The true story of how The Boston Globe uncovered the massive scandal of child abuse and the cover-up within the local Catholic Archdiocese, shaking the entire Catholic Church to its core.

The movie tells the riveting true story of The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, the oldest continuously operating newspaper investigative unit in the United States and how they uncovered the massive scandal of child molestation and cover-up within the local Catholic Archdiocese. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki


Spotlight torrent reviews

Rebekah T (de) wrote: the buddies movies are good treasure buddies is good and good for familys

Aleira D (de) wrote: Lousy movie. The lighting throughout the entire movie was so bad you could barely see what was going on. I think they were aiming for atmosphere, but its hard to feel suspense when you spend the whole movie trying to work out wether its a shadow youre seeing out the corner of your eye or just a piece of furniture!The characters were not very engaging and seemed to have no idea what they were supposed to be doing throughout the whole movie. The alien was a total dusappointment. Oh for SIL or EVE!The plotline was so confused it was like the scriptwriters just thought "More is Best" but came up with something rediculous instead. They could have had something special if they thought it through a bit better, got some better actors etc. I watched the entire movie desperately hoping it would get better but I was severely disappointed.Watch Species 1 and just leave it there. You wont regret it - trust me.There's a reason this went straight to DVD.

Justin B (es) wrote: Misguided to the point of being disturbing. I starts and ends as a forgettable breezy family comedy; everything in between is a dark suspense thriller. It's weird. It doesn't work. I feel bad for Rick Moranis.

Chris D (mx) wrote: Another of Keanu's best movies. A tale of love and sacrifices.

Richard D (es) wrote: This is a transitional film for Cronenberg. It's the last film he made that bears the marks of his early style, and it points to the direction he will eventually (but not immediately) go in. While I have great admiration for the ambition it displays, it doesn't completely succeed for me, and is one of my least favorite of his early films. Only "Scanners" really works even less for me. What he's doing here is very similar to what he does later in a film like "Naked Lunch", or even "Spider" I guess, where an unreliable narrator affects the film in ways that makes everything depicted questionable. My issue with "Videodrome" is that the reality of the film breaks down to the point that I don't think anyone can really say what's really happening in the last 20-40 minutes of the film. Is that a serious problem? No, and I still think it's a remarkable film, but I think Cronenberg demonstrates less control over this film and it's subject matter than he does over earlier and subsequent films.

Harry W (es) wrote: Uncertain of expectations for subject matter, Shampoo caught my eye simply for being another contribution from Warren Beatty.Set on election day 1969, Shampoo is clearly a film with importance resting on the virtues of its contemporary culture. The story is an exploration of sexual politics within the social mores of an American society in an era of counterculture. In following this path, Shampoo relies on a simplistic narrative packed with many arbitrary characters who contribute to a single narrative that occurs over a period of 24 hours. As a result, the film is essentially like a day in the life of upper-middle class culture of 1969. Perhaps it was valid back in the day of its original release and its satire was more prominent, but by modern standards this is much more difficult to see. Essentially nothing happens in Shampoo; none of the characters are given that much meaning or anything interesting to say and the film fails to delve beneath the surface of their shallow ideals. All I gathered from Shampoo was that changing times in the 1960's had brought upon a new age of vanity in the American people, and perhaps that is where the satirical edge comes into play. But since the film focuses on an unlikable protagonist who is shallow in every sense of the word, we end up with a film as vain as the people it chronicles. Shampoo is a film which plods along at a ridiculously slow pace with nothing going on until its nihilistic climax where all the characters are essentially left unsatisfied. But since there is no satisfying people as materialistic and shallow as the characters in Shampoo, it's hard to care at all.Since Shampoo comes with such a basic story, there is no room for experimentation of style with the film. Hal Ashby isn't one to challenge stylistic guidelines all that often, but Shampoo is so overtly basic that it unfolds like a stage production which somehow managed to film itself. Everything in Shampoo just happens without ever having a spark of real feeling to it, making for a grim and lifeless experience. And for Robert Towne who wrote the unforgettable screenplay to Chinatown (1974) to churn out this misfire the following year is a huge step down. Shampoo is not a film which has aged well whatsoever and is likely to just keep decreasing in critical recognition over time. The general concept from Shampoo is not much of a distinctive one. The Australian equivalent of Shampoo would be Don's Party (1976) which came out the following year and occurred entirely within a short period on the Australian election night the same year. Don's Party succeeded because its characters were constantly engaged in discussion which made audiences aware of what they were thinking. We saw great topics touched upon such as politics and sexuality, while the film had a great sense of humour the entire time which made it hilarious. Shampoo is a film where audiences are expected to just know what the characters think and not rely on them to convey it to us. While we're trying to figure out what it all means, we have to deal with a slow pace and little humour to support it. Shampoo's supposed satire is burdened by a genuine lack of energy which makes it hard to find anything in the film funny whatsoever.The British equivalent of Shampoo would be Alfie (1966). Though Alfie was far more comically oriented, it was far more insightful about the protagonist's sexual obsessions. It wasn't as analytical of the contemporary society that it was set in, but we actually had a sense that the characters had identity to them. There were actual characters rather than simple representations of contemporary ideals, and the problem with Shampoo is largely that it supplements the former with the latter. Since characterization is such a weak point of Shampoo, the natural charms of the cast are all that is left to compensate for this. But with the glory days of these cast members being long before the age we are watching this film in today, the overall effect is mediocre.I normally find a lot to enjoy with performances given by Warren Beatty, but Shampoo is one where he lets everybody down by presenting us with an exceedingly dull vanity project. Given his status as a Hollywood lothario, it is very befitting that he portrays such a character in Shampoo. It also means that we are presented with a self-obsessed and unlikable protagonist. George Roudy cuts hair for people and has sex with women, and that's all he essentially does the entire film. He never stops to think or actually provide anything interesting to say so that audiences may sympathise with him on any level. He's just a douche, and he symbolizes everything wrong with the film. Warren Beatty plays the role well enough with his natural charisma, but there is never a sense of humanity to him. And the fact that he couldn't write himself a better character is inexplicable.Some cast members such as Julie Christie proceeded to have strong careers in the aftermath of Shampoo, but cast members such as Jack Warden and Lee Grant remain difficult to remember as they fail to stand out any more than the rest of the cast. Given that Lee Grant actually won an Academy Award for her role, the lack of distinction is rather strange.Goldie Hawn is the one cast member I really enjoyed in Shampoo. Bereft of a strong character but instinctive with her sweet charm and vulnerability, Goldie Hawn manages to offer audiences someone to sympathise for simply because of her kind-hearted nature. And it's nice to see the appearance of a young Carrie Fisher in the days before she became Princess Leia.Shampoo is a low point in the careers of Hal Ashby and Warren Beatty; it is a film with nothing to say and nobody who cares enough to say it, leaving its supposed satirical edge and social commentary to get lost amid the lack of story, characters or humour.

John N (nl) wrote: A very good film which helped launch the career of one of the most influential American filmmakers of our time. Good performances from the entire cast. It was great to see veteran actor John Carradine working side by side with his son."Boxcar Bertha" is a well-made, enjoyable, yet moving portrayal of the lives of Railroad Union protesters in the American South during the post-depression era. Anyone interested in the history of American unions is sure to find it inspiring and insightful.

Bill V (jp) wrote: Terrible film! Gave up on it and don't care how it ended up.

Jeje W (gb) wrote: 9/10 ign would ign agen plz mony thunks

bill s (us) wrote: Just do not accept this call....HORRIBLE.

Nova F (mx) wrote: Funny, clever, sexy and poignant.