Have you ever watched a movie on DVD or cable that you regret not seeing in the movie theaters? I have. In fact, I have seen at least three films nominated for Best Picture . . . after they had been released on DVD. One of those films was the actual Best Picture winner, "SPOTLIGHT".
Directed by Oscar nominee Thomas McCarthy, "SPOTLIGHT" told the story of The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, the oldest continuously operating newspaper investigative journalist unit in the United States and its investigation into cases of widespread and systemic child sex abuse in the Boston area by numerous Roman Catholic priests. The story began in 2001 when a new editor named Marty Baron is hired by The Globe. During a staff meeting, Baron brought up the subject of a Boston priest named John Geoghan, who was sexually abusing children and nothing was done - by the Church or the city's law enforcement - to stop him. Baron urged the "Spotlight" team to investigate. Initially believing that they are following the story of one priest who was moved around several times, the "Spotlight" team eventually uncovered a pattern of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests throughout Massachusetts and an ongoing cover-up by the Boston Archdiocese, Cardinal Bernard Law.
After watching "SPOTLIGHT", I easily understood why it had received a good deal of acclaim and award nominations. It really is a first rate movie. Due to the fact that the movie focused on a newspaper investigation team, it allowed moviegoers to enjoy the team's step-by-step investigation into the priests and their victims in the Boston area. I might as well say it. The movie reminded me of the 1975 Oscar nominee, "ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN" . . . and in a good way. I have not seen a really good movie about investigative journalism in a long time. I also have to commend director Thomas McCarthy and his co-writer Josh Singer for conveying the "Spotlight" team's discoveries via interviews and records in a well-paced manner. McCarthy did not rush the"Spotlight" team's investigation, but he did not drag it as well. In the end, the investigation itself struck me as a fascinating mystery that developed into a horror story that left me feeling appalled.
"SPOTLIGHT" not only received nominations for McCarthy's direction and the screenplay that he wrote with Singer, it also received a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Mark Ruffalo and Best Supporting Actress nomination for Rachel McAdams. The pair portrayed two members of the "Spotlight" team - Michael Rezendes and Sacha Pfeiffer. I will admit that both gave first-rate performances. The movie also featured excellent performances from Liev Schreiber as Marty Baron, who started the whole thing in motion; John Slattery as Assistant Managing Editor Ben Bradlee Jr.; Brian d'Arcy James as reporter Matt Carroll; Jamey Sheridan as Catholic Church attorney Jim Sullivan; and Billy Crudup as attorney Eric MacLeish.
Ironically, my two favorite performances in the movie did not receive any Academy Award or Golden Globe nominations. One came from Stanley Tucci, who portrayed Mitchell Garabedian, a sharp-tongued attorney who represented many sexual abuse victim. I enjoyed Tucci's sardonic, yet understated performance and how his character pointed out how many Boston officials cooperated with the Catholic Church to cover up the abuses. I also enjoyed Michael Keaton's ambiguous portrayal of editor and the team's leader, Walter "Robby" Robinson. Keaton did a great job in not only conveying his character's leadership, but also his knowledge that The Globe had learned about the abuses years earlier, but had covered it up. It seemed a shame that he did not receive an Academy or Golden Globe nomination.
As much as I enjoyed "SPOTLIGHT" and was impressed by it, a part of me feels that it should not have won the Best Picture award. I think the Academy had awarded the film its top honor simply based upon its topic. The problem for me is that "SPOTLIGHT" simply lacked any real artistry. One might accuse me of being shallow. Perhaps I am. But I would prefer to choose a movie that not only provided a great topic, but also first-rate writing . . . and artistry. I can think of two other films that were also nominated the same year as "SPOTLIGHT" that provided all of those features. Someone once pointed out that if you take away the movie's topic of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church, "SPOTLIGHT" would come off as a solid, paint-by-the numbers film by a first-time director. And you know what? That person was right. There were times when McCarthy's direction for "SPOTLIGHT" seemed a bit amateurish.
Even though I feel that "SPOTLIGHT" should not have won the Best Picture Oscar for 2015, I cannot deny that it is a basically an first-rate film. I believe that this is due to its fascinating subject, the film's approach to the topic as a mystery and the excellent cast led by Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams.
Below are images from the 2015 Best Picture Oscar winner, "SPOTLIGHT". Directed and co-written by Thomas McCarthy, the movie starred Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams and Liev Schreiber:
Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) scored its first big box office hit of 2016 with the release of “CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR”. Six months later, the organization and producer Kevin Fiege scored another hit with its first adaptation of the Marvel Comics character, Doctor Strange.
Directed by Scott Derrickson and starring Benedict Cumberbatch in the starring role, “DOCTOR STRANGE” told unveiled the origin story of a successful New York City neurosurgeon named Dr. Stephen Strange, whose career ends when he loses the use of both hands in a traumatic car accident. Despite emotional support from his former lover and colleague Dr. Christine Palmer, Stephen vainly pursues one experimental surgery after another in the hopes of mending his hands, so that he can regain his medical career. When all else fails, he learns about a paraplegic who was mysteriously able to walk again named Jonathan Pangborn. The latter directs Stephen to a community in Tibet called Kamar-Taj.
Upon reaching the Tibetan city, Stephen meets a sorcerer named Karl Mordo. The latter recommends Strange as a potential student to his former mentor, a sorceress named The Ancient One. The latter displays her abilities with the mystic arts to Stephen, revealing the astral plane and other dimensions such as the Mirror Dimension. An amazed Strange begs her to teach him her abilities. The Ancient One reluctantly agrees, despite her wariness over his arrogance, which reminds her of a former student named Kaecilius. The latter and his new group of zealots had recently broke into Kamar-Taj secret compound, beheaded the librarian and stolen a secret ritual from a book that belonged to the Ancient One. With this stolen ritual, Kaecilius hopes to learn the means to acquire the power of eternal life. And it is up to The Ancient One, Mordo, the new librarian Wong and Stephen to stop him.
Superficially, “DOCTOR STRANGE” proved to be a different kettle of fish for Marvel. One, due to the abilities of the main protagonist and other supporting characters, this movie marked the MCU’s first foray into magic. Well … not really. The two previous “THOR” more or less stated that at least two of its characters practiced magic. But the subject of magic was never fully explored until “DOCTOR STRANGE”. Also, the movie marked the first time in which the main character practiced magic. Second, the method in which Stephen defeated the main antagonist’s goals did not rely upon violence of any kind. Our magical hero basically resorted to magic and cunning to win the day. To be honest, I cannot recall any other Marvel hero or heroine who did not resort to brute force to defeat any of the main villains in the past thirteen films. And although the MCU movie had its share of unusual visual effects - especially 2015’s “ANT-MAN”, those for “DOCTOR STRANGE” has to be the most visually stunning effects I have ever seen in any Marvel film so far.
As for the narrative itself … well, it is not bad. Aside from the unorthodox manner in which Stephen defeated the villain(s), “DOCTOR STRANGE” seemed to be your typical, paint-by-the-numbers superhero origin story. And I noticed that the film borrowed a good deal from other movies. Considering Stephen’s arrogant and witty personality, the movie bears a strong resemblance to the 2008 film, “IRON MAN”. In fact, like Tony Stark, Stephen’s arrogance remains intact by the last reel. Also, some of the visual effects reminded me of those found in Christopher Nolan’s 2010 movie, “INCEPTION”. And one of the villains that Stephen has to defeat in the end, Dormammu, reminded me of the villain called Parallax from the 2011 D.C. Comics film, “THE GREEN LANTERN”. Perhaps the originality found in “DOCTOR STRANGE” is limited to the MCU movies.
Although the topic of magic allowed the special effects team to provide moviegoers with some astounding visuals, I must admit that I found the movie’s portryal of magic to be a little … well, limited. Most of the magic presented in “DOCTOR STRANGE” seemed to consist of jumping through portals - either from one spot on the Earth to the next or to another dimension. If the movie’s magic practitioners were not jumping through portals, they were utilzing magical objects like the red Mystical Cloak of Levitation from the New York City sanctum that attached itself to Stephen; and the Eye of Agamotto, a relic containing an Infinity Stone that can manipulate time - which Stephen had used against Dormammu in the final action scene. Only one spell had appeared in the movie - the one that Kaecilius used to summon Dormammu.
The movie’s narrative suffered from one major aspect - characterization. One, the story lacked a strong leading lady. I personally have nothing against Rachel McAdams as an actress. But it seemed obvious that director/screenwriter Scott Derrickson and his fellow writers, Jon Spaihts and C. Robert Cargill did not know what to do with the Christine Palmer character. She was there to simply there to comfort Stephen following his accident and tend to his wounds, later in the film. At least McAdams had more lines than fellow cast member, Michael Stuhlbarg. The latter portrayed fellow surgeon, Nicodemus West, who seemed to exist to receive caustic criticism and needling from Stephen. Otherwise … what on earth was he there for? I realize that Marvel has a history of wasting some of its supporting character, but … good grief! And then we have poor Mads Mikkelsen, who had the bad luck to be cast as one of the most badly written villains in the MCU franchise. The Danish actor portrayed The Ancient One’s former student, Kaecilius, who resented the Ancient One’s method for maintaining a long life and long to do the same … even if it meant threatening the world by summoning Dormammu, the inter-dimensional being responsible for his former mentor’s long life. That is basically Kaecilius’ goal - to extend his life. That is what his attacks on the Ancient One’s sanctums in different parts of the world were about. Quite frankly, I was not impressed and believe that Mikkelsen was wasted in the role. Two actors and an actress wasted in one film. I find this disturbing.
And then … we have Tilda Swinton in the role of “The Ancient One”. In the Marvel comics, the Ancient One was a Tibetan man. In the name of “diversity”, Marvel decided to re-write the character as a Celtic woman … and still have her located in Tibet. Hmmmmm. Mind you, Swinton gave a first-rate performance as the mysterious and somewhat ambiguous spiritual and magical leader. But … “whitewashing!”. Marvel committed a major act of whitewashing. It is not the first time. But this was the most obvious example, considering the arguments that Derrickson and his two co-writers Jon Spaihts and C. Robert Cargill used to excuse their changes. They had claimed that they wanted to avoid the stereotypical portrayal of Asians - namely the “Dr. Fu Manchu”, “Dragon Lady” or the “young Asian woman sex fetish” types - by re-writing the Ancient One role as a non-Asian. So, they cast Swinton in the role. Frankly, I did not buy the arguments. The filmmakers did NOT have to re-write the role as a Westerner in order to avoid the Asian stereotypes. Any good actor or actress of Asian descent worth his or her salt could have done wonders with the role without resorting to stereotypes. A good example would be James Hong and Victor Wong’s outstanding performances in the 1986 movie, “BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA”. But if Marvel was that determined for Ms. Swinton to portray “The Ancient One”, they could have re-located the character’s main sanctum somewhere in Scotland, Ireland or Wales.
However, “DOCTOR STRANGE” did feature some interesting performances that I had enjoyed. Benedict Wong, who could have easily been cast in the role of “The Ancient One”, managed to give a subtle and wry performance as the Kamar-Taj Sanctum’s librarian, Wong, despite his minimal screen appearances. Benjamin Bratt gave a brief, but very memorable performance as Jonathan Pangborn, a paraplegic who learned how to heal himself under the tutelege of “The Ancient One”. The movie’s mid-credit sequence also featured an amusing appearance by Chris Hemsworth as Thor. I can only assume that this was Marvel’s way of introducing the next film featuring the “God of Thunder” and the fact that Cumberbatch’s Stephen Strange will be appearing in that film.
When “DOCTOR STRANGE” first hit the movie screens, many filmgoers had complained about his American accent. To be honest, Cumberbatch’s accent seemed to lack any traces of his British ancestry. But I thought his accent had a trans-Atlantic vibe that I found rather bland. I could not regard his performance as the imaginative, yet arrogant Dr. Stephen Strange as bland. Like Robert Downey Jr. before him, Cumberbatch managed to create a character that was both infuriating and likable. But I thought that Chiwetel Ejiofor’s portrayal of Karl Mordo, another sorcerer who was trained by the Ancient One, proved to be the most interesting one in the film. Ironically, there was no outcry over the Karl Mordo character being changed from an Eastern European to a person of African descent. Considering the difficulties that many non-white actors and actresses still face in acquiring work in the movie and television industries, I am not surprised. But the best thing about Ejiofor is how he transformed Karl from an amiable sorcerer with a deep faith in the practices taught to him by the Ancient One to a potentially dangerous fanatic who became embittered by the Ancient One and Stephen’s willingness to use magic to defy nature. It is a pity that his performance has not garner much notice, except by the Evening Standard British Film Awards.
Overall, “DOCTOR STRANGE” is a solid entry for the Marvel Cinematic Universe that featured decent direction by Scott Derrickson and solid performances from a cast led by Benedict Cumberbatch. But aside from the movie’s visual effects, I would not consider to be particularly mind-blowing. I also believe that the movie was hampered by some poor characterizations and a misguided casting choice for one particular character. Oh well, Marvel cannot always hit it out of the ballpark.
Below are images from the latest entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) franchise, "DOCTOR STRANGE". Based upon the Marvel Comics character and directed by Scott Derrickson, the movie stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Dr. Steven Strange aka Doctor Strange:
