Spotlight - 4 smiles

"Spotlight" limits its scope to the investigation of what happened in Boston regarding the Roman Catholic Sex Abuse Scandal and its strength comes from keeping this tight focus. It doesn't attempt to broaden the subject. The dramatic tension comes from the difficulties encountered by journalists struggling to get to the truth while beset by budget cuts, reluctant victims and stonewalling church and legal officials. In 2001, The Boston Globe's 'Spotlight' team, consisting of editor Walter "Robby" Robinson (Michael Keaton), and reporters Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams) and Matt Carroll (Brian d'Arcy James), began investigating allegations of cover-ups of sexual abuse within the Massachusetts Roman Catholic Church. Initially faced with a handful of violations, the number of possible cases grew from four to 13 to an astonishing 90. After following leads, interviewing victims and lawyers and devoting months to the effort, the reporters wrote the story in early 2002 and triggered a tsunami that swept across the country and around the world.

Director Tom McCarthy keeps a firm hand on the reins as he doesn't milk a volatile situation for pathos (Which would be easy to do). He chronicles the journalists' investigation without minimizing the importance of the crimes they're probing. "Spotlight succeeds in presenting many of the heart wrenching stories respectfully while not losing itself in the turmoil. The ensemble cast is another strength of the movie, which has no lead actor. Mark Ruffalo and Michael Keaton give forceful, compelling portrayals as do Rachel McAdams and Brian d'Arcy James. Add Liev Schreiber (as the new Globe managing editor), John Slattery (as the deputy managing editor) and Stanley Tucci (as victims' lawyer Mitchell Garabedian) and you have a tremendously talented cast. "Spotlight" is a David vs. Goliath story, one of professionals dedicated to their craft and determined to break through barriers to strike at a seemingly impervious institution. Without the Spotlight team, would the crimes of the Catholic Church come to light?

Bridge of Spies - 4 smiles

It's important to notice, in Steven Spielberg's "Bridge of Spies," the parallels between the 1950s and today. Their U-2s are our drones; our allies still torture enemies for intelligence; demagogues at home still scream that we must be afraid and that our way of life is doomed. In 1957, James Donovan (Tom Hanks) asked to defend Russian spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) on three counts of thermonuclear espionage. Although everyone, including the trial judge, wants Abel to receive the death penalty, Donovan, a former insurance litigator, thinks Abel is more valuable alive. Five years later, in 1962, as East Germany is erecting the Berlin Wall, Donovan has a chance to prove it by attempting to trade Abel to the Russians in exchange for American pilot Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell), captured on a mission to photograph Soviet territory in a high-flying U-2 surveillance plane.

It's clear that Abel is guilty from the first scene, in which he pries open a hollow nickel to extract a code. We never doubt where anyone stands. And while everyone shouts for Abel's execution, we want our guy back unharmed. Standing on the Glienicke Bridge (where the prisoner exchange is supposed to take place), Donovan is alarmed to spot German snipers on the other end. His CIA handler tells him our side has them, too. The East and West could be mirror images: two gun nests, two prisoners, two sides that stoke fear in their people by calling the other the enemy. Hence, a key question here is, Are the good guys that much better than the bad? Most spy thrillers send in James Bond (see "Spectre") to save the day. "Bridge of Spies" sidelines the action heroes to celebrate the valor of ordinary men and Hanks gives us a Donovan who's sense of integrity pushes him to complete a difficult mission. With Spielberg at the helm, you know you're going to enjoy the journey.

(Note: In 1945, James Donovan became assistant to Justice Robert H. Jackson at the Nuremberg trials in Germany.)

Steve Jobs - 3 smiles

I read in the LA Times that, according to screen writer Aaron Sorkin, "Steve Jobs" is not a bio-pic even though it's called Steve Jobs. It seems that he and director Danny Boyle want to illustrate that a great mind doesn't always result in a great person so the movie is more an impressionistic work than an actual re-enactment. The movie focuses on three Apple releases and at the center of everything is Steve Jobs (Michael Fassbender), the iconic co-creator of Apple, garbed in his uniform of black mock turtleneck, blue jeans and New Balance sneakers. Jobs is undeniably brilliant with an arrogance to match. He believes in his own infallibility. The first section takes us to 1984 where Jobs is unveiling the Macintosh.  Jobs is browbeating Andy Herzfeld (Michael Stuhlberg) to get the demo computer talking and driving his assistant Joanna Hoffman (Kate Winslet) nuts with his complaints and demands. His ex-lover Chrisann Brennan (Katherine Waterston) has brought Jobs' daughter Lisa backstage. She wants Jobs to know that his offspring is now living on welfare because his child support payments are insufficient. Jobs refuses to acknowledge paternity, but does form a fragile bond with Lisa. It's his relationship with his daughter that comprises the movie's emotional core. Act two occurs before another launch: 1988's NeXT Cube. No longer with Apple, Jobs is plotting revenge against those who ousted him, especially Apple CEO John Scully (Jeff Daniels). By 1998, Jobs is back at Apple and he has mellowed - a bit. Now we have the launch of the iMac. For Apple, this is a turning point - the beginning of the company's ascendancy. Before the presentation, he clashes with several people. One is his old buddy, Steve Wozniak (a surprisingly effective Seth Rogan), who wants Jobs to acknowledge the efforts of the Apple 2 team, something he refuses to do.

Because the focus is on Jobs' personality rather than events of his life, "Steve Jobs" is more interesting than a documentary. The dialogue is full of wit, anger and passion and Michael Fassbender is a magnetic, compelling presence. We never once doubt that he is Steve Jobs. However, it's highly likely that the movie will leave some viewers ambivalent as they struggle with the question of how much arrogance, boorishness and incivility can be forgiven in the name of genius. (If you're looking for a factual accounting, see Steve Jobs: The Man in the Machine.)