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 !
61 Reviews
A Spoiled Legacy
semkins8 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Penn State football is much more than football. The reason for that is Joe Pa. His almost god-like status didn't come about by just amassing wins. His emphasis on academics and integrity was widely known in central PA for generations. Al Pacino (not surprisingly) gives a touching portrayal of a good-hearted man who failed to recognize the level of evil in his midst.
I found myself tearing up a number of times, getting into the torment he must've felt on so many levels. The victims themselves, the school, his players, his legacy. Such a sad story for everyone involved.
The movie seemed to portray events fairly accurately. Although I do remember the truly somber mood at the Nebraska game. There wasn't much cheering. Both teams not only walked out onto the field arm in arm, but they did so in almost complete silence. The movie doesn't really show that very well although you do hear announcers talking about the teams kneeling in prayer together. The phone call at the end of the movie from another possible victim gives an uneasy impression that Joe may have known more than he let on. The fact that there's no one left alive to confirm or deny John Doe 150's claim from years earlier is a further reminder of how the sins of one man have affected so many.
Who thought about the children?
Prismark1010 April 2018
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.
'Everyone has an opinion buddy, what makes yours so important? Get outta here!'
TxMike28 September 2018
I watched this movie at home on DVD from my public library, my wife skipped it.
I have been a football fan all my life and, while I never was a Penn State fan (go Purdue!) I knew of Joe Paterno and how respected he and the Penn State football program were. I also clearly remember when the events of 2011 broke wide open.
This movie stars Al Pacino as Joe Paterno and, while he does fine I was constantly reminded of the actor by his raspy voice. Paterno had a calm smooth voice, even near the end.
Still the movie is a good dramatization of the events of 2011 that led to Paterno's firing, just a couple of months before his death, when the details of former coach Sandusky's activities with young boys became fully known.
It was argued, and it seems plausible, that as head of the football program Paterno should have known more and should have done more earlier in the Sandusky case, so he was fired in November 2011. Paterno is portrayed as a rather simple man who focused so much on the football and preparation for next games that he was either unaware of Sandusky's activities or just wanted them to go away without his strong involvement.
A good movie of a sad chapter in college football programs.
I have been a football fan all my life and, while I never was a Penn State fan (go Purdue!) I knew of Joe Paterno and how respected he and the Penn State football program were. I also clearly remember when the events of 2011 broke wide open.
This movie stars Al Pacino as Joe Paterno and, while he does fine I was constantly reminded of the actor by his raspy voice. Paterno had a calm smooth voice, even near the end.
Still the movie is a good dramatization of the events of 2011 that led to Paterno's firing, just a couple of months before his death, when the details of former coach Sandusky's activities with young boys became fully known.
It was argued, and it seems plausible, that as head of the football program Paterno should have known more and should have done more earlier in the Sandusky case, so he was fired in November 2011. Paterno is portrayed as a rather simple man who focused so much on the football and preparation for next games that he was either unaware of Sandusky's activities or just wanted them to go away without his strong involvement.
A good movie of a sad chapter in college football programs.
Not fun, but worth seeing. And worth discussig such incidents so they happen less in the future.
brianjohnson-2004318 April 2018
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.
A Superficial Portrait
ronsmolin8 April 2018
Very disappointed in this sketchy HBO presentation. which glosses over many key characters and injects bits and pieces of real events and presumed behaviors to a viewing audience which can be easily confused by the scattershot script and direction. It seemed like a series of story boards out of order. The film needed much more character development, as well as more coherent storytelling.
A film that exposes haunting guilt and a look at the call for moral obligation.
blanbrn12 April 2018
Again "HBO" does it with a beautiful and informative life like original movie as this latest called "Paterno" is hard hitting and revealing and very informative as it sheds light and exposes the cover up at Penn State when sexual abuse allegations became national news.
However despite a montage and clips of footage of news about Jerry Sandusky the film is a focus on Joe Paterno(in another brilliant turn from Al Pacino) and how he and his family handle the scandal. As after many years of sexual abuse allegations are revealed against former assistant coach Sandusky, it shows Joe as a surprised yet conflicted and hurt man.
The picture raises the question of moral obligation and it's a clear showcase of institutional failure as Paterno should have reported what he had known and not been so tight lipped. As it's clear the legacy of college football's all time wins coach has been badly damaged due to scandal and cover up. Also notable is Riley Keough as Sara Ganim who was the award winning reporter who helped break the scandal national. Overall good revealing film that's provocative and revealing and truth finding.
However despite a montage and clips of footage of news about Jerry Sandusky the film is a focus on Joe Paterno(in another brilliant turn from Al Pacino) and how he and his family handle the scandal. As after many years of sexual abuse allegations are revealed against former assistant coach Sandusky, it shows Joe as a surprised yet conflicted and hurt man.
The picture raises the question of moral obligation and it's a clear showcase of institutional failure as Paterno should have reported what he had known and not been so tight lipped. As it's clear the legacy of college football's all time wins coach has been badly damaged due to scandal and cover up. Also notable is Riley Keough as Sara Ganim who was the award winning reporter who helped break the scandal national. Overall good revealing film that's provocative and revealing and truth finding.
Pacino for the Win
anemone9021030 April 2018
Cable TV is really hitting it out of the park these days. Paterno is one of the better movies I've seen in awhile including theatrical movies. I probably don't need to recap the entire plot for anyone, since the news covered it widely at the time. This film centers on the horrific Penn State scandal of sexual molestation of young boys by a man who was at one time on the Penn State coaching staff and was a "pillar of the community." What makes this different though than any news coverage you've seen is that it goes inside Joe Paterno 's life to show the downfall of a community and sports icon from the inside.
Of course, one must take into account that filmmakers take some license when it comes portraying Paterno and his family. While I'm sure they did their research, they weren't actually sitting at his dining room table for those intimate encounters with his kids during the aftermath of all of this. I think a question that most people had when they heard about the scandal was, "What was Joe Paterno thinking? Why did this powerful leader not do more? What was going on inside head?" This movie delves into that, giving an interesting and very possible take on what really was going on inside Paterno's head. Other great things about this movie: Riley Keough is fantastic as the reporter who originally breaks the case, and Al Pacino is so amazing as Paterno that you will forget you are even watching Pacino.
Of course, one must take into account that filmmakers take some license when it comes portraying Paterno and his family. While I'm sure they did their research, they weren't actually sitting at his dining room table for those intimate encounters with his kids during the aftermath of all of this. I think a question that most people had when they heard about the scandal was, "What was Joe Paterno thinking? Why did this powerful leader not do more? What was going on inside head?" This movie delves into that, giving an interesting and very possible take on what really was going on inside Paterno's head. Other great things about this movie: Riley Keough is fantastic as the reporter who originally breaks the case, and Al Pacino is so amazing as Paterno that you will forget you are even watching Pacino.
Pacino shines in this TV movie
eddie_baggins19 April 2018
If it does nothing else than remind you that acting legend Al Pacino still has what it takes to deliver a commanding lead performance, then HBO's and Barry Levinson's Paterno is worth the watch.
After what seems like years' worth of average to bad performances in feature films (bar the loveable Danny Collins), Pacino has quietly been going about his business with some impressive projects in the world of the small screen in roles for such films and series like Phil Spector and You Don't Know Jack and Paterno is another impressive feat for the living tressure, even if the film around him can't quite match his on-song turn.
Much like Pacino, director Barry Levinson has struggled over the last decade or so to recapture the directing form that helped him deliver classics like Rain Man and Good Morning Vietnam in the 80's, with forgettable 2000 films such as Envy and The Humbling doing nothing but tarnishing his reputation as a filmmaker of note, so it's nice to see Paterno offer the talented artist a chance to showcase his abilities once more, even if this experience is a lot more dreary and dramatically focussed than we'd usually see from him.
Focussing its attentions on a very specific and publicly profiled period in the life of the aging and famed Penn State football coach Joe Paterno and his entanglement in the horrific sexual abuse allegations that swirled around his onetime colleague Jerry Sandusky, Paterno offers a brief glimpse into the life of the winningest coach in college football history and how these terrible abuses tarnished his final days as a member of the Penn State fraternity.
Paterno gives Pacino one of his most quietly devastating performances to date, there's no showy moments here and under some impressive makeup, Pacino utterly convinces as the recognisable and well-loved American figure even if the film around him does feel like it can't quite escape its TV movie origins.
With Levinson focussing so much of his time on Paterno, other characters within the film feel rather underdeveloped and lacking in screen time but with Paterno taking centre stage, we are gifted into an insight into a haunted man who is slowly but surely coming to the realisation that despite all the good he has done, a misguided and terribly misjudged component of his life will be what he takes to his grave.
Final Say -
It feels and acts like the TV movie that it is but thanks to Pacino's commanding turn and the insight it offers us into a particular time in the life of one of the most fascinating football figures ever to have lived, Paterno is a cut-above other similar TV biopics and a reminder to us all that Pacino still has what it takes to anchor a feature film.
3 ½ campus riots out of 5
After what seems like years' worth of average to bad performances in feature films (bar the loveable Danny Collins), Pacino has quietly been going about his business with some impressive projects in the world of the small screen in roles for such films and series like Phil Spector and You Don't Know Jack and Paterno is another impressive feat for the living tressure, even if the film around him can't quite match his on-song turn.
Much like Pacino, director Barry Levinson has struggled over the last decade or so to recapture the directing form that helped him deliver classics like Rain Man and Good Morning Vietnam in the 80's, with forgettable 2000 films such as Envy and The Humbling doing nothing but tarnishing his reputation as a filmmaker of note, so it's nice to see Paterno offer the talented artist a chance to showcase his abilities once more, even if this experience is a lot more dreary and dramatically focussed than we'd usually see from him.
Focussing its attentions on a very specific and publicly profiled period in the life of the aging and famed Penn State football coach Joe Paterno and his entanglement in the horrific sexual abuse allegations that swirled around his onetime colleague Jerry Sandusky, Paterno offers a brief glimpse into the life of the winningest coach in college football history and how these terrible abuses tarnished his final days as a member of the Penn State fraternity.
Paterno gives Pacino one of his most quietly devastating performances to date, there's no showy moments here and under some impressive makeup, Pacino utterly convinces as the recognisable and well-loved American figure even if the film around him does feel like it can't quite escape its TV movie origins.
With Levinson focussing so much of his time on Paterno, other characters within the film feel rather underdeveloped and lacking in screen time but with Paterno taking centre stage, we are gifted into an insight into a haunted man who is slowly but surely coming to the realisation that despite all the good he has done, a misguided and terribly misjudged component of his life will be what he takes to his grave.
Final Say -
It feels and acts like the TV movie that it is but thanks to Pacino's commanding turn and the insight it offers us into a particular time in the life of one of the most fascinating football figures ever to have lived, Paterno is a cut-above other similar TV biopics and a reminder to us all that Pacino still has what it takes to anchor a feature film.
3 ½ campus riots out of 5
Why is this movie titled "Paterno"???
MilesKelley10 April 2018
And before anyone attempts to call my review a "Penn St faithful" or "Aterno faithful" or anything like it... I'm a Buckeye. Lifelong, die hard Buckeye. So I owe nothing to the Nittany Lions. But I've got to be honest... this movie literally has nothing to do with Joe Pa. This movie should've been titled "Sandusky" and Pacino could have honestly been left out of this film entirely. Save a heavy hitter like him for a real movie about this man. They really wasted Pacino.
And it was honestly a pretty ridiculous plot line. They attempted to pin Sandusky's cover up and scandal on Joe, but also attempting to paint him as basically senile or something. Like he seems completely out of it for anything at all besides football. So if that how you feel, then why are you trying to blame him for what Sandusky did? ESPECIALLY considering that the moment Joe heard about it he told the AD exactly what he knew? If Joe is so spaced out and such, why are you attempting to blame him and not the fully of sound mind AD???
I don't get this film at all. It seems like they are just trying to capitalize on a big name and big scandal and not actually make a credible or even entertaining film.
And it was honestly a pretty ridiculous plot line. They attempted to pin Sandusky's cover up and scandal on Joe, but also attempting to paint him as basically senile or something. Like he seems completely out of it for anything at all besides football. So if that how you feel, then why are you trying to blame him for what Sandusky did? ESPECIALLY considering that the moment Joe heard about it he told the AD exactly what he knew? If Joe is so spaced out and such, why are you attempting to blame him and not the fully of sound mind AD???
I don't get this film at all. It seems like they are just trying to capitalize on a big name and big scandal and not actually make a credible or even entertaining film.
All you need to know is this...
hughman5512 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
About halfway into this film you will know that on Feb. 9, 2001, graduate assistant Mike McQueary witnessed a Penn State coach raping a ten year old child in the showers, on the university campus, and did not stop the assault. Though he was a seasoned college football quarterback, and a full grown man of significant size, he did not rush the rapist, beat the crap out of him, and rescue the child. He left because what he saw upset him. He left that 10 year old child defenseless, and still in the clutches of his rapist, Jerry Sandusky. This film shows that that night he only called his father. The next day he called Joe Paterno. Ten days later he told athletic director Tim Curley and vice president for finance and business Gary Schultz. To what purpose? To stop the rape? No, that was allowed to continue on Feb. 9, 2001. To have Jerry Sandusky arrested and put in prison for the rest of his life? No, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, already knew that Jerry Sandusky was a serial child rapist. They had been documenting his criminal activity since since the mid 90's. To find the victim an get help for him? Make sure his parents knew that they were handing their son over to pedophile rapist? No, they never even bothered, in fact they made certain, that they would never know who the victim was. This film shows that Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, had already asked Sanudsky to stop bringing his victims onto the Penn State campus. They just needed to know what McQueary saw so that they would know what more they needed to cover up. The four full grown men, Paterno, Schultz, Curley, and McQueary, the only men with any power to save this victim, prevent future victims, and bring justice to past victims, went into self-preservation mode to protect themselves. They stood by and did nothing, while children were being brutalized. Why?
It is difficult to discuss the significant merits of this HBO film because the story itself is so infuriating. And while I am not certain that the reporter in the film, Sara Ganim, was personally responsible for this - wait for it, the film shows her typing out these words while making a report; "Jerry Sandusky was seen "having sex with a 10 year old boy in the showers at Penn State." I remember reading articles at the time with that exact wording. Who sees, or hears about, a 10 year old child being raped, and then describes it as two people "having sex". Again, it's her character, in this film, typing those words. I couldn't believe it because she's the "good guy" in this mess.
This story has been characterized as "complicated". It's not. The "story" is simple. The coverup is complicated. HBO and Barry Levinson do a masterful job of revealing a culture gone mad where pedophiles are protected, victims are chased down school hallways, and college students riot against justice for sexual abuse victims because it might, just a little, harsh their football buzz. They make the Catholic church look like ameture hour.
The enduing question in this story, and others like it, is this: why did Penn State, law enforcement, politicians, and Mike McQueary, do nothing? In fact, if they had turned Jerry Sandusky over to authorities in the mid 90's when (as far as we know) they first became aware of his crimes, they would not have lost their jobs or the bloated salaries that accompany them. They would have been hailed as heroes. So it must be something else. What could it possibly be? This film demands that we consider how this story would have played out had the victims been female children. It is really difficult to imagine that if Mike McQueary had found Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a 10 year old girl in the showers at Penn State on Feb. 9, 2001, that he would have just run away like he did when he saw Sandusky sodomizing a 10 year old boy? Had the victims been female I think he would have beaten Sandusky within an inch of his life, called 911, and been given a medal for heroism. So, what do you get for abandoning a, still anonymous, male victim. The answer would be a 12.3 million dollar settlement from Penn State for "wrongful termination". And that anonymous victim? No one knows what happened to him because no one even knows who he was. They didn't want to know who he was. Why?
It is difficult to discuss the significant merits of this HBO film because the story itself is so infuriating. And while I am not certain that the reporter in the film, Sara Ganim, was personally responsible for this - wait for it, the film shows her typing out these words while making a report; "Jerry Sandusky was seen "having sex with a 10 year old boy in the showers at Penn State." I remember reading articles at the time with that exact wording. Who sees, or hears about, a 10 year old child being raped, and then describes it as two people "having sex". Again, it's her character, in this film, typing those words. I couldn't believe it because she's the "good guy" in this mess.
This story has been characterized as "complicated". It's not. The "story" is simple. The coverup is complicated. HBO and Barry Levinson do a masterful job of revealing a culture gone mad where pedophiles are protected, victims are chased down school hallways, and college students riot against justice for sexual abuse victims because it might, just a little, harsh their football buzz. They make the Catholic church look like ameture hour.
The enduing question in this story, and others like it, is this: why did Penn State, law enforcement, politicians, and Mike McQueary, do nothing? In fact, if they had turned Jerry Sandusky over to authorities in the mid 90's when (as far as we know) they first became aware of his crimes, they would not have lost their jobs or the bloated salaries that accompany them. They would have been hailed as heroes. So it must be something else. What could it possibly be? This film demands that we consider how this story would have played out had the victims been female children. It is really difficult to imagine that if Mike McQueary had found Jerry Sandusky sodomizing a 10 year old girl in the showers at Penn State on Feb. 9, 2001, that he would have just run away like he did when he saw Sandusky sodomizing a 10 year old boy? Had the victims been female I think he would have beaten Sandusky within an inch of his life, called 911, and been given a medal for heroism. So, what do you get for abandoning a, still anonymous, male victim. The answer would be a 12.3 million dollar settlement from Penn State for "wrongful termination". And that anonymous victim? No one knows what happened to him because no one even knows who he was. They didn't want to know who he was. Why?
Messy movie not really about the case itself.
JurijFedorov8 July 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Super frustrating movie. I just cannot recommend it even to people who want to know more about the case. It's good acting and the scenes look fine, but it's so damn badly written and edited. What the hell went wrong? It's an illusion of quality while in reality it's a very lazy movie.
So it's a movie focused on a child abuse case. Jerry Sandusky, a co-coach at Penn State, was abusing kids for years. Often bringing them to the university dressing room which is why many employees at the university saw it year after year, but not a single called the cops at any point. Joe Paterno was a legendary football coach there, basically the biggest name at the university. So in 2001 when his co-coach also saw a sexual abuse crime take place in the showers he told about it to Paterno. Paterno then went to 2 other university workers days later. And they decided to keep it hidden. They knew about former abuse cases too, but felt like they could keep it quiet and just hope it went away or maybe deal with the issue later. Problem fixed? Except while the university looked the other way one teen who was abused post 2001 came forward and the police followed up on it. Finally years later they arrested Sandusky and it was revealed that the university let Sandusky keep doing this for years by looking the other way. He was fired for child abuse, but was allowed to use their showers so he kept bringing in kids to abuse and the university even had to point out he couldn't bring in kids anymore. They didn't contact the cops or even investigate the crime. Just covered it up. Honestly a decent movie about this case would be an amazing story. Spotlight (2015) proved this. It was a spectacular movie with amazing acting. About a case very similar to this, but just with way fewer interesting names involved. It won 2 Oscars. A movie about the Sandusky case could have been even better despite the horrible topic. This isn't.
We follow Joe Paterno as the accusations reach the media. Outsiders have critical questions. Students love Paterno and feel like the outsiders are horrible and cruel. Paterno initially says this will be his last season because of the case. As he therefore has refused to quit the university is forced to fire him. This sort of stuff is horrible for their image and they can't employ people who actively hid this stuff. The movie never really tells the story of the abuse. We never find out what happened or when. They use a few flashback scenes and some light exposition scenes, but it's all a giant mess that never makes sense. Maybe 15 times they sit down and start to talk about the case with Paterno. And each and every time something happens. A phone rings, a knock on the door, a football game on TV is more fascinating to them, they start to talk about other matters, someone gets sick, the 2 sons start to fight with each other. It's just this again and again. The movie is about no one explaining anything. We follow Paterno and some of the time a local journalist. They start to talk about the case and something else happens in the scene - rinse and repeat. So Paterno is asked about what he knew maybe 15 times. Each time he looks away and just mumbles something about football or him not really being interested in this child abuse case as he's just a coach. So Al Pacino as Paterno just mumbles in all his scenes. He looks utterly lost and confused. Not even knowing where he is or what he is doing. We therefore get absolutely no info from him on the story. People watching the movie won't understand anything. The journalist could have been used for exposition, but they do the same thing with her. She never gets to talk or listen as everyone is interrupted all the time. At one point the movie finally tries to explain the events. At the journalist office they draw up a timeline with the years. Then someone walks into the room and tells them about an external call and after that they start to talk about an article and what words they used in the article. In another scene she interviews a victim and her phone rings. So the scene peters out.
Jesus this is frustrating. It's just a giant mess of a movie. It looks fine and the acting is quite fine. But it's just a bunch of people screaming at each other. 50% of the movie is about football or just smalltalk. 50% is about people trying to mention the case, but everyone just talks past each other and then move onto football talk again. What is this even? This may be the most frustrating movie I have even seen. There is no story here.
All you had to do to make a good movie about this case is just to recreate what happened when. We could follow a journalist and get new clues along the way. As it is this movie can be replaced by a simple timeline explaining the events. There is nothing worth your time here. It's not a bad movie. It's just utterly pointless.
So it's a movie focused on a child abuse case. Jerry Sandusky, a co-coach at Penn State, was abusing kids for years. Often bringing them to the university dressing room which is why many employees at the university saw it year after year, but not a single called the cops at any point. Joe Paterno was a legendary football coach there, basically the biggest name at the university. So in 2001 when his co-coach also saw a sexual abuse crime take place in the showers he told about it to Paterno. Paterno then went to 2 other university workers days later. And they decided to keep it hidden. They knew about former abuse cases too, but felt like they could keep it quiet and just hope it went away or maybe deal with the issue later. Problem fixed? Except while the university looked the other way one teen who was abused post 2001 came forward and the police followed up on it. Finally years later they arrested Sandusky and it was revealed that the university let Sandusky keep doing this for years by looking the other way. He was fired for child abuse, but was allowed to use their showers so he kept bringing in kids to abuse and the university even had to point out he couldn't bring in kids anymore. They didn't contact the cops or even investigate the crime. Just covered it up. Honestly a decent movie about this case would be an amazing story. Spotlight (2015) proved this. It was a spectacular movie with amazing acting. About a case very similar to this, but just with way fewer interesting names involved. It won 2 Oscars. A movie about the Sandusky case could have been even better despite the horrible topic. This isn't.
We follow Joe Paterno as the accusations reach the media. Outsiders have critical questions. Students love Paterno and feel like the outsiders are horrible and cruel. Paterno initially says this will be his last season because of the case. As he therefore has refused to quit the university is forced to fire him. This sort of stuff is horrible for their image and they can't employ people who actively hid this stuff. The movie never really tells the story of the abuse. We never find out what happened or when. They use a few flashback scenes and some light exposition scenes, but it's all a giant mess that never makes sense. Maybe 15 times they sit down and start to talk about the case with Paterno. And each and every time something happens. A phone rings, a knock on the door, a football game on TV is more fascinating to them, they start to talk about other matters, someone gets sick, the 2 sons start to fight with each other. It's just this again and again. The movie is about no one explaining anything. We follow Paterno and some of the time a local journalist. They start to talk about the case and something else happens in the scene - rinse and repeat. So Paterno is asked about what he knew maybe 15 times. Each time he looks away and just mumbles something about football or him not really being interested in this child abuse case as he's just a coach. So Al Pacino as Paterno just mumbles in all his scenes. He looks utterly lost and confused. Not even knowing where he is or what he is doing. We therefore get absolutely no info from him on the story. People watching the movie won't understand anything. The journalist could have been used for exposition, but they do the same thing with her. She never gets to talk or listen as everyone is interrupted all the time. At one point the movie finally tries to explain the events. At the journalist office they draw up a timeline with the years. Then someone walks into the room and tells them about an external call and after that they start to talk about an article and what words they used in the article. In another scene she interviews a victim and her phone rings. So the scene peters out.
Jesus this is frustrating. It's just a giant mess of a movie. It looks fine and the acting is quite fine. But it's just a bunch of people screaming at each other. 50% of the movie is about football or just smalltalk. 50% is about people trying to mention the case, but everyone just talks past each other and then move onto football talk again. What is this even? This may be the most frustrating movie I have even seen. There is no story here.
All you had to do to make a good movie about this case is just to recreate what happened when. We could follow a journalist and get new clues along the way. As it is this movie can be replaced by a simple timeline explaining the events. There is nothing worth your time here. It's not a bad movie. It's just utterly pointless.
Paterno yes, but the movie couldn't decide where to go from there
underscore18 April 2018
I wasn't sure what to expect with this. Focusing on a figure in a scandal that isn't the perpetrator, a witness, and attorney or a victim seemed odd to me. There are so many different players in the Sandusky scandal and the movie attempts to peripherally include some of them, while omitting others. Yet even those included are there solely for background noise. I'm not even sure why they case the female reporter in the movie since her involvement wasn't contemporaneous with Paterno's. But I guess every movie needs a young female heroine.
Acting was excellent, and I feel that that was Levinson's whole purpose for the movie. One last crack at some award for both he and Pacino. But I just didn't feel like I got anywhere. Even the ending seemed like a "oh crap we're out of material, let's throw something outrageous in at the end" moment. Thank goodness this was just an HBO movie and I didn't pay anything at the box office.
Acting was excellent, and I feel that that was Levinson's whole purpose for the movie. One last crack at some award for both he and Pacino. But I just didn't feel like I got anywhere. Even the ending seemed like a "oh crap we're out of material, let's throw something outrageous in at the end" moment. Thank goodness this was just an HBO movie and I didn't pay anything at the box office.
A Meteoric Fall of the Great
rdg4524 April 2018
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.
Mediocre
allstarrunner4 September 2018
It's HBO so you know the acting and production value will be great; that aside, the movie doesn't really seem to know where it wants to go and what message it is trying to get across. Without a doubt, the entire situation is terrible with no happy endings - but even from an entertainment standpoint the pace was quite slow and muddled.
The main problem with films like
ridsidorova19 January 2022
Warning: Spoilers
The main problem with films like Paterno is boredom. It is not always possible to tell the biographies of people in such a way as to captivate the viewer. But in the film starring Al Pacino, this problem is taken to the extreme. The story of a well-known coach in the USA, embroiled in a sexual scandal, is presented so tediously and lengthily (with a fairly average timing for this genre of one forty hours) that it took me three visits to master it. Yes, and the film looks like an outright order, although the director himself condemns Paterno in the end or not - it's not very clear. Rather condemn. But in any case, to judge an 84-year-old terminally ill man for the fact that fifteen years ago, being also no longer a young man, he reported on a suspicious situation, which he himself was not a witness to, only to his superiors, and not to the whole world - the height of duplicity . Not to mention the fact that there is no official evidence that the case we are told about in the epilogue actually happened. Joe Paterno himself has donated more than one million dollars to charity in his life, and his coaching has opened the way for hundreds of young people to the National Football League. The film "Paterno" is disgusting. Duplicity, the desire to bury an excellent coach and person after his death, just because once in his life he did not tell the press about his suspicions. Terrible boredom in everything - from the image of the coach to the secondary storylines of journalists. And this is the case when even Al Pacino, no matter how great an actor he is, cannot save the picture. And no one could. Do not watch this movie, even if you have absolutely nothing to do. It is better to spend these 100 minutes on healthy sleep.
Interestingly Done - I Sort Of Liked It
neener37078 April 2018
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.
A good impersonation, but not a performance
AlsExGal28 April 2018
You get an all time great actor, Al Pacino to play long time coach Joe Paterno at the time the Jerry Sandusky molestation case broke, and what does HBO do? Nothing that measures up to their reputation. Pacino looks and sounds like Paterno, but then everything stops there. Pacino just goes around looking dazed and confused and gives no insight. There is really no insight given into the Paterno family, or the victims - not even the victim that is portrayed here, or the reporters cracking the case. The whole thing is just so superficial. There is nothing to take away from this other than universities often act like big corporations - asking "How can we protect ourselves here?" and firing anybody that answers that question, even someone lionized by the school for over 50 years. But in this cynical age that comes as no surprise. HBO, I've come to expect better from you.
Fairly Accurate Portrayal
jlcdrama8 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not a big football fan, but I remember when this story broke. It still gets to me how bad it was. Don't be fooled by the poor reviews, if you read them you will see they are mostly Paterno Faithfuls who refuse to face the cold hard facts.
This movie does a good job of pointing out a lot of the problems with what happened then and is still happening. A lot of Penn State fans forget that they shouldn't be outraged for Paterno's sake, but for the sake of those children who were sexually assaulted by someone they thought wanted to help them.
Pacino does not portray a villain in Paterno. They show Paterno for what he was, a human being. He did great things, he helped a lot of people, but he wasn't a saint either. He was not solely responsible for what happened, but the truth is that he isn't without fault either.
So for Penn State fans looking for vindication of Paterno, you won't find that here. If you want a well acted, fairly accurate depiction of what happened, then this will be the film for you.
This movie does a good job of pointing out a lot of the problems with what happened then and is still happening. A lot of Penn State fans forget that they shouldn't be outraged for Paterno's sake, but for the sake of those children who were sexually assaulted by someone they thought wanted to help them.
Pacino does not portray a villain in Paterno. They show Paterno for what he was, a human being. He did great things, he helped a lot of people, but he wasn't a saint either. He was not solely responsible for what happened, but the truth is that he isn't without fault either.
So for Penn State fans looking for vindication of Paterno, you won't find that here. If you want a well acted, fairly accurate depiction of what happened, then this will be the film for you.
A total snore fest .....zzzzzzzzzzz
Ed-Shullivan3 January 2020
I got as much (if not more) by just reading the front page headline in the New York Times when they broke the news for the first time that Jerry Sandusky, the former long-time defensive coordinator of Pennsylvania State University's football team was charged with 40 counts of child sex abuse.
No really, this film totally sucked and it provided no additional insight into what Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno did or didn't do to address child predator Jerry Sandusky, who was Paterno's long-time defensive coordinator. I can't recall one scene in the film where Paterno even confronted Jerry Sandusky about his diddling ways, or where the two characters were even in the same room.
Al Pacino also sucked playing head coach Joe Paterno who in reality was 84 years old and still coaching one of the elite college football teams in the United States, until his culpability in the alleged sex scandal that he allowed to continue for decades under his leadership got him fired.
There is a story in the actual events, but it is too bad that the lazy screen writers and the absolute poor acting by Al Pacino and his two sons played by Greg Grunberg and Larry Mitchell didn't put it in the film. These actors and the rotten story line drove me nuts as they discussed how to address the news reporters outside their home and would not address the elephant in the room. How ironic that Penn State football coach Joe Paterno escaped much of the public outcry and newscasters criticism by simply dying a few months after the story broke. Even with his death the film fizzled and the end credits rolled.
A total snore and bore fest
No really, this film totally sucked and it provided no additional insight into what Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno did or didn't do to address child predator Jerry Sandusky, who was Paterno's long-time defensive coordinator. I can't recall one scene in the film where Paterno even confronted Jerry Sandusky about his diddling ways, or where the two characters were even in the same room.
Al Pacino also sucked playing head coach Joe Paterno who in reality was 84 years old and still coaching one of the elite college football teams in the United States, until his culpability in the alleged sex scandal that he allowed to continue for decades under his leadership got him fired.
There is a story in the actual events, but it is too bad that the lazy screen writers and the absolute poor acting by Al Pacino and his two sons played by Greg Grunberg and Larry Mitchell didn't put it in the film. These actors and the rotten story line drove me nuts as they discussed how to address the news reporters outside their home and would not address the elephant in the room. How ironic that Penn State football coach Joe Paterno escaped much of the public outcry and newscasters criticism by simply dying a few months after the story broke. Even with his death the film fizzled and the end credits rolled.
A total snore and bore fest
That's kind of the point
prog-5865417 May 2018
I thought the movie was going to be your typical made for TV movie and that's exactly what we got. Not good, not bad just somewhere in the middle. That being said this movie wasn't meant to be uplifting, it was meant to be dark and brooding because of the subject matter. This movie absolutely should have been about Paterno because he is the story here. The most powerful person in the state who could have stopped this long ago but was too worried about his sport, his university and his legacy to lift a finger. Paterno was made out to be a idiot in this movie because when the scandal broke that's exactly how he acted, the portrayal is spot on. He played the old man card in the most transparent way possible, blaming his memory and feeble mindedness when asked questions after it broke that he knew what was going on. I kept expecting to hear him say no habla ingles towards the end.
Far as I'm concerned he was portrayed accurately I could care less about his legacy and even the most loyal and diehard Nittany Lion fan should feel the same.
Far as I'm concerned he was portrayed accurately I could care less about his legacy and even the most loyal and diehard Nittany Lion fan should feel the same.
Extremely Important Film to Understand Man
clacura8 April 2018
I tracked this story and still have all the ESPN podcast interviews and "in the moment" reactions. This film is extremely significant to understanding man, institutions, and human behavior!
If you understand the Christian doctrine of The Fall and idolatry, this movies makes a whole lot of sense. If not, than it is up to you to come up with a salient apology for mankind.
There are a few proverbial statements that will help anyone who wants to see and understand. The first is; You cannot get a man to understand something if his career depends upon him NOT understanding--Upton Sinclair
The second is; The frog in water analogy. Drop a frog in hot water and he will jump out, slowly raise the temperature and the frog in water will boil to death.
The last is the movie Bridge on A River Kwai. A noble man who got lost in his own glory, a bridge to reflect himself--an idol! In the process, he sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for noble causes motivated to build a bridge to reflect himself!
Take all three of these and blend them up and you have Joe Pa. Keep in mind Joe is not the criminal here, but he turned deaf, dumb, and blind because of his own glory...reputation, Joe was guilty of looking the other way in the same manner those who knew Harvey Weinstein was molesting and raping women or Bill Cosby...there are always enablers along the way, those who because of their own career, rationalize to get part of the pie, even leftovers.
Then there are the loyalists. This resembles a cult. Cult members who will not hear the truth because it taps their idolatry--a warped sense of identity and pride. It is here we have religion! Religion allows one to compromise common sense for the greater good because to face the truth means one's life has been spent in vanity! Nothing is worse for the soul than to realize you spent your entire life worshiping the wrong religion!
Joe Paterno was most likely guilty of his own ego. His own desire to be the best at all costs. Al Pachino sadly reminds me of my own father, Italian good ol boy that plays the game, has no clear sense of self and the group, club, organization, church becomes his soul source of who he is. There is an arrogance here that is disturbing. What is weird is I had an Uncle George that never got married as well. This movie really hits home in my family.
If you understand the Christian doctrine of The Fall and idolatry, this movies makes a whole lot of sense. If not, than it is up to you to come up with a salient apology for mankind.
There are a few proverbial statements that will help anyone who wants to see and understand. The first is; You cannot get a man to understand something if his career depends upon him NOT understanding--Upton Sinclair
The second is; The frog in water analogy. Drop a frog in hot water and he will jump out, slowly raise the temperature and the frog in water will boil to death.
The last is the movie Bridge on A River Kwai. A noble man who got lost in his own glory, a bridge to reflect himself--an idol! In the process, he sacrificed the lives of his soldiers for noble causes motivated to build a bridge to reflect himself!
Take all three of these and blend them up and you have Joe Pa. Keep in mind Joe is not the criminal here, but he turned deaf, dumb, and blind because of his own glory...reputation, Joe was guilty of looking the other way in the same manner those who knew Harvey Weinstein was molesting and raping women or Bill Cosby...there are always enablers along the way, those who because of their own career, rationalize to get part of the pie, even leftovers.
Then there are the loyalists. This resembles a cult. Cult members who will not hear the truth because it taps their idolatry--a warped sense of identity and pride. It is here we have religion! Religion allows one to compromise common sense for the greater good because to face the truth means one's life has been spent in vanity! Nothing is worse for the soul than to realize you spent your entire life worshiping the wrong religion!
Joe Paterno was most likely guilty of his own ego. His own desire to be the best at all costs. Al Pachino sadly reminds me of my own father, Italian good ol boy that plays the game, has no clear sense of self and the group, club, organization, church becomes his soul source of who he is. There is an arrogance here that is disturbing. What is weird is I had an Uncle George that never got married as well. This movie really hits home in my family.
Good acting bad script
jmcohn8 April 2018
Pacino did as well as you'd expect but the script was bad. Ignored lots of facts as well as just skipped over important things to the story and forced the story along. Things were added that weren't necessary to the story or at least the way they were added was poorly done to make it seem unnecessary.
Pacino delivers an all-time caliber performance!
cubanoguy8 April 2018
Looking at the film OBJECTIVELY, Barry Levinson does a fine job presenting the story centered on Paterno during the aftermath of the Sandusky sex abuse scandal without any major bias. Its to be expected that some who will see this film will simply condemn it or trash it based upon their own emotional or bias connection to the subject matter. I believe that this film does a great job portraying several aspects. One, just how disgusting and awful the actual child sex abuse scandal was and how it even affected the first victim who broke his silence. Then we have initial reporter who helped bring the story to life. Thirdly, the film effectively displays how it affected Paterno and his family in the aftermath. Lastly and most of all how Paterno himself handled the entire situation. If nothing else, this film provides a general condemnation of inaction and corruption with regards to the abuse and not taking quicker action on it.
Al Pacino completely immersed himself into the character of Joe Paterno. Pacino is measured and controlled with how he portrays Paterno's struggle to come to terms with the Sandusky abuse, and how he possibly overlooked certain signs from the past, and even the betrayal of that partnership/friendship. Like some vintage Pacino performances (aka: Michael Corleone), he communicates so much emotion through the use of his eyes and silence. Several scenes involve Paterno just sitting while his family debates and the question continues to be posed to him if he knew anything else or if he ever spoke to the child. Pacino brilliantly captures the overwhelming dread and sadness that filled the final days of his Paterno's life and how this particular dark moment that will forever change Paterno's career and legacy.
Don't pay attention to all of the negative reviews on here from those that clearly have an agenda to do so. As a dramatic exploration of a man, Joe Paterno, who was a larger then life legend at Penn State and his sad downfall, the film succeeds on all levels, particularly Pacino's performance.
Al Pacino completely immersed himself into the character of Joe Paterno. Pacino is measured and controlled with how he portrays Paterno's struggle to come to terms with the Sandusky abuse, and how he possibly overlooked certain signs from the past, and even the betrayal of that partnership/friendship. Like some vintage Pacino performances (aka: Michael Corleone), he communicates so much emotion through the use of his eyes and silence. Several scenes involve Paterno just sitting while his family debates and the question continues to be posed to him if he knew anything else or if he ever spoke to the child. Pacino brilliantly captures the overwhelming dread and sadness that filled the final days of his Paterno's life and how this particular dark moment that will forever change Paterno's career and legacy.
Don't pay attention to all of the negative reviews on here from those that clearly have an agenda to do so. As a dramatic exploration of a man, Joe Paterno, who was a larger then life legend at Penn State and his sad downfall, the film succeeds on all levels, particularly Pacino's performance.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
