VALUTAZIONE IMDb
6,5/10
8047
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaPenn State football coach Joe Paterno becomes embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal.Penn State football coach Joe Paterno becomes embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal.Penn State football coach Joe Paterno becomes embroiled in a sexual abuse scandal.
- Candidato a 2 Primetime Emmy
- 1 vittoria e 7 candidature totali
Ken Maharaj
- MRI Tech
- (as Kenneth Maharaj)
Mitchell L. Mack
- Devon Smith
- (as Mitchell Mack)
Recensioni in evidenza
History repeats itself once again with the systemic failure, from the top down, of the incompetence of so many people who chose to ignore a problem and pretended that nothing would ever happen due to their inability to accept responsibility and accountability. A very good performance by Al Pacino as Joe Paterno. You won't regret taking one hour and 45 minutes to view this film.
Barry Levinson's Paterno wants the viewer to know that this legendary college football coach, Penn State University and its football team supporters cared more about its football program than the fate of some of the young people sexualy abused by an assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky.
The film opaquely hints as to how much Paterno might had known as to the abuse taking place and like other people just turned a blind eye.
After a wonderful expansive opening where Paterno as head coach takes the team to a record breaking streak. This HBO film settles down as a Shakespearean tragedy, almost like a stage play.
Al Pacino's Paterno is a man out of his time. Confused, weak and sick. He is an octogenarian who knows all about college football but has no way to handle the mess he finds himself in.
The film contrasts Paterno's fate with that of local newspaper reporter Sara Ganim (Riley Keough) who doggedly pursued the story of the child abuse and who earned the trust of the families.
However the flip flopping between the two story strands feels like a distraction. Levinson's approach comes across as mild, even anodyne lacking the moral outrage of a movie like Spotlight.
The film opaquely hints as to how much Paterno might had known as to the abuse taking place and like other people just turned a blind eye.
After a wonderful expansive opening where Paterno as head coach takes the team to a record breaking streak. This HBO film settles down as a Shakespearean tragedy, almost like a stage play.
Al Pacino's Paterno is a man out of his time. Confused, weak and sick. He is an octogenarian who knows all about college football but has no way to handle the mess he finds himself in.
The film contrasts Paterno's fate with that of local newspaper reporter Sara Ganim (Riley Keough) who doggedly pursued the story of the child abuse and who earned the trust of the families.
However the flip flopping between the two story strands feels like a distraction. Levinson's approach comes across as mild, even anodyne lacking the moral outrage of a movie like Spotlight.
People who hate this film or its implications that Paterno was complicit to the child abuse are wrong. He clearly was part of the narrative. He maybe never witnessed the abuse himself. But he never reported what happened when he heard about such incidents. I understand that plenty of people are sympathetic to Paterno even if they aren't Penn State or football fans. The film to me seems to clearly display Paterno as a figure who probably would have stayed obsessed with winning football games even if 99% of the people who care about him and football, didn't care about football. And he didn't do anything to deserve someone like Sandusky being hired. Paterno with luck could have never had such an incident and be revered today. And plenty of people revered today might have made the same mistakes as Paterno if they had to deal with Paterno's issues. That doesn't mean that Paterno and others had no responsibility to do the right thing and report Sandusky as soon as possible.
It's remarkable how quickly Paterno's fall happens after his 409th win. I forgot that he went from the winningest couch that almost everyone loved, to fired in less than week. I give this a 7 because the story wasn't that interesting, even though there seemed to be good execution.
I think what bothers people is that the real enemy of this film isn't so much Joe Paterno or Jerry Sandusky. Instead the main enemy is America's priority of putting football and other interests over our more basic human responsibility of protecting children and bringing likely sex abuse criminals to justice as quickly as possible.
After Paterno is fired and he addressed his supporters in front of his yard, be almost forgets about the victims in his address. He just throws in a call to support the victims at the very end. The victims should have been brought up initially or not at all. The error in this response really displayed his faulty priorities again.
The reactions of many of many reviewers is similar to the students protesting in the film following Peterno being fired. This story really highlights our power of denying the errors of people we grow to respect. OJ and Mafia defenders have similar blind spots. People say "Sure they made a mistake on this matter, but they weren't bad about everything. Who hasn't made a mistake?" As if the scope of the crime doesn't matter.
It's remarkably easy for some people to shield acknowledging that someone like Joe Paterno, who might be mostly good 99% of the time, can be complicit to a seriously crime the other 1% of the time. And that 1% was a 1% mattered a lot. Another common response is, "Paterno wants to be known as a legendary football coach. Not a football coach who also had to deal with child sex abuse by one of his couches." Well the media rather than the university addressing this issue from the start let Sandusky fester and abuse dozens more of decades.
I can't help but wonder how it ever felt ok for people to know someone was molesting children and not report them. If someone witnesses a murder, A) I don't think the witness would report the incident to their boss or couch. But B) if they did, they'd be sure law enforcement was in the loop too. Especially if the witness notices that the murderer walking around where he committed his crime years later. Child molesters are extremely likely to repeat their crimes. Much more so than almost any other type of criminal. This is something people should know and care about. It seems that a lot of people are unprepared to deal with such an incident and think it'd never happen to them or someone they know. This film gets a 7 largely for bringing this issue more-so into the spotlight.
Based on the perceptions of other reviewers I get the feeling that people don't want other films based on true stories like Paterno, or Spotlight. They don't want to think about the faults of people who seemed mostly fine. My response: Put an end to such incidents happening, and more importantly festering, and there will be no extraordinarily awful true story to make a movie about down the line about our supposed heroes. Instead we can just have real heroes. The fact that, for now, such things still happen, only reinforces the need to make movies like Paterno.
Until we go decades with nothing like this happening, I'll find it relevant to be aware of stories like Paterno. In the last year or two we learned of a similar case of child abuse with the US gymnastics team. Maybe someday we'll learn.
It's remarkable how quickly Paterno's fall happens after his 409th win. I forgot that he went from the winningest couch that almost everyone loved, to fired in less than week. I give this a 7 because the story wasn't that interesting, even though there seemed to be good execution.
I think what bothers people is that the real enemy of this film isn't so much Joe Paterno or Jerry Sandusky. Instead the main enemy is America's priority of putting football and other interests over our more basic human responsibility of protecting children and bringing likely sex abuse criminals to justice as quickly as possible.
After Paterno is fired and he addressed his supporters in front of his yard, be almost forgets about the victims in his address. He just throws in a call to support the victims at the very end. The victims should have been brought up initially or not at all. The error in this response really displayed his faulty priorities again.
The reactions of many of many reviewers is similar to the students protesting in the film following Peterno being fired. This story really highlights our power of denying the errors of people we grow to respect. OJ and Mafia defenders have similar blind spots. People say "Sure they made a mistake on this matter, but they weren't bad about everything. Who hasn't made a mistake?" As if the scope of the crime doesn't matter.
It's remarkably easy for some people to shield acknowledging that someone like Joe Paterno, who might be mostly good 99% of the time, can be complicit to a seriously crime the other 1% of the time. And that 1% was a 1% mattered a lot. Another common response is, "Paterno wants to be known as a legendary football coach. Not a football coach who also had to deal with child sex abuse by one of his couches." Well the media rather than the university addressing this issue from the start let Sandusky fester and abuse dozens more of decades.
I can't help but wonder how it ever felt ok for people to know someone was molesting children and not report them. If someone witnesses a murder, A) I don't think the witness would report the incident to their boss or couch. But B) if they did, they'd be sure law enforcement was in the loop too. Especially if the witness notices that the murderer walking around where he committed his crime years later. Child molesters are extremely likely to repeat their crimes. Much more so than almost any other type of criminal. This is something people should know and care about. It seems that a lot of people are unprepared to deal with such an incident and think it'd never happen to them or someone they know. This film gets a 7 largely for bringing this issue more-so into the spotlight.
Based on the perceptions of other reviewers I get the feeling that people don't want other films based on true stories like Paterno, or Spotlight. They don't want to think about the faults of people who seemed mostly fine. My response: Put an end to such incidents happening, and more importantly festering, and there will be no extraordinarily awful true story to make a movie about down the line about our supposed heroes. Instead we can just have real heroes. The fact that, for now, such things still happen, only reinforces the need to make movies like Paterno.
Until we go decades with nothing like this happening, I'll find it relevant to be aware of stories like Paterno. In the last year or two we learned of a similar case of child abuse with the US gymnastics team. Maybe someday we'll learn.
While its not another HBO masterpiece, I found it interesting enough to watch the whole thing and enjoyed it. I liked many things about it but I also didn't like some things, and I'll talk about that. At the beginning, it starts with the indictment so I was worried we wouldn't give enough background going back to 1998, but thankfully the film has many flashbacks and the reporters are also used as an explanation device of the past. The film did not shy away from the tough aspects of this tough subject. I did enjoy the Paterno scenes where he is confronted on the charges and how he deals with it, though it can be a little slow. I found the framing device to be interesting and Al Pacino's performance was great, I didn't see Al Pacino, I saw his character. The cinematography was also top notch, what can be expected from and HBO movie. But there were things I didn't like, and I will discuss it.
I personally didn't like how they opened it, they opened it in a spot where a lot of things already happened, but to be fair the film does go back and explains things. The pacing is also hit and miss, sometimes things are paced fine, and sometimes I felt it jumped around too quickly. I also wish is a bit longer or a show because there were a couple story points I feel could have been explored more and would have been beneficial to the story to delve into. I also didn't connect with any of the other characters except for Paterno, no character really stood out and wowed ne. All in all it was an interesting enough film that I finished and mostly enjoyed.
I personally didn't like how they opened it, they opened it in a spot where a lot of things already happened, but to be fair the film does go back and explains things. The pacing is also hit and miss, sometimes things are paced fine, and sometimes I felt it jumped around too quickly. I also wish is a bit longer or a show because there were a couple story points I feel could have been explored more and would have been beneficial to the story to delve into. I also didn't connect with any of the other characters except for Paterno, no character really stood out and wowed ne. All in all it was an interesting enough film that I finished and mostly enjoyed.
I'm not going to talk about the film as a film because, it seems to me, a pointless exercise. We all know the story. Painful, bitter, shattering. What we didn't know, what we couldn't even imagine is what was in Joe Paterno's heart in mind. Now we have a plausible, profoundly human version of it, in Al Pacino's eyes.
I saw a decent man of his generation confronted by the new approach to decency. I saw in his eyes a sort of resignation, the kind of resignation suffered by the decent man who knows he's guilty. Al Pacino is still breaking ground, still at the vanguard of his own profession. Hurrah !
Lo sapevi?
- QuizSara Ganim and members of The Patriot-News Staff won a number of national awards including the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for local reporting, making her the third youngest winner of a Pulitzer. The award cited "courageously revealing and adeptly covering the explosive Sandusky sex scandal involving former football coach Jerry Sandusky."
- Citazioni
[last lines]
Sara Ganim: Uh, I'm sorry. You said... 1976?
- Curiosità sui creditiThe title appears after 10 minutes.
- ConnessioniFeatured in The 70th Primetime Emmy Awards (2018)
- Colonne sonoreMadama Butterfly, Act II: Un Bel Di Vedremo
Written by Giacomo Puccini
Performed by Maria Callas
Courtesy of Warner Classics U.K. Ltd.
By arrangement with Warner Music Group Film & TV Licensing
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- Happy Valley
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Riverdale, Bronx, New York, New York, Stati Uniti(State College, PA)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 45min(105 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 16:9 HD
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti