joe’s like you who post whatever we want to

I don’t know if this movie will finish in my 2015 Top 10. But it’s got a spot right now. There are lots of great movies yet to be released. I’d recommend anyone aged over 25 to see this. It does not need to be seen in the theater, but do see it sometime before awards season, just in case it does earn some nominations. Great movie.

Plot 10/10
Character Development 8.5/10 (Did these characters grow? I’m not sure. Maybe Keaton’s character to an extent and some of the side characters…unfortunately, there were so many characters in this film that we didn’t get a chance to know them outside of work)
Character Chemistry 9/10 (The leads fed off each other well)
Acting 9.5/10 (top-notch)
Screenplay 9/10 (I will say that there were a long list of names…the accused, the defendants, the lawyers, etc…you likely won’t be able to remember who is who, which is sort of frustrating, but it doesn’t take away from the story)
Directing 10/10
Cinematography 8.5/10 (It felt a little more like the late ’80s/early ’90s than 2002 to me)
Sound 9/10 (Soft background sounds aid to the ambiance between the numerous scenes in this movie)
Hook and Reel 9.5/10
Universal Relevance 9.5/10
92.5%

Movies You Might Like If You Liked This Movie

• The Post
• The Report
• The Insider
• Dark Waters
• Snowden