We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
We encourage you to see the "Spotlight" movie when it comes out this November. These crimes and cover ups continue to this day.
Judy Jones, SNAP Midwest Associate Director, USA, 636-433-2511. email@example.com,
SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests
people flocked to see American Sniperwill those same people go see Spotlight and oliver stones Snowden?
"Its not a condemnation of Catholicism it is a condemnation of the people who abused the basic tenets of Catholicism and Christianity ... and those people, unfortunately, were very high up in the Catholic church." Stanley Tucci
Gee, an anti-Catholic hit piece is heralded by the world's leading lawyer-funded anti-Catholic hate group, SNAP.
Judy is shameless.
Bombshell - the truth about DPierre (above) and thepro-pedophile-priest group themediareport:
Dave Pierre should have mentioned that he is trying tosell books at THEMEDIAREPORT website about how innocent these pedophile priestsare, even after they plead guilty, multiple times, to child rape.
One example is Fr Gordon Macrae, a convicted pedophilepriest who Dave supports (and who recommends Dave's books). Macrae PLEADED GUILTY to sex with 3 children,and was also accused by at least another 7. Macrae is serving 30-60 years for raping another, but Dave will tell youhow those 3 GUILTY pleas aren't an admission that he's a child rapist.
The Catholic church admitted 4,392 substantiated,accused, child sex abusing priests in their own John Jay report of 2004, in theUS alone, and no institution in history is even close to this number. Catholics like Dave will lie and say its asbad elsewhere, and that everyone is just an Anti-Catholic bigot, but it isn'ttrue. People are anti-Catholic becauseCatholics are pro-pedophile, but Dave Pierre actually gets paid for it.
I certainly can't speak to others, but you are an anti Catholic bigot, raised Catholic with a devout Catholic mother, who lies about the Church that you lacked the integrity to stay in and follow.
I told you, leave mothers out of this, or we'll talk about the dead wife that you tried to make money from before you got married 9 months later (even though the Catholic church says not to date for at least a year).
Sorry you can't admit to the truth. And sorry to see you are a liar.
I know you scan Google and then try to put together a story about me. And, even with that, you can't get it right. But then, I don't lie about who I am and get offended when someone refers to me by name Patrick.
Oh, and the Catholic Church does not say "not to date for at least a year."
I can't speak to others, but you are an anti-Catholic bigot. And you lie.
anti-child rape? Yep.
anti-Catholic bigot and liar. Yep.
Yeah, I think he lies about Gordon McCrae as well.
Really, Mark? You defending more of your pedo-priest idols?
DId you read up on Macrae, or just believe anything that any Catholic defender said? Macrae was CONVICTED of child rape, pleaded guilty to 3 other child rapes, and was accused by at least 7 others, according to the article in the New Hampshire paper, which you can find by googling
Gordon MacRae: Priest Allowed to Work with Youth FiveYears
However, you'll keep defending your church, which committed organized pedophilia, so that you can be on the side of the bullies.
How many times do I have to tell you I do NOT defend pedophilia?!
Yes I did read up on Gordon Macrae. Furthermore, I typed in the search terms you suggested and found this: http://www.patheos.com/blog...
I don't know for sure that Gordon is innocent but if he is, you will answer to God on the day YOU die.
Yes I did read up on Gordon Macrae. Furthermore, I typed in the search terms you suggested and found an article at Pathos headed "Will Wrongly Convicted Fr. Gordon MacRae Finally Go Free?" Believe me, that article is written with more charity than any of your posts.
You are defending pedophile priests every chance you get, taking the "Catholic truth", from the church that id the truth (or lied) in 100% of childrape cases, unless they were dragged into court.
Did you read the first article about Godon Macrae, and seek the truth, from the New Hampshire newspaper? No.
Instead, you went down to the 10th article on that page because it defended your pedo-priest.You are a bully for the Catholic pedophile program, and you will not be forgiven, according to Jesus in Matt 18:6-14.
Your second paragraph is wide of the mark. Yes I did read that article, but you cannot be sure it is not an un-truth. YOU are the one who will not be forgiven. Now for the 3rd time, do not contact me again!
You guys are both missing the point, this isn't a movie about catholicism, it's a movie about power. This isn't an indictment of the religion, not in the slightest, and you should see the movie before forming opinions.
No other institutions come close to this number?
How many institutions have done a similar John Jay report to calculate this number?
None, because nobody had anywhere near the same problem, and NO other institution willingly moved and protected tens of thousands of known confessed pedophiles, and at least 6,900 in the US.
You haven't researched the public school system, I see.
I have, so I know the lies you are about to tell, like about the Shakeshaft study, where she blends inappropriate comments, like "your ass is sticking out of your pants", with child rape, and compares blended statistics. It's called "widening scope", and Catholics love it. God calls it "bearing false witness".
Wow a story comes out that tells of people using religion as a shield to inflict physical, emotional and spiritual abuse upon children and cover it up, and that is somehow not significant or worthy of our time?
I reported Jesuit abuse of children in California in 1985.. I was one of many in California who confronted the archdiocese of Los Angeles and the Jesuits and their order.. A celibate gay Jesuit seminarian reported 8 Jesuit priests at the Jesuit Retreat in Los Gatos California in the 90’s for sexual harassment.. and he eventually won a settlement against them.. (it took fighting the Jesuits attempts to thwart the seminarian. Several Jesuits raped male kitchen workers at the Jesuit retreat in los gatos.. very explicit articles were written in the LA Times about this (I have copies of the articles) A Jesuit who taught at Loyola HS in California was in the news for raping both male and female relatives and even a Jesuit priest at Los Gatos who was punished by the Jesuits for telling about the abuse and mysteriously jumped off a state building to his death.. (the Jesuit who abused every one gerald Lindner was seen with the victim right before he jumped….Another Jesuit priest from Los Gatos California was arrested for dressing as a woman and luring young teens into his car for sex… these and many other articles on Jesuit abuse in California alone a re well documented… in news paper articles…It’s important to all of us whose lives were ruined by rapist Jesuits and cover up by the Jesuits that the world knows that every state has numerous stories of sexual assault by catholic priests and that Boston was not the first and only diocese to expose this….Am glad for the film.. I just want the world to know it is much bigger than boston and hundreds of thousands of advocates, victims, media, journalists (most not catholic and not Jesuit educate) were hard at work way before boston.. in fact we set the stage for boston..
True, anyone reading the LA Times or even the Catholic Tidings in LA in the late 80s through the 90's knew everything going on and all the issues. By 2000's the news was all the predators in the public school system. The Boston story stole the headlines from the real scandals in the public school system.
Stanley Tucci's character is not a psychotherapist (he's an attorney), and your blithe characterization of the systemic rape of children as mere "misbehavior", as well as your failed attempt at levity with "robes up or pants down" should both be rethought and revised, although I'm sure Cardinal Law will enjoy this review as is. We saw different movies, it seems.
It is true that this review is tainted by Todd McCarthy's error about the character of Mitchell Garabedian. That McCarthy confuses the Tucci character, with the psychotherapist who provides data about the sexuality of priests, reflects that critique of the film is based on a superficial understanding of it. Nonetheless, McCarthy's points about the films artistic weakness and its prosaic quality, are in my opinion correct. It is a really fatal mistake of art criticism to conflate the laudable agenda of a work of art and its artist achievement (or lack thereof). This film is an "All the President's Men" wannabe and all the hoopla about it is becuase of the great achievment of the Boston Globe staff to expose the abuse that hundreds suffered. But the film has to stand on its own as a compelling narrative and at this it fails. And to this extent I agree with Todd McCarthy.
"An Investigation into the Boston Marathon Bombing Hoax" would be something to write home about...Mainstream media has already made the world safe for pedophilia.
FYI - REBUTTAL:Spotlight. Columbia University Journalism School, “Reporting an ExplosiveTruth: The Boston Globe and Sexual Abuse in the Catholic Church” http://popecrimes.blogspot....
Might be hypocritical of Hollywood to release a film like this seeing as so much of what comes from Hollywood goes against Christianity. That's not to say I won't be seeing this film.
Interestingly this is the only negative review the film has got. It currently has a rating of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes and the only reason it is not a perfect 100 is this one. :p
Just saw it and thought it was a snooze fest.
I had seen it a week back and thought it was brilliant. :)
Obviously you missed the point. Your original comment implied that this was the only negative out there and that somehow, they got it wrong.
I commented to let you know that there are others out there who didn't like it. To be specific: the film is years late, the subject matter has no urgency (unless McCarthy made a film about the church STILL not addressing the issue), it's too long (the scene on the porch with Ruffalo and McAdams was pointless) and it wasn't sure if it wanted to tell the story of the reporting (see All The President's Men) or of the scandal (the best scenes were with the victims).
I imagine that the subject matter carries a lot of weight with folks as "important", but not everyone thought it was "brilliant".
No what I said, and not implied, was that at that point in time he was the only critic with a negative review. Currently I guess there are three or four out of a couple hundred. So unless you are a professional critic, you were simply stating what your point of view is.Again, my comment was made a two months back, at a point when I had not seen the film but only read the glowing reviews and this was the only negative one among them. However as I mentioned before I had seen the film a week back and hence felt educated enough to form an opinion about the film myself. Now, I saw this notification of your comment saying you saw it and felt it was a snooze fest. Just like you, I too expressed my opinion about how I felt about it without getting into a detailed dissection of why I liked it. So, obviously there is no question of missing the point here.
I guess you're not aware that blowing a raspberry, :p, is the equivalent of the bronx cheer so clearly you were implying that there must be something wrong with the reviewer for being the odd man out.
And thus, my point that he is not the only one, regardless of whether or not you thought the film was brilliant.
Unless, of course, you were unaware of what the emoticon meant and in that case, we have a completely different issue.
My "detailed dissection" (really only a couple of examples) was an attempt to share with you a few points about why I thought it wasn't great in the hopes that you would share why you liked it.
You read too much into the lines when there is nothing to read into, really. I said I did not get into a 'detailed dissection' of the film, and no, I wasn't referring to your examples.
Emoticons can be used in various contexts and I am pretty sure :p has several literal as well as anecdotal meanings. It is commonly used when saying something silly or not serious. Usually before watching a film, I read the THR's review first and later check out what the others are saying. Same with Spotlight. Now I had been waiting for Spotlight for quite some time, and hence was really disappointed after reading this particular review thinking that the movie had turned out bad. However on checking out reviews later, I found that the film had received 'almost' universal acclaim.
So, you know, I thought it was kind of a joke commenting something trivial as : this is the only negative review. Hence, the :p.
The Roman Catholic who wrote this hatchet piece thinks raping kids is mere "misbehaving."
Todd McCarthy, you are a disgusting human being.
Todd McCarthy is a disgusting human being because he gets hi morals from the Catholic church of organized child rape, run by disgusting human beings
You know why the Catholic Church has behaved badly? Because they are sinners, just like everyone who throws stones at them. (A lot of the Church's critics went gays to be allowed to get married, and/or women to be allowed to have abortions, two things God hates just as much as He hates clerical pedophilia, no doubt.)
Proof positive that film festivals are often the WORST place to see major movies (I've been to many myself). Critic McCarthy seems to dwell on how slow and dreary the movie is. May I posit, that he was just too tired after flying across the world and attending press sessions at Venice?
Just came back from seeing it. It couldn't decide if it was a movie about reporting or about the church scandal and it needed some serious editing. Excellent performances. Had potential, it was just squandered.
45 reviews on RT by "top critics"--and this is the only negative one--would be 100% 44 for 44 if this were not considered a "top critic"---should be seen in my opinion just to see how powerful the integrity and IDEAS of the Boston Globe and it's reporters were--this is why he whole thing came to light, worldwide--because of the idea of a few reporters at the Globe--think about that!!
Stanley Tucci's character wasn't a psychotherapist as this review suggests...he was the lawyer defending all the victims...
Stanley Tucci cranks things up considerably as a psychotherapist ...
Did you see the movie? Tucci played Mitchell Garabedian. It was Richard Jenkins who voiced the psychiatrist.
One of the most insightful reviews Tom McCarthy has written. All I could think of while watching the film was how it paled in comparison with 'All the Presidents Men" whose style it tried to copy. The actors were great but were ill served with a badly written screenplay, unwatchable muddy photography, distracting choppy editing, and overwrought annoying score. Should have been great and could have been with different screenwriter and director.
Best review I have read regarding the film! This should have been a made for TV film
Just saw the film and completely agree with your review. It's a very flat film technically and dramatically. It's shot like a television show, edited like a TV show, scored like a TV show, and acted like a tv show. Zero style. It think there's one cinematic bit where the director puts the sound of a childrens' xmas show over shots of the reporters working and then ends the scene on the chorus but, aside from that well established cinematic device which feels almost like a surprise amid the endless monotony of the mise-en-scene, the director shows absolutely no inventiveness or the cinematic flair. What a disappointment after it being name best picture among other fine pictures. This is one that will be forgotten immediately.