dom_hvxmho9esg7px's profile

1 Message


70 Points

Fri, May 22, 2020 11:38 AM

My review was unfairly declined


my review for The Post was declined, no reason given:
"I was quite looking forward to watching this one, hoping for something along the lines of 'All the Presidents Men' or the more recent 'Spotlight', both superb films about investigative journalism going up against powerful vested interests and the powers that be.

Well, forget that comparison as 'The Post' is not even in the same league as those two films, and comes across as a play-turned-TV-movie. I even had to split my viewing into two hour-long chunks as it was so boring. There are so many things wrong with this film I thought I'd just list them:

. The dull script (people stand around in offices and they talk, they go to each others houses and talk, they sit in boardrooms and talk). It just plods along to its inevitable conclusion in an ABC kinda way. No tension, no drama, just plod-plod-plod. Yawn.

. Complete lack of character development. New characters come thick and fast in this film but as I didn't get to know any of them I didn't care about any of them.

. The film assumes a decent grasp of US political history 1950-75. Thankfully I was familiar with this already, but if you don't then this film won't make any sense.

. Lame attempts to shoe-horn in a PC agenda by attempting to make Streep's character as some sort of feminist icon, fighting through the thickets of 70s sexism as she proves that yes, a woman can make it in a man's world (and this isn't done at all subtly btw - e.g. male characters talk over her and we get a close-up of her miffed expression). The reality is that Streep's character is a woman from an extremely wealthy background who hobnobs with presidents and senior government figures as a matter of course and who has never worked a day in her life. When her husband dies (by suicide - never explained) she finds herself thrust into his role (so much for appointment by merit). So there you have it have women - all you need to break that glass ceiling is 1. a pile of inherited money, 2. connections to the upper echelons of the Washington political establishment and 3. to be married to the right man. Girl power!

. On that point the whole film is clearly a paean to the 'good old days' of investigative print journalism, as they fight the good fight against a corrupt, mendacious White House. Hmmm.... I wonder why Spielberg chose to make this film in 2017?? It's subtler than Spike Lee's anti-Trump rant at the end of 'Black KKKlansman' but not much.

. The worst part of this film though is the abysmal acting. Tom Hanks phones in a sub-par performance, but this is the worst I've ever seen Meryl Streep. Every scene she was in just grated - the horrible enunciation, the complete lack of emotion, the glazed expression. She looks like she's zoned out on xanax the whole time. Utterly awful and as she's supposed to be the main character it just ruins the film. As for the other actors, I didn't recognise any of them, and none do anything here worth remembering.

I saw 'Spotlight' about 2 years ago and even now there is dialogue and even entire sequences that stick vividly in my memory. I finished watching this 1 hour ago and already I can barely remember anything about it. So there you have it - if you fancy spending two hours of your life watching men (and one woman) talking at each other whilst standing over piles of paper watch this film.Dull, self-important snoozefest"

I am unsure why the review breaches guidelines. The only thing I can think of is my criticism of the Streep character breaching 'personal attack on a character based on a real person'.
Leaving to one side how one can possibly enforce such a rule fairly across the 1000s of films based or inspired by real people (and I note that many of the reviews for this film attack Nixon quite strongly), this criticism is perfectly fair comment on a character (and possibly by extension the real person she was based - a public figure of some standing). One of the whole points of The Post is that we are supposed to sympathise with the Streep character and that she is portrayed as some sort of crusading feminist icon - I am merely pointing out that this is deceptive and dishonest, or at the very least only half the story, and that this directly led me to lose sympathy for her character and thereby the film as a whole. How is this not fair criticism *of the film*?


755 Messages


20.4K Points

1 y ago


Thanks for your post.

Do you have the submission reference so we can look into this please?

In the meantime please re-submit your review and update this thread with the new submission reference too.




241 Messages


6.3K Points

1 y ago

Thanks - we are closing this thread for now.

Please feel free to re-submit your review while making sure you adhere to our guidelines listed here: