Dear viewers, today I want to tell you about the film “The Paperboy”, directed by Lee Daniels, based on the novel by Peter Decker. This is a bold, provocative and sometimes frank film that will arouse many feelings and emotions in the audience. The film follows the life of journalist Ward Jenkins (Matthew McConaughey), who along with his partner Yardley Jed (David Oyelowo) investigates the case of how a young man was convicted of murdering a sheriff in a small town in Florida. Soon, Ward’s brother Jack (Zac Efron) comes to their aid, who falls in love with a woman trying to prove the innocence of a convict. One of the main themes of the film is racism and social issues. These themes develop through a variety of characters, each with their own view of the world. The film describes the cruelty, injustice and oppression of the government and the authorities, and shows how people can speak out against them. The acting in the film is amazing, especially Matthew McConaughey, who shows us all the facets of his talent. As in other works of Lee Daniels, the film has many scenes that can cause the audience discomfort, but they help to show us the world in which the characters of the film live. One of the things I want to focus on is cinematography and stage design. The film transports us to the 60s of the last century, and thanks to the magnificent design and choice of music we really feel in those times. In addition, I would like to note the editing and pace of the film. These elements give the film a special dynamic that does not allow viewers to distract from the plot.
A film about the dirty and vulgar past. Approximately, such a fetish eroticism with elements of detective.
The actors played at a decent level, they are interesting to watch, if you do not take into account the “what” some played. Zach Efron and Matthew McConaughey are playing quite "at their level" without too much stress, and I'm not saying it's bad. Nicole Kidman is beautiful, in every film you can admire. But what's really interesting to watch is John Cusack playing, it's just great, the character is really indignant and disliked, just bravo. But it follows the disadvantage that it is initially impossible to believe that this person is possibly innocent.
Of course, the 60s are magnificently shown, a very pleasant color phone, appearance.
But the most important disadvantage is the story. Boring. It's boring. Not interesting. After viewing, the question remains: “What and why did I just watch?” Because the genre of detective, in addition to the general meaning of the film, goes too far. In the foreground, we see a love line, various revelations, in a variety of manifestations, in a not quite good sense of the word. And even sincere love, filmed so vulgar that sometimes causes disgust. Not to mention the really unpleasant scenes. Such tricks would go well in typical American comedies.
It's an amateur movie. Something frank, new, not standard. But the film will be forgotten instantly. And his foundation will not save even, quite himself, a star cast. But still, the author’s film should be non-standard.
5 out of 10
Do you want something new and unusual? This movie is for you and you!
How often do we make decisions based on someone else’s opinion? We are recommended to visit the institution - we think it is good, and we go; the movie rating is not high - why watch when there are many high-rated films. Not the case!
Don’t be fooled: the film attracts the attention of the cast. Nicole Kidman, Matthew Maconnachi, Zac Efron, John Cusack are not a pack of vagabonds.
I believe that such a low rating film is obliged to people who are used to sweet and banal templates, for which everything should be “beautiful”, “careful”, God forbid who blows his nose improperly, etc. So if you are such an aesthete, then you should not waste an hour and a half of time and spoil the film’s reputation here. Because the grace here is exactly as much as the hair under Kobzon's wig. But grace in terms of material beauty: romantic kisses under the moon and saving the princess from the dragon is not expected!
There’s a lot of mud in the picture. And as paradoxical as it may sound, but all this dirt is very well put – believe me! I will not give you examples because... Why spoilers? But in the arsenal of the film a lot of seemingly shocking moments. However, experiencing the generally accepted negative emotions to all the scenes, combined with the atmosphere of the film, you get a stunning impression, as if you try a multi-layered dessert: after all, you can eat layer by layer, feeling only one taste, but if you plunge your spoon, like Excalibur into a stone, into this dish, grabbing all the layers, then you will definitely not go hungry!
The dynamics of the plot with acting is quite balanced with an outrageous presentation.
Prepare to watch the final with a slightly saggy jaw.
P.S. For fans of Zac Efron, it is recommended to watch the film accompanied by napkins: almost the entire film he half-naked demonstrates a tan, probably during filming.
10 out of 10
Everyone has their own guilty placer, and not even one, and not two, which is all. Beat, translating into Russian "forbidden pleasure". For example, one of my favorites is going home hungry at night and going to the supermarket to buy a pack of Pringles. That smelly colored cardboard cylinder with a branded mustache. And without reaching home, with bags in hand, shove these flat crumbs of carcinogens and other chemical labuda into your mouth, while hurrying, but enjoying, enjoying and savoring, getting some subcortical pleasure from being an animal. From the outside it looks disgusting, but as other not mustache brands say: you are not you when you are hungry.
That's the same with the newspaper. Not quite with him, but more with her or because of her. I'm talking about Nicole All Queen Kidman. The Newspaper itself is just a box. Nicole is those unfortunate chips, objectively unpleasantly harmful and repulsive, but eating them, oh, devouring her eyes is priceless. So you have a 45-year-old Oscar winner looking and being a cheap, sentimental bum with 5cm eyelashes and a white and yellow chignon and tightly plastered face? What does she do in one of the film's wildest and best scenes? The answer is to engage in remote oral sex with the main white scum of the entire film. Who is he? Here, the sweaty, whispering inmate sadistic-racist-sexist-chauvinist and southerner is a woman's favorite and an intellectual outside the cinema, John Cusack. This action at a distance is accompanied by similar phrases: "Dirty bitch!", "Come here: I'm you in all the holes ... & #34; and "You are my little pony." I just want to get on you again.” And I can understand him. Nicole here is the very embodiment of lust, vice, at the same time innocence, sacrifice, she absolutely submissively moves to the climax and denouement, being in love with this sweaty and vile white garbage: “all the prisoners promised to lip to my vagina, some offered to fuck me in the ass, and only Hillary (Cusack) offered to give him a blowjob; then I realized that he alone really loved me.” Sorry, you can’t get the words out of the song. Cusaka, by the way, any normal person will want to personally cut the minute to the 20th.
I would like to know: how does Lee Daniels lure them to him? He has a button, otherwise it can’t be. He caught McConaughey, too. Something happened to Matthew Rastovich in 2009. Then came his last romcom, and then only good and excellent projects. But it's a topic for a separate disser. Everyone here is waiting for the knockout scene with Mattian in the hotel, this is for those who have not finished “prison love” and “beach rescue”, where McConaghy will open the tack to say other facets of his talent. Towards the end, he will sit sculpturally on the toilet in Rodnov’s monument pose and ask, “Jack, I’m still thinking, what did I miss?” It's in memory.
I'm not talking about Zach Disneyvic Efron. Probably, according to the idea of the director, he was supposed to shock and irritate everyone with his tight white pants, in which he walked 70% of screen time. The director's plan was successful - Zack was annoying. The weakest link of the four described above movie monsters. But it's all taste. The only thing about the Efron hero is that he never could forget his first love. Not everyone will forget a 40-year-old slut with fake eyelashes peeing on you in public on the beach to save you from a massive burn with jellyfish. Save the word.
Daniels certainly made thrash-soft porn with elements of drama, but the last movie I saw that fits that definition is The Gels Show. I was 15, it blew my puberty. And I can't forget him either.
Accelerating on the rich Oscars and nominations “Treasure”, Lee Daniels made the film “Newspaper”, a fascinating film about the operation to rescue a criminal who was convicted without proof. A cheerful company of journalists, a girl of light behavior, and a simple guy-newspaperman is trying to figure out everything and in the process get their benefit from it. As a result, it turned out to be a great, stylish, not heavy film, despite the genre of "thriller, drama", on the raised issues of violence, racism, homosexuality. The soundtrack is well-chosen, featuring first-tier actors – Nicole Kidman, Matthew McConaughey, and others who simply can’t play badly. Styling for the sixties was successful: clothes, mood, music. Perhaps the ease of the film just adds to the pofigism of almost all the characters. Despite adversity, difficult life, difficult childhood, the characters manage to keep faith in the future, optimism, strive to love and be loved. At least, the characters of the film cause various emotions, make you empathize, and is this not the main thing in the movie?
I would love to see more of these original, non-commercial, original, crazy movies. There will be an audience for them anyway. Why such a low rating? Probably, everyone in the movie sees something different – it’s like a Rorschach spot. Not everyone has discovered something and seen it. In any case, enjoy your viewing!
There are a lot of ugly and scary scenes in the film, and I can’t call myself shy or faint of heart, but due to one of them, after which McConaughey’s character loses his right eye (partially), I now want to forget this film.
Expectations smoothly formed into a picture reminiscent of “Erin Brockovich” with Julia Roberts, where the main character makes a fantastic career in a backwater law office. But “Newspaper” does not indulge us with unexpected plot twists and passions. On the contrary, the whole film is like a radio performance, some unobtrusive background, with rare inserts from shocking scenes.
It’s no wonder the movie didn’t win any awards. The game of Matthew McConaughey, who at that time rushed to “serious cinema” and polished his acting talents, is really good, but the role of this character is completely hopeless. And Zac Efron is just another young man with a sour face and unfulfilled hopes. The author's idea of the film is weak and cracks at the seams. It seems to us that they want to say that the world is cruel, but a drop of justice remains in it, but it is simply impossible to understand this and really imbue with the depth of the author’s thought, allegories and metaphors due to the abundance of disgusting scenes of a bed/sexual/genital nature. In addition, sluggish dialogues, unscrupulous, poorly worked out heroes and a dull video sequence interfere.
Technically, of course, the film is shot at a high level. And every viewer should understand that “Newspaper” is not the tape that makes you think, it is the tape that makes you afraid. It brings human vices to the surface, reveals to us our own rotten essence. And then the logical question arises, is it necessary to show it at all?
4 out of 10
Such ambiguous reviews about the film "Newspaper" once again confirm the long-traded truth - it is better to see once than to hear a hundred times. And, as a lover of detective and criminal stories, I eagerly began to watch.
The strange thing, despite all the vulgarity, the filth of the black side of people, the suffocating heat of the south, the almost tangible stench emanating from the killed alligators, and some squeamishness naturally arising from what they saw, the film keeps in suspense and does not let go until the very end (at least in my case). There were also surprises. The first is a detective here (with such a variety of smells) and does not smell. It seems that everything begins with a murder, and they seem to start looking for the culprit, but from about the thirtieth minute the course of events turns 180 degrees - and no longer really cares who really killed this creepy sheriff. It's more like a good background. The focus is on the characters themselves. Believe me, they are colorful. What is worth only Hilary, the main defendant and at the same time a notorious villain. John Cusack, who changed his usual role, played so that his nose wrinkled from disgust to his character. Nicole Kidman was also surprised – in my memory she first appeared in the image of a vulgar, unbridled, self-deprecating, mature woman who once and for all decided to get stuck in an environment dirty and stuffy with vices. Watching Matthew McConaughey, several times surfaced involuntary comparison with his character from "True Detective" (still nothing happens suddenly, he slowly but surely went to the role of detective Rust). Maisie Gray was pleased with her presence - with her Anita in the film there are rare moments of manifestation of human warmth and love.
The second surprise came at the end, in the final. Nothing supernatural or mind-turning viewer. But the number of victims and the ending itself discouraged me a little. The film immediately earned an additional score.
Well, it is necessary to agree that the "Newspaper" for the amateur - either pan or disappeared. Therefore, I will not recommend everyone without exception. But if you are interested in the work of these actors and you are a lover of good stories about quietly bubbling life in the depths of the country, then feel free to start watching. I hope it doesn't work out.
I liked the movie, but I don’t think I’m going to watch it again – my nerves are not the same.
7 out of 10
The subject of conducting an independent correspondent investigation has good examples (the same "Zodiac" by David Fincher). Opposition of civic position and journalistic professionalism to inaction of law enforcement agencies. "Newspaper" swung to the right to be one of the best examples of such a scenario, but it turned out almost the opposite.
The script itself, the plot did not differ in any interesting events or details. Absolutely stupid and unambiguous director Lee Daniels has revealed all the intrigues and puzzles of the story. Trying to somehow attract the audience, to generate interest in viewing, he began to flirt with dirty scenes. Nicole Kidman about 10-15 years ago could afford something like this, but now it looks just disgusting.
The full picture of the movie is always complemented by a memorable audio sequence, when you start frantically looking for compositions marked “OST” and the title of the film. In "Newspaper" even the audio row could not please some highlight, perhaps, color. It's the '60s, rock 'n' roll. Only the sexual revolution could be transmitted.
The film ended, and it was as if I had watched a documentary about the criminal incident of those days. There are no good or bad feelings left. No compassion for anyone. Too dirty film, distracting from the problems - to stay clean in the "dark" story will not succeed to anyone. It was only possible to show not only the physical aspect of moral decline, but also the spiritual aspect.
Two very striking facts about this film. The first - with such a scattering of movie stars starring in this picture, and with an excellent reproduction of the 60s era - the budget is only 13 million dollars. Yes, due to the genre and specifics of the script, there are no complicated and expensive scenes in technical terms. But how many such films with the participation of a smaller number of eminent persons exposes, in the end, the film studio counts millions by 40-50. And here's Kidman, McConaughey, Efron, Cusack, and other big names. Maybe they decided to shoot for a symbolic, by their standards, fee because they sincerely liked the script and they are all good friends with the director?
The second very strange circumstance is the failure at the box office of such a seemingly solid and intriguing synopsis film. Often a failure in economic terms is considered when the film receives from tickets only an amount equal to or slightly larger budget. Consider it a disaster, because fees are only 10% of the nominal budget. They participated in the Cannes Festival. But initially, a good story was seen.
But after watching the film, I realized that the final product was just a little unfinished. And everything went wrong - everything up and wrong. I expected to see another smart detective with a psychopathic, but intelligent, charismatic, cunning antagonist and a genius hero. Principal confrontation, strained nerves, mind games, tearing off the covers, etc. I watched a movie about an implausible story, reminiscent of a policeman’s tale, which he tells on a fishing trip to his neighbor. A journalist (Macconaughey) comes to his hometown with his Negro friend (African-American, yes), also a journalist. In the district center, they seem to be already celebrities, the blessing of the newspaper in which they are printed, yellow-yellow. These two guys want to spin a story about the murder of a local racist sheriff and get the accused exonerated. Falling in love with this convicted by correspondence (this is quite possible in our time of social networks, but the novels on paper correspondence, according to my calculations, there have been no novels since the French writers-sentimentalists of the 18th century) stupid and beautiful blonde (Kidman). In parallel with the appeals, a journalistic investigation is being conducted with the connection of Matthew’s brother (Efron). He falls in love with the character Kidman and further complicates the current state of affairs in their group called “Freedom psychopathic killer!”
And now our galaxy of stars with varying success tries to play their contrived and illogically acting characters. Most of the screen time of the hero Efron - the guy has problems with school, with parents and with women. Having fallen in love with a frivolous fool, who is also one and a half times older than him, getting involved in nothing and acting, guided by emotions, he gets into several troubles at once. His brother, McConaughey's hero, is unexpectedly not as good and deep as he seems. He's going to give you his big surprise, though. Cusack played a typical maniac, I don’t know if such roles are considered easy or difficult in the acting workshop. But Kidman deserves sincere praise and some significant film award for his role. How old was she on her passport, 44 at the time of filming? No, there was a 30-year-old bright and seductive beauty in the film. Nicole played like a young actress who desperately wants to get attention. At the same time avoiding the typical mistake in such cases - overplay.
There are several explicit scenes in the film. But not in bed, and, I don’t know what to call it, physiological or not. These are episodes that will make you think, "What's the...?!" It should not have been shown.” Maybe in the 60s morals were even freer than modern ones, and this can be attributed to the efforts of the creators to convey the spirit of the time as fully as possible. In the transfer of the 60s style in clothes, interiors, etc. everything is done traditionally well. Filmmakers in America traditionally love this era and always recreate it with care and detail, whether it is a TV series on cable or a multimillion-dollar movie with big stars.
A very promising and shamelessly misleading film. How many worthwhile films that lack promotion and a couple of big names in the cast remain small films, and how many publicized blanks come out each year. And there are big names and almost obscurity among the audience. I don’t even remember what the secret was in the film or how it was revealed, even though I looked closely. Oh, yeah, I remember, he was disappointing, too.
The relatively low rating of the film is understandable, such a movie cannot be approved by the majority, it is wild, sometimes shocking and obscene, I do not like this, especially in modern cinema, but this is the only exception. What you like about this movie is that you can’t even imagine the next events, and if you can, there’s something wrong with your head, because the scenes are very much from the What? What was it?!, but for the film it is a huge plus.
A very interesting storyline of the characters Efron (Jack) and Kidman (Charlotte), yes, this line adds sentimentality to the film, but it is necessary, otherwise there would be only one tin. It is absolutely appropriate that he is a handsome and handsome guy, there is so much ugliness in this film (both external and internal), a beautiful and pure character of Jack was also necessary, and it is very intriguing to watch him in all the nightmare that surrounds him. I love it when such positive characters, who arouse delight among the female population, are brought face to face with the lowest, dirtiest and disgusting. Nicole Kidman will get any man in this film, if the character Zac Efron is created for women, then the character Kidman for men, all the same, no one is superfluous.
The film is controversial for an amateur, but one thing I can say for sure is that you will not be bored and you have not seen this for a long time. Either you like it or you don’t, there is no middle ground. Reading reviews or reviews for such a movie before watching it is pointless because if you like it, then everything that is criticized for the film will be a plus for you. What you see will either cause a storm of emotions and you say fu, or it will cause a storm of emotions and you say fu, but you will like it. One thing's for sure, there will be emotions. I read that he makes you think, but the film did not make me think about anything, something, and there is no deep meaning in the film, it is just for emotions, I was impressed for a long time and I want to reconsider, it’s probably not going to be emotions for the first time.
8 out of 10
In my opinion, the picture is worthy of praise. Seeing the list of artists who starred in this film, I initially thought that it would be some crazy stupid film with a simple plot, justifying itself only by big names. Fortunately, the director worked for fame, and therefore the appearance of Matthew McConaughey and Nicole Kidman in the frame was not so catchy and intrusive.
The game of these stars was absolutely high. Somewhere was not according to the script, as it turned out from further interviews of the actors, but isn’t that all the talent of a successful artist? Improvisation is the key to success. Just one of these moments added naturalness and life to the film, which is lacking in modern cinema. This is the scene where Charlotte (Nicole Kidman) sits in the backyard with Jack (Zac Efran), it rains and music begins to play. They begin to dance, a little ridiculous and even clumsy, Charlotte has a dirty huge stain of wet grass and earth on her pants, Jack in his pants and with a bare torso, their hair is wet from the rain, and everything seems so ugly, but at the same time magnificent, because it is so simple and sincere and so far from the tired Hollywood play scenes.
Separately, it is worth noting the work Zac Efron. He once again proves to the viewer that he is a multifaceted actor, that he is capable of almost any role: from a handsome basketball boy ("Cool musical") to a young man trying to figure out an intricate murder and at the same time experiencing a personal tragedy ("Newspaper").
It is also worth paying attention to the extensive emotional palette of the film: this is the excitement of first love, and the pain of loss, and the feeling of injustice, and the love of brothers, etc. In addition, important problems are touched upon, such as the attitude towards black people in the 60s, the problem of relations between parents and children, responsibility for their actions, the desire for truth, the injustice of the social order and others.
But it's worth mentioning the minuses. Firstly, these are perverse bloody scenes, they may fit the mood for the film, but they do not cause pleasant thoughts and impressions, which are difficult to get rid of for a long time. Second, it’s the horrific love scene of Charlotte’s lover’s return from prison (also played by John Cusack), which evokes only disgust and sympathy. In a word, as my little brother would say "bue."
However, the picture is worthy of respect, and it will appeal to many fans of complex films, over which you want to think, think about the continuation of events, about the details and details.
There are aunts like aunts and uncles like uncles. There are people like people, and fuck like fuck. There are uncles like aunts and aunts like uncles. There are fucks like people and people like fucks.
There are people (mainly men) who run into it until they run into it; there are people who, as many chances as they do not give them, so in their shit and stay. What is called, “the humpback grave will correct” (well, or “how much a wolf or feed...”); there are people (mainly women), who, realizing the danger and seriousness of some situations, continue to fly like moths to the fire – until, accordingly, they burn; there are people who are ready to walk on their heads, just to get their own; there are people for whom the true core of the environment is not important (no matter – other people, events, relationships, anything) – they only care about the “bright wrapper” so that everything is “beautiful.” This is not a complete list of the types drawn in the beautiful film “Newspaper”, directed by Lee Daniels from the novel by Peter Dexter, but they are the basis of this work. I regret that before watching the film adaptation, I did not read the book: I am sure the impression would have been even brighter!
The detective line present in the film (as, apparently, in the book) is only the author’s technique: a kind of lever that allowed to simulate the situation in which events unfold and characters “flounder”, because the idea is not in the detective component at all, namely in people. The authors seem to lift a giant half-extinct log called “Florida”, and under it we see “local inhabitants” – worms and beetles, blinded by sunlight, and running through secluded, damp and dark crevices.
The analogy with the world of insects is not accidental, there are two main reasons: The first is, of course, the lowland and “animal” of the existence that the heroes of the tape drag on. Other associations and comparisons somehow do not rush to come to mind. And the second is a magnificently conveyed atmosphere of moist haze, hot and sticky air, permeated through millions of mosquitoes and other midges.
I must say that the visual series in the film "newspaper" is, in general, something special - something that lives in the film its own life, separate from the characters. The background on which all the events of this story unfold is ingeniously created, and the concept of “background” here is comprehensive: it includes both time and space. Masterfully recreated the era of the late 1960s, and everything helps to achieve this: not simply and corny - costumes, music and cars, but the air of that time, saturated and permeated with the mores, breath, views and thoughts of those days. It feels as if the filmmakers found, somewhere in the dust and web, in the attic of their hippie grandmother, a pair of reels with film - documentary filming of Florida in the late 60s, and, as if on their basis, shot the whole film ... Delightful!
Artists and their characters. Oh! You can write a whole separate article about this... I will only say that absolutely everyone and everyone involved in the project not only failed, not just coped with, not just met expectations – no. Absolutely everyone was able to surpass himself so much that easily shocked some new, previously unknown facet of his talent! It was like the last time! Bravo!
And who of the actors got what type, from listed at the beginning of the review – I think it is not difficult to guess!
Watch a good movie!
Who says movies have to be like life? Why has the right to life musical "Hairspray", (in which Efron starred) and condemn "Newspaper"?
There are films with intentionally bad taste, designed to tell the viewer that not everything is okay in the kingdom of Denmark. Poison in small doses, like medicine; and here you have in one bottle all the politically incorrect themes of America: discrimination of blacks, homosexuality, sexual deviations, degeneration of rednecks, domestic violence, serial murder.
For the viewer, this opportunity will return to reality, through magical bad taste, much as he runs away from it with the help of a glamorous mainstream. For actors, this is an opportunity to get rid of the role of good guys, which can become attached for a long time, as in the case of John Cusack.
Having assessed the film at 4, I put this four 8, for justified negativity and competent provocation.
The film, in general, left a pleasant impression. However, I would like to say that I was very disappointed at the end of this story. Honestly, I expected something more. And here, in the end, absolutely nothing unusual, even banal in part seemed.
The history of the murder investigation, embellished with the “maniac” appearance of the main suspect plus a depraved line has always excited my interest. I watched almost the entire movie with great interest.
Good actors play here. I watched this movie because of Nicole Kidman. This time she plays the role of a rather uncouth seducer, in which a young guy falls in love a few years younger than her. I must say that this storyline, unlike the line of investigation and others, the most interesting. And the attraction of the young man to this person conveyed wonderfully. I just remembered Lolita, just the opposite.
Actually, a one-time movie. Overall, it’s interesting, but I won’t watch it a second time. I also want to mention a wonderful final melody.
Many films of a festival nature are put into the program for the explosion sensation, causing manner and performance in ostentatious form. Since, this author is primarily interested in the pictures of nominations and awards, this film “Newspaper” came under attention.
Made according to an adapted script, the film was exhibited at the Cannes Festival in the main program. And still "reached" to nominations for the Golden Globes, the Screen Actors Guild of the USA and the Australian Film Academy, unanimously nominating Nicole Kidman for supporting roles. Although, to be honest, there is no great merit even in the nomination. Brutality and vulgarity are there, but the iconic game of compassion and feelings of the character that affects acceptance and choice is not. And all the world critics and film critics called it the only advantage. In general, the picture in the assessments of film academics failed, becoming the gray horse of the film industry.
Director Lee Daniels, who started with an independent meter, finally issued a fresh, at this time the last film “Butler”, not inferior to the highest “Oscar” and clearly the best film “12 Years a Slave”. This film was a milestone for him in his work and skill. Although the play of famous actors such as: Zac Efron, Matthew McConaughey, John Cusack duly drew the boredom of the plot and the rashness of the script.
The Newspaper, like Killer Joe, is a brutal movie. Various advantages should be sought with a large magnifying glass. Basically, such films are made specifically for film festivals and various kinds of critics, in pursuit of sensation, even greater scandal, surprise and, of course, the queue for an award, which will revere one or another film inspection.
Stars like McConaughey will go out of their way to show other facets of his talent, as before these films (the last few years), he was approached and associated with the hero lover, playboy and handsome heartthrob. This is evidenced by his impressive list of numerous romantic films and adventure comedies. Then, how about any commercial poor fellow, at least some reward, taking off in various kinds of consumer goods. And also to declare yourself, to notice the talent and versatility of the work. The movie business is more than a robot. It's cruel, but things like that happen.
Regarding the film “Newspaper”, I want to point out that this is the option that awards and nominations in the film industry make it the target behind which a simple screen. For me, except for a few statements and, a certain class of game, which in other words evoked some thoughts with akin to reflection, there is nothing to look at.
A promising introduction and a difficult psychological attitude that contributed to an interesting viewing, which is confirmed by a non-standard beginning and refraction of color to black and white, as a memory or display of another reality, reminiscent of the moves of an art house, crumbles with protracted dialogues and frankly boring places. Which do not justify even rare flashbacks.
And in some places, very cheap “moves” of the script will be especially interesting for moviegoers, more young age, and for young people who are not strong in life’s vicissitudes.
Moments that I liked, or episodes in which I found something more, I will try to cover.
This film is not even a state, but the presence of an invisible third-rate role of a passerby in the deliberately condensed colors of being. In which the whole story is shown, realistically admitting all these moments.
A journalist (writer) who, with his flair or gift of professional work, writes articles that are spread through influential newspapers and give a great resonance, acting on people (readers). The highest quality and appreciation, at least in journalism, unchanged for so long.
There is also another opinion that it is not in newspaper articles, but in the life of an individual person - "it is better to be right, but last, than wrong, but first," is shown and said in this film.
There are thoughts about the impossibility of living a double life. But at the same time, almost so many people live. Because everyone has secrets.
An interesting topic is love at a distance. Feeling a partner or soul mate in another space. Vibrations that pass from matter and body to another dimension roll a wave on the visual spectrum and the reflection of the sensory “I”.
According to the expressed genre, a clearly defined denouement and ending of the film in the spirit of a tense, psychological thriller, with the injection of the right atmosphere in the best tradition of Hitchcock suspense. In addition to the magnificent play of the actors, it was the last part of the film that was not boring, sustained in dynamics with development and completion.
This is all the good I saw in this picture. Watch the movie with the “third” eye, opening the reading of the shown in a different way.
Paraphrasing the words of the untimely departed director (man of cinema) - Alexei Balabanov, performed by also departed Sergei Bodrov - "And what is the power of the film, brother?" God knows. (In life.) It's "Life Bentegne." This crazy, restless life is imprinted in the “mountain of heroes” in the film, who no longer live, but maim themselves and others.
The film as a whole turned out very good, really pleased me. Very long postponed viewing this picture, and it attracted only by the fact that the action takes place in some 70-ies. This is the first trailer I saw, of course. On the count of years, I can certainly be wrong, although it probably is.
In general, the plot is very ambiguous, as are the characters themselves. A group of reporters are trying to get a man accused of murdering a sheriff out of jail. In their opinion, he was accused unfairly and an innocent person can get into the electric chair. And helps them in this, the mysterious Charlotte, who is madly in love with this criminal. But they did not even suspect that for all of them in the end, will end at first sight a good deed.
In general, the cast here is of course excellent. And you can see that people know their business. But one of the things I want to mention is old Kidman, who is absolutely amazing in this role. I haven't seen a movie with her in a while. Here she showed herself completely. Also important is John Cusack, who is no less excellent in the role of a mentally unhealthy maniac. Well, it is impossible not to mention McConaughey and Efron. The last one here, a little surprised. Promising actor, in my opinion.
In the course of the plot, new details are revealed, as well as intriguing secrets of each of the characters. Each of them made a mistake, which led to a very sad outcome. Quite a sight to behold. I didn’t get bored all the time.
There are movies that you want to watch again and try to discover something new for yourself. “Newspaper”, an example of a film that you will hardly want to review.
It’s not that it’s bad or that it has a bad script. No, and shooting and scenes and dialogue, everything is done quite qualitatively. But the manner of presentation of the scenes, the idea and the visual series make you feel disgust for everything you see on the screen.
The acting has been praised by everyone. Separately, I want to note the game Nicole Kidman and John Cusack and Zac Efron. Nicole is always divine. She's actually a diverse actress. She works on each character separately and you can see it. One of the key issues for me personally is that such a beautiful actress does creepy movies. I am very negative about the excessive violence against female characters in the cinema.
John Cusack still adores me. His character is so disgusting, terrible and disgusting that it is often impossible to look at him calmly in other films, after this role.
As for Mr. Efron, he should be noted at least for the fact that he starred in a heavy art house, and moved away from the image of a sweet-voiced boy so annoying to everyone. So, I dare say that he played, and he did it at a reasonable level.
Now for the movie itself. The director actually tries to immerse the viewer in the swamp, which shows periodically throughout the film. It shows mud, predatory crocodiles, silt, slime and muddy water. All this reflects the characters of the main characters. They're as dirty and creepy as this swamp. They are as dirty as water and can’t see what’s going on around them. The dirty swamp of their lives drowns them and drags them into themselves forcing them to remain on a sluggish bottom.
The film is for fans of good acting, arthouse and cruelty in cinema. Nevertheless, I will not recommend it for viewing, because very contradictory impressions develop after watching it.
I didn’t know anything about the film itself or its scandal. I came by accident, seeing Kidman-Charlotte somewhere. It was very interesting and I looked at it.
If you don’t like the characters, and you don’t accept them as your own, you probably won’t even watch the middle. I fell in love immediately, and very empathized with the trembling feelings of the protagonist and his tenderness.
Perhaps it is thanks to the sluggish events and lack of dynamics that it is possible to get especially close to the characters, to find a “special connection”, as Charlotte says.
But for me, the question remains whether to consider an unexpected change – not even the plot (which is always only a plus), but the genre itself – a successful artistic technique for conveying the underside of reality, or yet such approaches are purely experimental. But the film is not mainstream, although the cover and famous actors on the list can be trapped.
This is not the movie that fulfills your order: today you wanted to get scared and turned on “Saw”, tired, then you can “beat” over “American Dad”. Nope. From the beginning, if you know what you’re going to get, you’ll probably be fooled. Someone this method will refresh and cheer up, someone spoil the evening.
Absolutely nasty and unpleasant film, with disgusting content. I don’t know what the source was, but I didn’t like what was happening on the screen. Another fable about racism and sexual minorities, but at least this time there will not be a ton of snot and tears over it. But there will be some strange things and absolutely incomprehensible scenes that cause not so much shock, but some surprise and thought in the brain: why should this be shown on the screen? If you take that jellyfish scene or the prison scene, why would you have to show it at all? Personally, I think that each scene should mean something and convey some meaning to the viewer, here I did not understand what was happening.
The story itself leaves no one interested. There is no intrigue, and everything drags around somehow sluggish and languid, against the background of uninteresting characters and weak directing. The only thing to praise the movie for is acting! There's really nothing to complain about. Even pretty Zac Efron looks pretty convincing in his role, and Nicole Kidman I do not say at all – despite her age she is still damn sexy! At least for her, the male sex should already see this movie. Also pleasantly surprised John Cusack in an unusual way for himself. I used to see him in exceptionally positive roles, and here is such a colorful character!
It is a pity that all these acting works do not brighten up the overall impression of viewing, which remained exclusively negative. The film, without any zest, with good acting, but cavity negative, depressive and poorly directed. Events are presented somewhat confused, which sometimes evaporates even the part of the atmosphere that managed to appear.
It's a very strange movie. That is, the content should be interesting: there is a story of growing up against the background of a journalistic investigation, in order to save one vile alligator hunter from the electric chair (the most disgusting role of Cusack, for sure). Only the investigation is very indistinct, everyone sweats intensely in the Florida climate and the molted colors of the 70s, and the detective himself periodically slides into talking about sex. Several particularly disgusting scenes get into the brain with a dead grip, it is impossible to get rid of them at all (for some it will be Nicole Kidman peeing on the camera, for others it will be McConnachi’s white ass in close-up, but the scene of a contactless blowjob, without options, no one will forget). Everything looks rotten and meaningless: ugly inside and out people, houses, events. One Zac Efron in white underpants with the grace of a young animal languishes in this film as in a cage and the camera shamelessly admires every freckle on his sweaty nose.
This is exactly what the creators of this heavy bad dream did well, so it conveyed the suffocating, humid heat - it directly physically pours from the screen, so you begin to choke and passionately dream about something cool.
5.5 out of 10
This film cannot but please at least the fact that its director is Lee Daniels, who shot a great film treasure. This time, taking up the history of the investigation of the murder of a sheriff and taking a lot of famous actors, he gives us a film newspaperman. What happened?
First of all, the film is absolutely disappointing with at least casting for the main roles. Not that the actors were bad, they were just picked up disgustingly. It seems that the creators specifically wanted to invite famous, and not suitable in this case actors. No adequate relationship, no chemistry between the characters does not arise, everyone cooks in their own juice, not thinking how it affects the ensemble.
It should be clarified that the plot of the film is not interesting literally to anyone, nor the actors, not the director, nor the screenwriter, because the main thing in this film is the atmosphere (which is really felt) and the small details on which everything that happens is based.
Tresh, black woman, experiments with heroes, a demonstration of what is usually left behind – that’s the whole point of the film newspaperman. He has no plot, no intrigue, no clever plot - he just drags from his unusualness and blackness. As a rule, many arthouses have such properties, but they are only additions to the main essence of the film, which the newspaperman does not possess. And if you think that such an experiment looks interesting, you are deeply mistaken. If anyone enjoyed it, it was only the filmmakers.
The result: an art house black, completely devoid of meaning, development, logic and interest.
Comfort Boys for a Single Woman or South Noir by Lee Daniels
It's in the late '60s. Famous journalist Ward Jensen, along with a colleague, comes to a small town in the South of the United States to investigate the brutal murder of a local sheriff with racist views and prove the innocence of a convicted Hillary. However, soon Ward, accompanied in his research by vulgar beauty Charlotte and his own younger brother, realizes that not everything in this case is simple and simple.
The best-selling novel by the American writer Peter Dexter “The Newspaper” is a virtuoso and almost deliberate stylization for cheap tabloid novels in paper covers with a frankly scandalous scent and only partially absorbs the glorious traditions of the literature of the American South. Director Lee Daniels in his adaptation of this novel in 2012, coolly received by both audiences and critics, to a greater extent, these traditions were strengthened, saturating the tape with allusions to the work of William Faulkner, Harper Lee and, in particular, the master of “South Gothic” Flannery Oh, Connor, turning just a detective with a passing social accent into a social drama, packaged in the shell of an exploitative, shocking movie, weaving classic southern noir into a dirty erotic, with a touch of obvious homosexual orientation of cinema, in which there is an aesthetic of disgusting, lumpen aesthetics.
Nicole Kidman and her character Charlotte are extremely attractive and attractive in their vulgar sexuality. Matthew McConaughey perfectly performed the role of Ward continued the gallery of contradictory images started earlier in Killer Joe and Hud, and John Cusack plays marginal Hillary almost the best performance in his film career. Zac Efron, in turn, with the role of Jack, threw off the image of a “sweet boy”, superbly saturating his character with psychology and ambiguity with the seemingly deliberate directorial exploitation of his external data, but, watching the film, an intelligent viewer sees his hero, a lively, somewhat strange, and not just a sexual actor, decorating the background with his half-nakedness, for, although the story in the film is told from the perspective of the black maid Anita (the memorable role of Macy Gray), the entire stream of events we see through the eyes of Jack.
“Newspaper” is a film in which the topical theme of racism, the shift of moral accents, and the theme of love through the eyes of a growing person, love, grown as a perverted concept, and the themes of the dark side of human nature and the dark side of America are played in a very sharp form. Full of warm nastalgic tones, Robert Schaefer’s camera work dissonates with the content of the picture, creating an unusual viscous atmosphere in it.
The soundtrack from the composer Mario Grigorov sounds almost inaudible in the picture, with the strongest notes of the minor, further enhancing the gloomy nature of this film.
So, “Newspaper” is both a stylish naturalistic retrothriller of an erotic nature, and a social drama in the style of art thrash, which, of course, will not be to the taste of every viewer, but if you are a fan of author’s films, then I recommend this picture by director Lee Daniels to you for viewing.
9 out of 10
Cinema is an illusion in which you immerse yourself while watching, a small life, 1.5-2 hours long, but nevertheless extremely rich in events, emotions, impressions. Film stories sometimes load our brain with work for several days ahead, sometimes give a lot of smiles and a positive mood, sometimes leave a bitter aftertaste, something heavy, incredibly offensive, but necessary, useful, instructive.
If you look at “Newspaper” Lee Daniels in a similar vein, for me personally it became a film from the category of “I wish I hadn’t watched it.” I can’t say the movie is bad, weak or anything like that. Not only that, there is a phenomenal cast - which you can not stick to. It has its own handwriting, even some intrigue was present, at least in the first half of the film. Yes, and does not pass without a trace, sits in the head and gives a lot of impressions and sensations. Unfortunately, not very pleasant. Of course, no one promises when watching the thriller “pink bunnies and flowers”, but when the movie evokes only one desire – to empty your stomach, then this is also not normal. So if you decide to watch this “masterpiece”, it is better to do it on an empty stomach.
The movie is disgusting. At least for me. And even thousands of praises from top critics wouldn’t convince me otherwise. And the point here is not in excessive impressionability, but in the abundance of dirt that the authors pour on the viewer. The boring, sluggish current plot is tied to several heroes, none of which is worthy of either attention or interest. Some people might think I'm narrow-minded, but I don't really understand why I'm filming pervert stories. “The norm” is a concept, of course, relative, invented by the majority, there are always individuals who differ from many, interesting and extraordinary personalities. I haven't seen one here. The list of those who had to witness more than an hour and a half is as follows:
Jack Jensen (Zac Efron) is a sweet young man who is the only one with any sympathy. Still, to think of him as “the head that with the brain” at all there would be no value. But he thinks just a different place, so, flaming with love (or rather, something more banal and primitive) for his aunt twice his age plunges into incredible dramatic suffering.
Charlotte (Nicole Kidman) is the subject of Jack’s dreams, simultaneously pretty dragged and sick on the head of a scoundrel, obsessed with the insane idea of pulling out of prison a criminal found by correspondence and “sunk into her soul.”
Hilary (John Cusack) is Charlotte's lover, spending his days in prison, where, by the way, he belongs.
Ward Jensen (Matthew McConaughey) is Jack’s brother, a journalist who decided, based on the letters of inadequate Charlotte, to pull out their prisons of her hahala. Among other things, Ward, who initially gives the impression of the only normal person in this mess, finally gives up his position, appears before the viewer in a couple of even more vile scenes than the scenes with the heroine Kidman.
WW Jensen - the head of the family, the owner of a local newspaper, who was abandoned by his wife and he completely moved into old age, began to "change women like gloves" and at the end gave his family business to one of them, apparently forgetting that he, like, has children.
The film is replete with a mass of bloody frank and nauseously nasty scenes, whether it is, prying the belly of a crocodile, slitting the throat of one of the heroes, urine therapy, masturbation in prison with witnesses, gay scenes, and even the animals of copulation Charlotte with Hillary is the top of the “beautiful”.
Personally, I watched the film with great difficulty, hoping that at least in the end there would be something to explain to me what it was made for. Teaching what? What vaccinates? Where's the point? I am not interested in digging into the perverse psychology of manic prisoners, gays and sluts. Not only do the characters not cause any positive emotions, so the plot, which began with the investigation of the murder of a sheriff, moves aside, piles up with dirty sexual fantasies and loses its original thread. The authors, apparently, tried to fill it with melodramatic meaning, which in the picture was transmitted only through the dog’s devoted and dreary eyes of Zac Efron. It turned out some “rotten” melodrama with elements of a detective and thriller, seasoned for greater drama with problems of racism and unconventional love.
Finally, I want to apologize to fans of the film “Newspaper” Lee Daniels, I do not claim that this is definitely a bad movie. I do not claim the truth in the last resort and do not force anyone to accept my point of view. I agree that life is not always beautiful, there is enough dirt, perversion, immorality and other vices in the world. Just for me personally, this film was a waste of time, and left behind the most unpleasant impressions.
It is known that Pedro Almodovar was interested in this project, and one can only regret that he did not implement this project. I am sure that one of the leaders of modern cinema would shoot this story in such a way that watching it would be an extravaganza.
And Lee Daniels made it easy. In fact, against the background of a criminal plot, we are told a melodrama about the growing up of a young man. I will only add that it all begins with the fact that the newspapers pull out of prison falsely accused of murder man.
In the common people, repeated plots are called unpretentiously - "bayan". So, it is the “bayan” that can be called this film.
Yes, the melodramatic line is very eventful and the plot really needed to be filmed. But not as straightforward.
Unfortunately, Lee Daniels did everything very academically. He invited famous actors to the main roles (I am sure, having learned the plot, they gladly agreed), and relaxed began to shoot.
That is why the main bet in the film is on plot moves that are really unpredictable, actors and erotic scenes.
Let's start with the erotic scenes. This is the film in which Nicole Kidman wrote on a man.
It's very difficult to evaluate them. The authors sought shocking frankness, but it turned out very difficult. I saw a 46-year-old woman who publicly mimics oral sex and then has sex with her peer.
We were given a glimpse of some of the details of the failed homo dating. And, there was a small session of forced urine therapy, which so “excited” some viewers. Everything.
This is certainly shocking, but if you compare with the “Fourth Man” or “Basic Man” by Verhoeven, then nothing special can be distinguished.
As for the acting, the “tattered” image of Nicole Kidman stood out of course. You can hardly talk seriously about her success. Just a little uncharacteristic for her. Nothing extraordinary. Even her acting work in the biography of Hemingway I would put higher. By the way, there are erotic scenes with much greater taste made.
Another key role is played by John Cusack. The actor is experimenting a lot. No wonder. After all, back in the 80s, he was one of the most talented and promising actors. But he has not yet become a full-fledged star.
His acting work seemed unconvincing to me. He tried, was professional, but even the elderly Scott Glenn with this role would cope at once.
It seems that Cusack can give out strong roles only in masters of directing or within the framework of a romantic image.
I liked Matthew McConnahy. His closed, cold image was a kind of experiment. I think the actor is working on expanding his range and he has proven that he has every reason to move to more serious roles. Under certain circumstances, his work could even qualify for the best supporting role of the year.
I won’t say much about Zach Efron, but he also very accurately “came” into his role and looked solid.
There was such a wonderful Clint Eastwood movie Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, and I think Newspaper looks stylistically like it. Lee Daniel’s film lacked good taste, balance and harmony.
If Pedro Almodovar or Clint Eastwood had taken up a film with such an extraordinary plot, it could have turned out a masterpiece, and so came just a trivial film with several dubiously scandalous scenes. At the same time, we must not forget the very worthy work of Matthew McConnahy.
4 out of 10
The story of the film unfolds in the late 60s of the last century in the southern states of America. The rise of racism has gone down a bit. The famous Black Lady speaks in the box in defense of African Americans and defends their rights enshrined in the Constitution. In a sparsely populated town comes journalist Ward with his companion in order to write an article about an innocent convict, in other words, to raise “noise” in the press. In this, as it turned out, quite ordinary for experienced professionals, they are helped by Ward's younger brother Jack and the sexy, but incredibly vulgar blonde Charlotte.
All that Lee Daniels wanted to say about the problem of African Americans is in his previous films. In Newspaper, he used one of a thousand stories that happened every second day, which probably happened in fact, and embellished it with competent PR - where you can still see the whore Nicole Kidman, the extreme gay McConaughey, "oldish" Cusack and half-film flaunting with Efron's naked pumped torso? But the enthusiasm with which this company takes up the “case”, very quickly dissipates and there is only a slight hint of a thriller, in principle, without a weighty and in some way interesting plot.
Simple as a weed, the truth: don’t mess with the cattle, otherwise you will be lost – turns into a kind of teaching, which Daniels was engaged in the last part of the film, no one needed, but necessary to finish the film on any note. But to say that the performance that the leading actors staged was in vain, the language will not turn. “Newspaper” was filled with black humor and simply amazing acting, and if Daniels ended the film in the same vein, it would have turned out much better.
Not so often there are films where eminent actors sharply depart from their established and developed over the years characters. Usually, they separately are the highlights of different films, where often their unusual role, even if it is not their main one, steal the picture.
And very rarely there are films when positive actors all play characters unusual to them. It is enough to watch the filmography of the main characters of the "Newspaper" to understand that for Kidman, McConaughey, Cusack and especially Efron, this is a project standing alone in their work.
And the best part is that with their play and their departure from their usual roles, they not only did not spoil the film, but on the contrary decorated it. Everyone worked for the idea. Because of the modest budget, the director invited Nicole Kidman to come up with an image herself, without the participation of a stylist, to which she enthusiastically responded and created her most vivid and memorable heroine for many years. I was afraid that it would be difficult for me to watch the film because of Efron, I did not accept him as an actor, but I was glad to be disappointed, he did an excellent job with his task. Cusack and McConaughey once again show different facets of their talent (Cusack's character is truly disgusting).
The newspaper, in my opinion, is a werewolf film. Someone sees in it a tabloid story about America of the late 60s, another case of an unfortunate prisoner unjustly accused of murdering a local sheriff, and who now faces the death penalty, but there are people, for various reasons of course, ready to help him and understand this case.
On the other hand, it is shot in the style of Black exploit films, a story where each character has his skeleton in the closet, and most of them can not cause sympathy from the viewer.
In my opinion, this is a film about love. Yes, wrapped in a wrapper of lust, perversion and dirt, but everyone has his own love. Everyone wants to be loved.
The character of Zac Efron, who is in search of himself and does not understand what he needs at this period of life, falls in love with the heroine Kidman. She is older than him, and in life she does not often seem to meet good guys, so she falls in absentia in love with a prisoner (Cusack), having met him by correspondence. She believes that this is the kind of rude, uncouth man she needs. She wants to love and be loved.
Efron will give up his feeling completely, it will tear him from the inside, push him to different actions, unfortunately, not all of them will lead to a happy ending. Love both saves and destroys.
Even though the film must be disgusting by nature, it left a bright impression on me. Yes, the story in it is not pleasant, but the characters in the person of Efron, Kidman, McConaughey, Grace made it an honest and sad story about the first love, which is not forgotten.
10 out of 10
From Lee Daniels, the director of the tasteless political correct agitation “Treasure”, one could expect to follow the principles chosen earlier, especially since they almost led him to the main award of the American Film Academy. It is all the more pleasant to find that the director decided to radically change the image of the production, shooting even not quite a movie in its usual sense, but rather an exotic, fascinating trip, catching rather by its inner construction of contemplative, but plotless action.
The axiom is a situation where a chic blonde, being in love with a convicted murderer (and the novel was conceived exclusively by correspondence), decides to seek the help of a journalist Ward, in order to justify the future spouse, despite the obvious mental abnormalities of the latter. However, no hero here is not subject to public taboos, melting in their closets not a single skeleton, and the story itself can not be adequately perceived by the viewer. In fact, sometimes Daniels is confused in three pine trees, throwing on the screen a real bacchanalia of arguments about racism, homosexuality and others, obviously sore for the author that probably turned away most critics who considered this approach to work at least not serious. And without a doubt, they are right, because the artistic merits of this tape are its Achilles heel. On the other hand, it is impossible not to admit that this is a good homage to classic neonoirs a la “Midnight Heat”, even if for someone these comparisons seem far-fetched.
The reason for such a confident interest in the Newspaper for more than an hour and a half lies solely in the actors. First of all, I want to pay tribute to the magnificent Nicole Kidman, who personally invented her image, and brilliantly played it. From the actress literally emanate waves of dirty lust, animal sexuality, which is even more clearly demonstrated in the landmark episode in court. Sex in general is saturated with the whole film, each of its frames breathes seething somewhere in the depths, indescribable by words, energy, which allowed the still quite ambiguous director to balance on the brink of pretentious farce, but never slide into it. Even if there is another, not at all aesthetic side of the film, like a visual demonstration of urine therapy, nevertheless, the emotional background is even more intense. Returning to the actors, it is impossible not to say about Cusack, who was surprisingly approached by a de facto antagonist-schizophrenic, or McConaughey, since the days of Lincoln for a Lawyer, who spread his shoulders widely. Naturally, among such a starfall, the weak link is the unremarkable Zac Efron, who grew out of such a low-grade product as “Class musical”.
Meanwhile, the moral ugliness of the majority of persons employed in this theater of the absurd somehow spills out, following all the canons of tabloid fiction, by which incidentally, this novel was captured. With the great pleasure of the sadist, Daniels breaks the stereotypes of the favorites of the public, turning inside out the psychological portraits familiar to the American public, and leading an incredibly winding detective thread to a spectacular, designed for a shock state of denouement. And let the extra racist overtones here acutely makes itself felt closer to the final credits - a thorough reconstruction of the musty atmosphere of the 60s allows you to close your eyes.
7 out of 10
Newspaper is a literary work in the format of a disappointing film that has not lived up to its potential.
Stories about a “moved” woman who wanted variety: to connect life (after correspondence) with a tough schizophrenic inmate, and she was lucky – one journalist named Ward decided to help her prove the innocence of her lover. His friend joined the company. Yadley and his brother Jack. Jack lives with his father and his bitchy future wife, whom he, along with black servants, is not particularly fond of. All the characters sooner or later met and the unimaginable: they are all the center of the story of the film, which, in turn, turns out to be a very controversial picture, and the dispute is this: the film is bad or terrible. Lee Daniels earned respect for his previous film, but judging by most, it failed this time around. The director forces the viewer to be a participant in the orgy that is happening on the screen: the main trouble of the film is the script from Lee Daniels and his own production of the film. Very angry (and very much strained on the “not good” at the beginning of the film) the story on behalf of the black heroine-maid, the fail murder of Ward, Jack (the swimmer and did not know about jellyfish? said that he would remove the broken glass and in the end did not fulfill the word).
The film touches on many problems: racism, gays, stupid and meaningless actions, first love, disrespect, flying out of the mouth of “extra” words. The characters of the film are puppets in the hands of the director-writer, and they do whatever they want with them, but if they are individuals who can say their word, the film would only benefit from this. An already short film with 1 hour 41 minutes turns into a real long and sluggish nonsense: everyone does a lot of stupid things to eventually either return to normal or die. From the whole film, you need to learn only: 1. Respect the servant. 2. Do not have a logical continuation of an affair with an older woman. 3. Keep everything under control and think ahead. Scenes of a sexual nature are ugly: they will cut off on the most juicy, interesting, what exactly needs to be shown, or show something disgusting (solving the problem with a burn) or remove a clumsy and tasteless series of rapes (with a fantasy trouble?). For the sake of art, one must make sacrifices, or not participate in its creation at all. The film didn't become art. They found problems in their “sitting room”. However, there is something in the film that thickens the picture: a scene in prison between Kidman and Cusack (and at the same time the rest of the actors present in that scene) and, really making you afraid and feel cold, scary music.
The cast is led by: Zac Efron - he got an ordinary typical hero, squeezing for a woman many times older than him, having a bad brother, well, and caught in the whirlpool of fatal events. Zack's pretty face spoils everything, but if he had short grayish hair, there would be flying and originality. Matthew McConaughey has slid to a terrible level: then he has to play old strippers with shit, then strange killers-padophiles, then gay journalists, so that the old days of Matt have already passed, as his heroes: caloric adventurers, lawyers, etc.; Nicole Kidman is not recognizable here, not in terms of appearance, but in everything else: she is a real sexy cat that will not give so easily. I want to believe that she will play many interesting roles. John Cusack here can be seen as suffered throughout his career: the actor as if squeezed like an orange, it is clear that he is already lazy to play interesting characters, and his role he plays on the “automatic”.
In general, the movie is not mandatory! But if it does, it's okay. I know that the film is based on a book, but: if the original material is bad, you can add slack, and the main idea to leave or implement “in another language”, or not to touch such a dubious project at all.
4 out of 10
When reviewing this film, it makes sense to talk about feelings first. To them I dedicate a couple of paragraphs below, without discussing the meaning, and about whether I liked it or not. In this case, I think it is not so important and therefore I write hot.
Amazing. For exactly one hour forty-one minutes, I forgot all the good things that happened to me all day. This is one of the most unusual films I have seen. Impressive and difficult story. To be honest, we didn’t really expect that. As the film progressed, my body reminded me three times that it had a gag reflex. Perhaps someone will tell me that I am too impressionable, but if two hundred grams of vodka, consumed earlier, allowed me to treat with some irony the episode of mutual masturbation in prison and its victorious result on the pants of a psychotic criminal, then this is the episode with a bound, naked, bloodied man, previously ripped off by two African Americans, I refuse to accept at all. But the point is not even in this, public resonance, which is touched upon as one of the main themes of the film, is projected on the movie itself in real time, i.e. is like the best compliment to the director, as if that was the goal originally. This is achieved by filming all the abomination that combines racism, perversion, infidelity, lies, alcoholism, moral decline, etc.
As a result, the film was hard to watch, and it lasted for me a very long time. In my opinion, there are a lot of explicit scenes of violence. However, the film is not bad and its creators, in my subjective opinion, worked quite well, but the story is disgusting, although there is also a good thing in it, for example, that Jack, having learned about the secrets of his brother, did not turn away from him and was with him to the end. But this glimpse, like the others, somehow pales in comparison to the looming burden of problems and nightmares that the characters face. It is always better to look at things from the best side, sometimes even deliberately ignoring what we do not want to see in our lives. Some people say it’s bullshit, but the movie is based on real events.
The “newspaper”, which blew up the rumble of indignation of Cannes, finally came to Russia. And domestic distributors prudently decided not to spend money on a notoriously losing, from the point of view of fees, spectacle.
The movie is peculiar. In the conventional sense, this is, of course, thrash - a bad, "junk" movie, not reaching the art house. If we talk about the creators of this film, the director Lee Daniels shot a little-known film “Treasure” and produced the Oscar-winning for Halle Berry “Monsters Ball” and a kind of “The Woodcutter” with Kevin Bacon in the title role.
But I liked that movie. He's weird, rough, at times nauseous. But, nevertheless, it is real, without embellishment and familiar, so beloved by the public, pomp.
The plot is a favorite of American cinema theme of life imprisonment and the death penalty of a certain person. But the director decided to present here in the most atypical roles of all actors who have already become characteristic. Youthful and turned on its peculiar character Nicole Kidman. Her character Charlotte from "big mind" and thirst exclusive corresponds with convicts and finds in the face of one of them "great love". Having thought of nothing better, Charlotte writes lengthy letters to the newspaper, hoping to draw attention to the innocently convicted "beloved." Hillary (J. Cusack) and cause a public outcry.
And bingo - she comes to the aid of a principled and very meticulous journalist, hereditary newspaperman - Ward Jensen (Macconaughey) with a smart black colleague Yardley (D. Oyelowo). And as a chauffeur to the company ascetic younger brother Ward - failed swimmer and fledgling youngster Jack (Efron).
In the process of face-to-face meetings with the innocently convicted, newspapermen observe a lot of unusual things. Charlotte is fixated on sex and intimacy with a citizen behind bars - all means are good for this: wigs and Babette-Barbie-style garments, a flower dress and shiny leggings, vulgar behavior and public masturbation. Ward is obsessed with deed, not believing, at the same time, in the innocence of Hillary, but the venerable journalist has his skeletons in the closet. Yardley seems to be just rubbing around here for company. The hero of Efron constantly flaunts top loess, carnivorously looks at Charlotte and thirsts for all the fibres of it is clear that.
In the end, circumstantial evidence is found, the grain of doubt about guilt is laid, and our Hillary, a crocodile and sheriff hunter, is pardoned by the governor of the state and free. And that’s where it starts...
The film is replete with explicit scenes - from masturbation in a dating cell, beach urine therapy, to scenes of sado-masochistic and not aesthetic sexual libations, dissecting the belly of a crocodile and slitting the throat of one of the central characters! But all these actions are fully justified. The film explains certain features of the behavior and actions of all the characters.
Impressed Nicole Kidman (his reincarnation), Matthew McConaughey (courage in portraying not the most “clean” character) and John Cusack (frozenness, madness in the eyes and enduring cruelty in the eyes) – such we hardly ever saw them before.
I probably wouldn’t advise a general viewing of this film – it’s very much for an amateur and not for the faint of heart and sophisticated. But that’s why he’s a “bad” movie. I’m going to revisit it in a couple of years.