The Post (2017)
Steven Spielberg directing Hanks, Streep, Odenkirk, Greenwood, Plemons, and Brie should make a lot of money and be a high quality movie, right?
The film is about The Washington Post Newspaper it 1971. It chronicles how the press defies the government as they want to release loads of classified documents pertaining to the Vietnam War.
The movie was directed by Steven Spielberg and the noteworthy cast includes Tom Hanks, Meryl Streep, Bob Odenkirk, Bruce Greenwood, Jesse Plemons, Alison Brie, Sarah Paulson, Tracy Letts, Bradley Whitford, David Cross, Zach Woods, and Michael Stuhlberg.
The Post is dry as the desert sand. Bright, but also burned out.
The movie was a little hard to follow in the beginning. It has a slow start. Almost every scene seemed drawn out. Because some of the scenes drag on, it takes away from the storyline. You either lose interest and it makes it harder to remember small details that do not matter until later on.
Like many political dramas, the stars come out to play. However, often there are too many stars in the sky, so to speak. There is not enough movie to go around. That is exactly the case with this film. There was this kind of detachment from the main characters.
Odenkirk was probably the most entertaining part of the film and it felt like he was hardly in it. Hanks was likable, but his performance was nothing special. Streep’s character started to develop about halfway through. I feel like the movie had plenty of time for us to become attached to the characters, but it just never gets there.
The entertainment value that we have come to expect from a Spielberg directed film, was hard to find. The spark was just was not present. The scenery was great. It felt like the right time and place that it was depicting. There was not a shortage of acting ability. The Post just falls short of all expectations.
It is a likable overrated, underachieving, sluggish, and detached film. It is worth a one-time rental.
I rate this movie a 6 on a scale of 1-10.
If you liked this film then you might also enjoy:
Bridge of Spies (2015)
Lions for Lambs (2007)
All the President’s Men (1976)
There has been some Oscar buzz around the grapevine involving Matthew McConaughey‘s performance in Mud. I think that he did a superb job in his role, but I don’t think that the role itself is Oscar worthy. They might just nominate him to give him a little bit of well-deserved recognition, but he won’t win.
McConaughey has always been a very likable actor. He carries himself well and always brings a lot of energy to his characters. He is usually in excellent shape and the ladies love him. I think that is why he has made so many “chick flicks.” Because of his many romantic movies, I think that a lot of people, including the Academy don’t take him seriously as an actor. I believe that is why he gets overlooked when it comes time to give out awards. It’s a shame because the guy certainly is capable of an Oscar worthy performance, just look at The Lincoln Lawyer (2011), Two for the Money (2005), and Frailty (2001), to name a few.
In Mud, Matthew McConaughey plays a man named Mud. He is an outlaw living like a bum on an island in Arkansas. Two teenage boys (Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland) get more than they bargained for when they meet Mud after they find a boat high up in the trees on the same island.
The film was written and directed by Jeff Nichols.
Mud was not exactly what I expected. I guess I didn’t know quite what to expect. The film was unique. The story was original which these days is a little rare. It was a nice change of pace to see a one-of-a-kind movie instead of a sequel or a remake of another movie.
Being basically unknown actors, I thought that Sheridan and Lofland both did an exceptional job of carrying their part of the movie.
Shepard and Shannon were both fun additions to the film.
I’m not a huge fan of Witherspoon, but I felt that she did an okay job in the film. However, I think that her character needed more screen time. That isn’t her fault. The movie could have been improved upon if her part of the story was better told. It just felt like her part was lacking something. I left the theatre thinking that the movie was really good, but something was missing. Her character could have provided that something.
The film did a fine job of developing most of its characters and building suspense. It was intriguing. It kept you wanting to know what was going to happen next and was not very predictable.
Unfortunately the movie is in limited release. It is a little bit surprising to me that the film is not in wide release. It is the first movie that I have seen in a long time that I could not sit in the part of the theatre that I wanted. I had my choice between the second or first rows. That is how packed the theatre was.
Mud is worth checking out if you are sick of the same old sequels or remakes that Hollywood keeps regurgitating for your enjoyment week after week. It’s a nice change of pace to be able to watch a movie that allows the actors to act and counts on their ability and the storyline alone to be entertaining and successful.
I rate this movie a 8 on a scale of 1-10.
Buy, rent, or run? Rent.
Note: After watching this movie a second time, I had to raise my initial rating from a 7.5 to an 8. The film is better than I originally gave it credit for.