Yeah. I think it was pointing out the thrill of actually not turning a blind eye. The intensity and also stressful demand of taking the (media) path less treaded. I thought this was one of the best movies of last year. There's not too far one could take it from where it stands, but it certainly reached its peak. People expecting spies, taps, explosions, and/or threats must not have been aware of who Murrow was. I knew what was coming when I went into the film, and I was very engaged.

Spies, taps, explosions?? Who would go into the movie expecting this? I expected a good old fashioned, dialogue heavy drama like A Few Good Men. In ways the movie delivered that, in other ways it didn't. The flick simply wants too much here: a portrait of Murrow, a portrayal of working in the media in the 50s, a portrayal of the way McCarthy was brought down, a statement for freedom of the press and for more quality on TV. And that's the problem: It shoots all over the place, which results in it not hitting its targets. None of these things are resolved in a satisfying manner and that's what I didn't like about it. This could have been a masterpiece had it chosen its targets more carefully...

Hmm, I felt the exact opposite: I thought the scope of the film is quite narrow, and that's what made it good and tight. It isn't a documentary on the whole McCarthism. It didn't try to cover everything, but only tell the story from the eyes of a CBS newsroom.

On a seperate note, I haven't seen Network, but I have heard a lot of people mentioning it in the discussion with GNAGL, so I wonder how people here think about the two films. I probably will check it out in the near future.

Network's miles ahead, but the comparison is not justified. Last time I checked GNGL was not a satire

An important film, and in this day-and-age, an incredibly well made film. Clooney could very well get three noms for this (Picture, Director, Supporting Actor)

A-

Network is great, like Levy said, and satyric, and I think loosely based off of Murrow's crusade against sell-out telejournalism. But the movie spins itself around by then cashing in on the man yelling not to sell out. Its great! Faye Dunway plays a woman who has selfish sex like a man and talks about how much money her tv company is going to make at the same time.

I can't say much more without making it redundant. I'll just say "ditto Dolce and Mav and xiayun and torri and all of those who liked it". Anybody remotely interested in social sciences...history, politics, media, etc... must see this movie. It's damn worht the time. Kill's right though: if you don't really want to see it, you won't like it. A.

Well... I mean, Network is a satire for the ages. A film that is more relevant now than when it was released at the time (so is Running Man actually!).

Good Night, and Good Luck. is definately more sober, specific, and well... "real", but the purpose of the two are different. Network is a pessimistic outlook on the "future" of journalism/television, and Good Night, and Good Luck. in a way is about the celebration and preservation of journalistic integrity.

what's stopping you from seeing Network?

Network is more of a vicious satire than Good Night, which is mostly a historical account.

I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!

Out of all the movies I have seen thus far, Clooney deserves the Best Director Oscar. I heart Clooney.

As for the movie, it suffers from starting out monotonously, but it eventually breaks out of this groove and I loved it. The bar scene was one of my favourites, the sprinkle of humour throughout the film was wonderful. The hidden marriage that everyone knew about... funny. And the ending is perfect. I actually thought the length was very perfect. This is a film that uses it's time well, isn't too short and isn't too long. I can't really think of anything that I would cut or add.

I particularly like his uses of sounds and silence, either using background music/noise as a tool, or muting all background noise. The cinematography was also pretty strong, and I adored the screenplay.

Goob job Clooney!

PEACE, Mike.

I give this film a B-. The movie has some very exceptional elements despite some glaring shortcomings. The acting was top notch, probably the best essemble cast of the year. The mixture of real news footage, the quiet scenes of emotive contemplation and tension, the ironic advertising spots, and the jazzy singing in the recording studio accentuated the style and mood of the film effectively. The black and white cinematography was strikingly beautiful--but then so is just about every other black and white movie made within the last two decades, which says more about the aesthetic quality of black and white rather than the the skill of the cinematographer.

I have certain problems with the direction/screenplay of the film when it comes to portraying the dramatic aspects of the story. In terms of how people reacted to certain event developments and conflicts, I found their reactions to be quite unnatural to how real people working in journalism would react in those situations. Particular scenes that stick out in my mind as unconvincing capturing the wrong emotional reactions include 1) the fear expressed when the staff finds out that McCarthy want to make an appearance on the show to directly rebut the show's accusations, 2) emotional depression and passive resignation when the woman reads to her a fellow news staff a negative newspaper editorial criticizing their McCarthy segment, singling out a particular staff member's background, 3) the married couple's almost joyful response to their forced resignations.

While I'm sure the manner in which Clooney portrays the tension and fear of the McCarthy Red Scare accusations was an accurate reflection of how it really was in the Hollywood community at large, the same sense of vicitimization when applied onto the CBS news staff feels inconsistent and contradictory within the context of the film. Because the movie was so selectively insistent on portaying McCarthy as someone completely wrong with weak arguments that can be so easily refuted, the audience never understands why he should be regarded as such a powerful force to be feared. By choosing to be so black and white in its portrayal of good and evil, the film suffers from the lack of tension felt in movies like The Insider, Quiz Show and Munich.

Meanwhile, by attributing such great importance to the journalists' contribution in McCarthy's downfall, this contradicts the event-driven nature of the film, where the movie centers on showing the different factual events and ties them together with the characters' reactions to the events. Since they are merely reactors to events rather than active protagonists, the characters can't really be accepted as the heroic, sacrificial newsmakers who brought the evil McCarthy down through expressing editorializing viewpoints as news.

Finally released in the UK!

Extremely well acted, i loved David Strathairn's performance and overall thought it was very strong, if a little short.

I was left feeling exactly this though:



Anyway, B+

I didn't expect to love it, and I didn't, but it's a good-looking film, with excellent performances and all.

B-

Extremely well-acted and well-made, with great writing and an interesting plot. Straitharn definitely deserved his Oscar nomination. Only complaint I can make is that the pace waned a bit at times, and there was character development where there shouldn't have been any (eg. Robert Downey Jr. and Patricia Clarkson). All in all though, a good film.

I was much more compelled than I thought I would be. From a technical standpoint, everything was great: the acting, directing, cinematography...

I also really enjoyed the parallels between the issues that were going on then and what's going on now with the war on terror etc. Also, the film touches upon issues that pertain to censorship and corporate control, and how they lead to the emergance of "infotainment" over real, hard news. My only slight criticism is that perhaps painting McCarthy as such a villian almost 50 years down the road isn't as brave or compelling as one would hope. Luckily, the film ventured beyond that and provides us with something usefull, contemporary, and relevant. This is truly the kind of questing film-making that movies should be about.

A

A suprisingly very entertaining and short movie but definately no masterpiece. I wasn't emotionally involved at any moment but that didn't really botherd me because it was very interesting movie. Straitharn was good but not Oscar worthy, IMO. B+

I really enjoyed the movie which was surprising because I went into it expecting to hate it. The performances were all amazing; I really loved David Strathairn. I was intrigued by the story, and I liked the pacing of the film, although it did seem to get a little dull at times. I also was a bit confused with the exploration of Roberty Downey Jr. and Patricia Clarkson characters. But the cinematography was great, and I also loved the use of lighting and camera angles. I'm dissapointed that it didn't at the Oscars -- if Brokeback Mountain couldn't win BP, I had hoped this would. Ah well.

A

I think that the filmmakers were hinting that perhaps Clarkson's character was a communist.

I rented this on DVD this weekend and I forgot just how good a movie this is. Clooney did an excellent job capturing the essence of what it probably was like then, helped immensely by the black and white picture. The cinematography was brilliant, especially in some of the scenes with Murrow along at the mic. All the actors, especially Strathairn and Clooney, were excellent, and the script was top-notch. An all-around great movie.

A

A random thought: Maybe the development between Clarkson and Downey were not neccessarily for the characters, but to further show some of the inane "rules" of the newsroom. No marriages between news-roomies? WTF.

I donno. Some people analyze this stuff far better than I. Maybe they can shed some light on it.

I wanted to see this but was extremely disappointed. One of the most overrated films in years.

5/10 (C-)

Upon renting it, I found the film less spectacular. Still remarkably tight and a solid look into the era. Stratharin was STILL awesome. Otherwise, I would have preferred another picture sneaking in for that last BP nomination.

C


After having seen this movie I came to the conclusion that movies about TV journalism are generally not made for me. The last Best Picture nominee I didn't like to a similar degree was coincidentally (?) The Insider. However, I liked that one a tad more thanks to the great Pacino/Crowe duo. Good Night, and Good Lucl was an utter bore to me. The 90 minutes running time felt like two hours, without any depth, any character development or any point except for the very unsublte ones. I knew quite a lot about the McCarthy era prior to seeing this movie, so it's not like it brought some new knowledge to me. I suppose it did reflect media journalism of that era pretty well, but the whole movie felt like a very dry documentary to me (maybe because of the black/white approach among other things).

Strathairn delivers, but his performance is by far not the best I have seen 2005. The rest of the cast is good, but none stands out except for Ray Wise's short, tragic appearance. His storyline is the only one that scored some points with me. The movie is nicely photographed, the jazz soundtrack is pleasant for the ear, but the film feels way too hollow. This is distnicntly the worst Best Picture nominee I have seen in many years and an utter disappointment. Nothing in this movie felt Oscar-worthy to me. Last year's BP nominees line-up was one of the weakest I have witnessed with this one heralding its lack of great quality.

I think this holds up immensely on repeat viewings. I've seen it probably at least four times, and it's such an entertaining, restrained, beautiful, excellently acted film.

Definitely the best of the 2005 nominees and one of the best of 2005, period.

I really like this film. What could be boring is rather graceful, dull is actually beautiful, and its not only well constructed from one end to the other but its an important look into society, history, and humanity.

10/10.