How does this compare to All The President's Men (1976)?
That movie deals with the reporters who uncovered the story... Nominated for lots of Oscars, won a few including Best Supporting Actor and such...
How does The Post measure up against it?
This movie is more about the business of the paper, the choice whether or not to run with a top secret analysis of the Vietnam war (compiled in 1965) when America was still at war with the country.
It is not really a detective story like 'All the President's Men', so not as good in my opinion...but still worth seeing.
Great acting by Streep/Hanks.
Thanks... I'd watch Hanks in anything... I think I'll check it out later this week
shareI agree! I loved both films. Yes, great acting by everyone.
shareYep - ATPM was much better - it had plenty of tension for an oldie film.
This film had very little of it. To be honest, I'm recommending people to skip this one.
It talks about the big wigs behind the big newspapers in those days.
Apparently the creator of this film wanted to focus on the war between news media and the president in those days to draw a parallel to what's happening now but didn't realize that news media today is a VERY different animal. The ownership of news media right now is under the monopoly of a few, and unfortunately, fake news these days IS a real issue - I'm blaming the creation of 24 hour/day news media juggernauts that fills our lives today - with constant need for 'breaking news' even when there is none.
Trump is bad, but today's news media is just as bad.
Hell - the news media these days is so bad that it's partially responsible for the Iraq invasion.
The point being, looking at the glory days of the news media in the 70's does not excuse the state of the news media today. Again, I'm blaming the today's monopoly of news media ownership and the existence of 24 hour/day news channels which thrive on fake news.
Very interesting take...
Sounds like a movie that dealt woth the nuance of how the role of the press and nature of the news media has changed would have been much more compelling than this...
I'll give the edge to All the President's Man. Overall it's a more complete and interesting movie.
shareI'll stick with Zodiac for movies on reporters investigating.
shareSorry, but that is not really what Zodiac was about.
shareZodiac/Film synopsis
In the late 1960s and 1970s, fear grips the city of San Francisco as a serial killer called Zodiac stalks its residents. Investigators (Mark Ruffalo, Anthony Edwards) and reporters (Jake Gyllenhaal, Robert Downey Jr.) become obsessed with learning the killer's identity and bringing him to justice.
Plot
On July 4, 1969, an unknown man attacks Darlene Ferrin and Mike Mageau with a handgun at a lovers' lane in Vallejo, California. Mageau survives.
One month later, the San Francisco Chronicle receives encrypted letters written by the killer calling himself the "Zodiac" and taunting the police. Political cartoonist Robert Graysmith is not taken seriously by crime reporter Paul Avery or the editors and is excluded from the initial details about the killings
I have to ask if you've seen Zodiac?
Yes, I have seen it, and it is not about reporters investigating. First off, Robert Graysmith was not a reporter. He drew cartoons. He became an amateur sleuth as a hobby. David Toschi wasn't a reporter. Paul Avery played a minor role in comparison. The film was about the obsession that gripped both of them in the effort to solve the mystery. The fact that Graysmith worked for The Chronicle was really incidental to the plot. Hence, I disagreed with your point that Zodiac was somehow comparable to The Post or concerned investigative journalism in any way.
share