Screening of the article on Wikipedia. The irrepressible craving for viewing was marked by the “coronation” of the picture you know what a reward. And what they saw was only mildly puzzling. Why is that? It's all very simple.
1. Label Tapes on the so-called real events often do not disdain free interpretation of these events, which, however, is not surprising and not even bad in the interests of artistic design. The task is not so much to retell the story, but to draw conclusions from it. If you want to talk about it, then there is something to think about in this story. The problem with the painting “In the spotlight” – it does not draw these conclusions. It just tells a story already known to everyone. After watching it, I felt like I was offered a neutral adaptation of the Wikipedia article. Yes, there were attempts to wedge the drama, the relationships of the characters, but in vain. Apparently, none of the characters were properly designed to empathize with them. For comparison, the same "Bridge of Spies". Yes, the tape is not a masterpiece, but from it, as from most of Spielberg’s films, it swung excessive romanticism and dubious, “family” optimism. But the film did the job. He told a real story about people, people, people. With morals and conclusions. Let it be simple. "In the spotlight" as if says to us: "Well, this is the story ... ago ... it was ... and shorter than that." Someone will say that the film is about how a few people with the will to truth and justice can achieve a lot. Perhaps, however, if so, the tape very superficially and vaguely conveys this idea and is generally lost in the threads of intrigue that this film weaves. If this tape claims to be a companion on the dark sides of human thoughts and actions, then alas, it is a little late. The realities of today are too striking in the eyes to ignore the obvious human abomination.
2. Game No complaints about the actors. Largely because the picture does not require the reproduction of special emotions. Keaton played well, convincingly, but nothing more. Like all the others... except one.
Mark Ruffalo was a real disaster of the tape. I don't know whose fault it is, but to see an apparently overplaying actor portraying a neurotic was unbearably embarrassing. Each grimace and remark betrayed its artificiality. Mistake.
3. Other waste paper In all the technical aspects of the picture, nothing can be noted, but the hand will not rise. Work with the camera, sound, editing and so on was done
normal. But we are talking about the winner of the award for best film. And here, it seems to me, “normal” should not be enough.
On the exhaust, a good retelling of the famous story with a good executive staff and solid work of the entire film crew. The picture lacks only one thing – meaning. What do we learn after that? Not rape children? Don’t hide the secrets from the public? Aside from the obvious? Probably nothing.
Verdict
6 out of 10
Original