misterchimpy

I had very mixed feelings about this movie after seeing it tonight, although I liked it overall, it is worth seeing for Straithairn's terrific performance. Probably 2 1/2 stars out of 4. For movies about 50's television, I liked "Quiz Show" a lot better, though.

Positives:

1) The cast is terrific. David Strathairn, in particular, who commands the screen when he is on it, though he isn't helped out by the script(see negatives). I would guess he is a lock for an Oscar nomination. Frank Langella and Jeff Daniels are good too. Even people who I usually find annoying, like Robert Downey Jr and George Clooney are ok. What I thought was particularly interesting is that many of these actors played against type, Strathairn often gets 'wimp' roles(The River Wild comes to mind), Langella often gets villains, Daniels often gets the goofy good guy, etc, and they all carried it off well.

Negatives:

1) The script is terrible. The movie feels like a lecture at many points, more on Murrow would have been great, in fact, there is very little depth on any of the characters, some of whom, like Paley, were interesting people in their own right. I watched it in a packed house, and I really got the sense that the audience wanted to like the characters more, but the movie never really gave them an opportunity to get emotionally involved, instead it had more of a feeling of a crusade.

2) The decision to shoot in black and white was distracting at times. The movie was so badly lit in many places, it almost came off as a parody of a film noir.

3) Production design was weak. The movie felt claustrophobic at times, it almost felt like it was set on a very cramped stage. I think it would have been a better creative decision to literally give the characters more space. They did at one point, and it was very effective, but more often, the actors were almost on top of each other, and again, it was distracting.

Premise

Hmm,I'm looking forward to see this because of all of it's high marks (imdb 7.9, RT 96%, Ebert 4 stars),but it's good to read some user opinions as well.

Mr. Salty

Your first mistake is thinking "Good Night, and Good Luck" is about '50's television. That isn't even remotely close to what it's about.

misterchimpy

Ummm...have you actually seen the movie Mr. Salty? Cuz I doubt that you would make such a statement if you had. The central themes of this movie are the power, limitations and shortcomings of an emerging medium, here McCarthyism is used as a backdrop, in Quiz Show, obviously the scandals were. Unfortunately, the rest of this discussion will have to go into spoilers...

scott shelton

A wonderful film, and a big step up for Clooney as a director. I was thrilled to see him put away those gaudy camera tricks that ruined CONFESSIONS.

marty888

Huh ? ?

1) The script is terrific - it takes complex issues, many of which may not be familiar to today's audience, and manages to explain them in dramatic fashion, while presenting a number of characters with their own sets of conflicts.

2) Back and white was the only way to film this - a great artistic choice. First of all, this is about the era of black and white television. Any footage we have seen over the years of the principal partcipants has been in black and white. Secondly, a wise choice to to let McCarthy speak for himself - i.e., use archival footage. Since that footage was all black and white, it would have been jarring to use it in a color film. (P.S.- film noir is about more that lighting.)

3) The production design is a spot-on re-creation of the early 50's - every costume, accessory, office detail, etc. evoked the period to perfection. (Sorry if you felt a little cramped - I suggest you don't see Das Boot, you'd probably say that the claustrophobic submarine was bad production design.)

misterchimpy

We'll have to agree to disagree, but here are my responses:

1) The script is terrible, imo. Yes it tries to simplify some complex issues, but at many points during the movie, it simply resorts to lecturing its audience. At times these speeches went on for 5 minutes or even more(and it was only a 90 minute or so movie). Without Straithairn's terrific performance, I think a lot of this would have been unwatchable. As it was people around me started fidgeting whenever the characters launched into long monologues, and it happened more than once during the film.

2) I'm familiar with the concept of the film noir, but perhaps you aren't familiar with the concept of a parody, where one aspect of something is often exaggerated for comic effect, and yes, bad lighting is something you often see in film noir parodies. If you are going to make the creative decision to use black and white, then you necessarily have to pay more attention to lighting, and between the cramped stage and bad lighting, a lot of the dramatic impact of the movie got muddled or lost, imo.

The one area where I thought black and white did work well was on the close ups of Straithairn and to a lesser extent, some of the other actors. It probably wouldn't have worked as well in color, you actually could see Straithairn act!

I was mixed on the decision to use archival footage of McCarthy, instead of an actor.

I think you could have filmed this in color, other movies have had no problem incorporating archival footage. Or they could have done a better job filming it in black and white.

3. Yes the movie had an authentic 50s feel to the production design, but as with the lighting, I found it to be somewhat distracting. It was laid on so heavily that it felt like it was made by someone with a 50s fetish, imo. Yes there are ways of telling a story, but a little of it would have gone a long way.

And I have seen Das Boot, but I think that a submarine is by definition a claustrophobic situation, whereas a cramped 1950s newsroom is more of a creative choice, and imo, not a particularly sucessful one.

I wanted to like this movie more than I did, serious and thoughtful movies are rare, as I said earlier, I liked it for Straithairn's performance, but I thought that many of the other aspects of the movie were weak.

Mr. Salty

Yes, I have, which is why I think you're wrong on all points.

I would post my detailed thoughts on the subject, but marty888 has written everything I need to say.

PopcornTreeCt

WTF? everyone just ignores my thread!!!!!!

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/showthread....hlight=clooney

Cygnet74

look at the bright side, you were ahead of your time.

Wazootyman

I just read a biography of Murrow, and have realized I'm probably going to write a 10 page paper on him... so I'm looking forward to this quite a bit

ChiTownAbs, Inc

Does anybody have the speech that Murrow gave at the beginning and end of the movie. It's simply moving.

raven56706

what is the movie about?

ChiTownAbs, Inc

5 second review:

A journalist (Ed Murrow) losing his job over reporting that Joseph McCarthy's claims are false. It's great to see a movie like this in today's day and age.

QuikSilver

Hats off to George Clooney for making a smart and intelligent film. The film was very educational and all the performances were great. Highly recommended. Just make sure to be wide awake when watching the film. Its a slow drama.

Dash

I just got back from this movie and am really glad I went to go see it. Not only was I entertained, but it is a movie that really made me think. You dont really see many movies like that these days. Too bad there were only about 5 people in the theater. This is a movie that I must buy when it comes out on dvd and now I am intrested on getting more information on Murrow. I really hope this movie does well. Im starting to really like George Clooney as a director. I also enjoyed Confessions of a dangerous mind.

mdc3000

I saw it a few weeks ago and LOVED IT. It is definitely a slow mover, but it is worth sticking with. The performances are excellent and again Clooney proves he has got skill behind the camera. It's certainly not for everyone, but I enjoyed the hell out of it.

MATT

p.s. I thought the Black & White was perfect.

Dr. DVD

I saw this a few weeks back as well, but couldn't find a thread. I loved the movie. I thought the script was very sharp, the black and white perfect, and the performances top notch. It actually seemed to feel like it was shot in the 50s. I never felt like I was being lectured to as much as having important points about modern media illustrated through a past story. In short, the movie is nice little anecdote.

Quake1028

Best movie of the year so far . While I still need to see WALK THE LINE and MUNICH, right now Strathairn is going to be pretty tough to beat for best actor.

The Nature Boy

Strathairn is great and may even deserve to win, but no one is beating Joquain this year. He did his own singing and expect the brother death angle of Cash and Phoenix to pick up more steam come Oscar time.

But then again, I thought Giamiatti was going to win last year and he didn't get nominated.

I do think Clooney will earn and deserve a best director nod.

Patman

Finally saw this film today (just trying to mark through most of the Oscar contenders, and this one just kept getting pushed back for one reason or another).

Perhaps in keeping with the times, I found it a little staid, a little brisk, I found myself wanting more. Maybe Clooney didn't want to get bogged down in minutia of the research put forth by Murrow's team, but it played lighter than I would have expected given the subject matter. The only excess being the subplot with married characters played by Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downney Jr, which got built up with little in terms of payoff.

Straithairn's performance anchors the film in conviction and character, the rest of the cast provide a good framework of the CBS production of Murrow's show, but it's very plot-driven, and focused on the task at hand (how Murrow exposes Sen. McCarthy's tactics and standing up to the bullying under the auspices of rooting out communists in the government, while also dealing with the fall-out of such an endeavor).

I give it 3 stars or a grade of B.

spinning plates

saw this last night and just wanted to bring up one thing that no one has mentioned before, the music; which was amazing. can't see this winning best picture, but i would like to see it take home something.

TheAllPurposeNothing

Saw it last week. Thought it was competently made but much, much, much too short. Things happened much too fast with little sense of the real risk involved in going up against McCarthy. Not sure if this is simply a script-level issue or if a lot was left out during shooting/editing. It largely felt like half a movie.

Also, I would have liked to have seen more attempt to get in the heads of the people involved (Murrow, Friendly, Paley). Without letting us into their lives and how this affected them personally, it just felt like a blurb in a history book acted out by carricatures (sp?) instead of a fully told story.

On the plus side, though, I thought the period was captured perfectly and that is was beautifully shot.

Like I said, competently made but lacking in many respects.

RichC2

Definitely not best picture, but a good - almost Documentary-style - movie about an important part of media history. I double featured this with Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (local Arthouse was showing both for like a week about a month ago) and have to say, I'm officially a fan of Robert Downey Jr.

B.A.

I thought it was just about perfect. ****1/2 out of five.

I didn't think the movie was slow at all - it went by pretty damn quick, imo. It was very well cast w/ a great set design/production. Loved the B & W - excellent choice.

I actually had goose-bumps during a couple of scenes. And the subject matter is very relevant in our current political climate.

I might have been the youngest person in the theater by at least thirty years.

Did anyone else want a cigarette after seeing this? I haven't smoked in seven years, but I wanted one after leaving the movie.