Dean2006@Hollywood:

"In A Nation Terrorized By Its Own Government, One Man Dared to Tell The Truth." The film?s director, George Clooney, and his co-writer, Grant Heslov, don?t. They have completely and uncritically bought into the official Hollywood version of the McCarthy era. It?s hardly surprising, but it?s quite false. Not by the wildest caprice of imagination was "A Nation Terrorized" by McCarthy. A few screenwriters, actors and directors with a strong sense of their own entitlement to keep on writing, acting and directing were denied that opportunity. Some diplomats, military men and other government officials also lost their jobs. Some were not hired. Most of those who were seriously affected had been and in some cases still were communists or communist sympathizers ? which in those days meant agents or would-be agents of Joseph Stalin or his heirs, foreign dictators whose massive military might was geared for war against America, whose proxies were or had recently been killing American soldiers in Korea and who were responsible for what at the time were the greatest mass-murders in history. In that context, to talk of the junior senator from Wisconsin as "terrorizing" anybody is a form of hysteria. There are plenty of things to regret about the career of Senator McCarthy, but to regard him as a terrorist amounts to a wilful refusal to understand "The Truth" that the film and the media culture it represents here characteristically claim as their own property.

Celluloid Sally:

Who was Edward R. Murrow? Obviously Clooney did not know (or did not care) or he might have written a few facts into the movie about this man's life! It is clear that Hollywood has become the propaganda machine for the LEFT in this country and by damned, lets not let the facts get in the way of telling a story if it serves our agenda!! Pure tripe with little merit as far as telling or knowing what really went on in some of those meetings between staff, producer and the President. They even admit they had to take license with the dialogue, what they really meant was the TRUTH! If anyone really wants to know the truth of that era should read the VENONA PROJECT report which was released on July 11, 1995 by the U.S. government representing years of decoded cables from the USSR to their spies in this country. Alger Hiss, Julius Rosenberg and American journalist I.F. Stone (to name just a few) were exposed as agents of Moscow The cables prove the overwhelming truth of McCarthys charges! So, Hello George, this is not entertainment but historical revisionism. Remember George, movies are supposed to be entertaining not vehicles for preaching, propaganda and whining. Good try George, but no cigar from this viewer.

Cheyenne Fan:

My one sentence film summary: This movie is about the journalist, Edward R. Murrow and how he affected Senate McCarthy. Here's a few more sentences: If you want to watch the typical, trite, empty, exploding, garbage that Hollywood has a reputation for making, you should skip this movie. The name Senator Joseph McCarthy should mean something to you before you watch. Senator McCarthy was a bit of a bully and fear-monger who wanted to protect our freedoms even if it meant violating them with allegations and innuendo. Both McCarthy and Murrow asked and answered the question "Do the ends justify the means?", came up with different answers and we witness the ensuing battle. If you are looking for a film that offers a glimpse of a small group of well-drawn characters at a particular moment in time, it doesn't get much better than this. It's a compelling, tightly woven drama featuring sharp and intelligent dialogue, fine performances and stunning black and white photography. My only minor criticism of the film is the Joe and Shirley subplot. What's it doing here? It seems extraneous and out of place. Watch the movie you'll understand what I'm talking about. Bottom line: Who would have thought that the guy who played Dr. Doug Ross would go on to write and direct such a fine film?

Walt D in LV:

Beautiful cinematography and interesting storyline, but didn't go anywhere. It was amazing to see the olden days recreated, but the didn't explain enough. Maybe it assumes you already know the story? The acting was really top-notch, and the again, incredibly beautifully filmed, but without a good story... 11-29-06. Walt D in LV

JP 1796729:

One Word Classic!! This a modern cinema masterpiece, the work of David Strathairn and Clooney is outstanding!

Chernobyl:

It's a movie, not a non-fiction account of what went on in the 1950s. The people here who can't get past that probably haven't actually seen it, because Rush told them not to, but feel free to spout Rush's opinion over here. I think it's a wonderful MOVIE about the feel of the times, and the feel of our times.

skillerified:

An excellently written and directed take on the battle between CBS newscaster Edward R. Murrow and Sen. Joseph McCarthy. This film is so smart in the way it tackles a fairly difficult subject matter. Depending on your politics, I suppose, you probably consider McCarthy either a hero or one of the biggest political bullies and villains in the history of our country. This film doesn't really paint him as either. Instead of trying to find an actor to play McCarthy, Clooney and Co. have allowed the Senator to speak for himself, much like Murrow did in his day, by using actual clips of McCarthy throughout the film. In fact, every scene of him in the film is actual footage of the Senator. So the next objection is that the editing is probably done in a way that shows him in a certain light and often in films of this nature that's a valid argument, but I never felt this particular film forcing him into the "bad guy" box. It allows McCarthy room to breathe and to answer for his actions. Often in the film the point is made that his ideals were noble and just, but his methods threatened and abused the very freedoms he was attempting to protect and created a national fear that rivaled, if not exceeded, what we experience today considering our current political conditions. There is no denying this as historical fact. Another thing I really appreciated about this film is the use of Murrow's own words when they were available. His television broadcasts are recreated with great attention given to detail and period accuracy. In between these scenes, there are everyday conversations and meetings that are so well written that they blend seamlessly with the historical bits. The acting is superb on all levels and the cinematography is particularly good, lending the film a tightness that it desperately needs.

ToxicDon:

Great performance by Strathairn; unfortunately in a story that was so slow and boring you almost don't care how good he is. My wife is a huge Clooney fan (hence the rental), but even she was less than impressed by his small role. The story IS important to the time period, and relevant to today. The presentation is so low key, it is a chore to watch. If not for Strathairn, it would not be watchable.

rmgebhardt:

Truthfully, I thought this film would be ok and nothing more. After seeing it, I can't help but be thankful that my preconceptions of the movie were extremely off target. What was most striking about the film was the relevancy of the material. If you substitute the word "communist" with "terrorist" and McCarthy with Bush (and his regime), you have a very potent similarity to today's political environment in the United States. The acting was also superb. George Clooney and David Strathairn was spot on. The only drawback that I felt was present in the movie was that the subplot involving Patricia Clarkson's and Robert Downey Jr.'s characters felt tacked on and superfluous. Beyond that, Good Night, and Good Luck was a masterpiece.

Rigel:

For reference, Edward R. Murrow was a CBS broadcaster who spoke out against Joseph Mcarthy during the 50's when the senator was holding hearings on suspected communists, much the same way that our current administration is acting on "enemy combatants". There are many parallels depicted in the film, and likely why it was made, that mirror today's current events. Kieth Olbermann on MSNBC can be viewed as adopting Murrow's style today. The performances in the film are very strong, direct, and sincere. The facts presented are thrown hard at the viewer via Murrow's own words. The amount of stock footage in the film makes it feel like a documentary wrapped in a narrative. Unfortunately, the film chooses to often portray the events in the latest fad of multiple characters in a crowded room all talking at once. This makes following some of the film unintelligible. As well, there are some subplots that have no bearing on the main plot and seem to be used as filler to pad out the 90 minute running time. It may be boring to some, but if you enjoy realistic historical drama, this works.

myl 1582431:

There are things about this movie that are utterly brilliant and other things that are mediocre. The acting from Strathairn as Murrow is impressive. The character just seems to come out of his body. Clooney and Langella both do great jobs as the guys who have Murrow's back. The B&W photography was an absolute necessity and I'm glad they realized it. So was the use of archival footage of McCarthy, etc. A side story starring Downey & Clarkson is only mildly interesting and most of the other colleagues in the CBS news crew are very forgettable. The jazz music adds a nice touch to sort of keep us in the period and not think too far out of context but doesn't really elevate the picture. The dialogue, sadly, is boring and mediocre if you take out anything that Murrow actually said. His oratory is what makes this movie. I give this movie 4 stars more out of respect for Murrow than respect for the movie. It is his words and his story that makes this movie unforgettable.

Robowriter:

Back in the 1950s, when everyone smoked everywhere (even on air), freely hobnobbed socially (before the mass media culled some of that interpersonal touch from us), and listened to really good live jazz... Yeah, that's the ticket. Actually, this is a black-and-white film about the early days of black-and-white TV journalism, when integrity was iconic, and Edward R. Murrow (reincarnated in word and mannerism by David Strathairn) made a pioneering difference in courage and impartiality. He stood for the Constitution and its rights for all above partisan power plays. Don't listen to the right-wing harpies who still maintain "Sen. McCarthy was right! The government and Hollywood were infested with Soviet sympathizers!" (They imply that any amount of paranoia and unsubstantiated character assassination and defamation were and are today justified. They have failed to learn the lessons of history.) The tension and persecution of the McCarthy era is palpable throughout this film. As Strathairn says, "The terror is in this room." To face McCarthy, Strathairn's Murrow walks the line of utter journalistic integrity, demanding impartiality in his team's research and refusing to be compromised by potential character attacks on his team (even as the life of one TV anchor is literally destroyed). Make no mistake: Without Murrow, we would live in a vastly different nation than we do now. Americans self-govern by the rule of law and electing its officials, not by witch hunts and the autocracy of any official who would wrap himself in the flag as an excuse to break the law and try others or ruin their lives without due process or the right to face his accusers in a court of law or trial by a jury of his peers. For similar offerings, click my avatar then explore my Journalism movie list. 4.5 stars.

charliesville:

This will surely be played in high schools across America to be used by teachers looking to kill a bit of time. An okay movie, but I think it as too short and the black and white was unnecessary.

SuperShortReview:

Solid period piece (including a LOT of smoking!) about Edward R. Murrow and his role in the eventual downfall of Sen. Joseph McCarthy.

BunnyKing:

I was not familiar with Murrow or his exploits but after viewing this movie in the theater twice, and quickly purchasing it upon release, I've found that this is one of my favorite films. The story is very compelling and inspiring and bears testament to the American psyche in the face of great adversity. I think this movie should be shown throughout schools and colleges. Moreover, the acting is superb and Strathaim really steals the show. Highly recommended and well worth a purchase!

Agorante:

I was impressed that one of the sequences showed Murrow interviewing Liberace. That was accurate. I watched his show as a child and didnt consider it to be particularly political. I grew up in Washington D.C. I was something of a political junkie. For example, I played hooky to watch the Army-McCarthy hearings. Murrow got involved with denouncing McCarthy very late in the day an at not much risk to himself. Its interesting to see the most handsome man in Hollywood play the homliest man in New York. Strahairn looks a lot like Murrow but Fred Friendly was no George Cloony.

EnvoyPV:

We watched the blu-ray edition, and we were pleased with the video quality. The movie presented what seemed to be an authentic window into the time period. We found it informative, entertaining and with a clear message for people to pay attention to what's going on in the world.

Ryan Daniel:

This is how you make a period film. With Good Night, And Good Luck George Clooney has crafted a film that is both historically specific but also unquestionably relevant today. The film is a intelligent, insightful anti-censorship treatise that refuses to pull any punches. Good Night, And Good Luck is challenging and truly worthy of my own Best Picture criteria, a film which asks us to question the media, the government and ourselves. The performances are across the board fantastic and the black and white photography is sublime, see this film if you haven?t already.

Nick :

Good Night, and Good Luck is an good movie plus a great message. It's black and white style is only surpassed by a great script and a great performance by David Straitharn. I will say that I was a bit underwhelmed by Robert Downey Jr's role just b/c I'm such a big fan. I also do not think George Clooney was believable in his role. He made up for it on the writing credits. I have a rule that a director can only be in his own movie, if it's a cameo or he gets killed. Sorry, no exceptions. No exceptions.

videoguy1million:

Great film. Great cast. The sound bite of Eisenhower at the end was shocking.My whole life I always thought that line was some kind of hippie,counterculture propaganda. It just goes to show you how our perceptions can be bent over time.

mikequist:

A very, very sober account of the McCarthy era in American society. Murrow is played as a humorless, chain smoking pundit who seemed to be the only person in the country who understood what McCarthyism was really all about. The storyline is uneven (I suspect parts of the narrative were left on the editing room floor). The tone is so stark that it is impossible to find sympathy for any of the characters. Sure, McCarty was an extremist (and therefore a "bad" guy), but Murrow is so depressingly low key that I was practically suicidal by the end of the movie. If you're interested in this period of history, the film is worth a look. But only one look.

RT 150394:

So rarely have I expected so much from a movie and received so little. Other than David Strathairn's performance as Edward R. Murrow, the rest of the story is almost antiseptic. Was the American public riveted to their television sets watching the Murrow/McCarthy showdown? You would never know one way or the other from this movie. Instead of the legendary radio reporter known for his live "This is London reporting" from WWII, the movie relegates Murrow to a cheesy celebrity interviewer who happens upon a big story interspersed with jazz music?

64fe764802:

Too short. It seems like this could've been twice as long and still great. Good acting from Strathaim, as usual and I'm really begining to enjoy Clooney too. Great music throughout also.

Capt. D:

Strathairn's performance is of course worth the Oscar nod, but the was just boring. All the topics of the era, McCarthyism, Communism, Socialism all the isms are interesting topics, but this movie made what could have been a 30 minute special on hte history channel, a 2 hour long boring film with subplots that made no sense. The parts with Robert Downey Jr in them had no revelance to the film whatsover for example. Characters were underdeveloped and basically no one in the film was a likable character. The end of the movie was the best part, because I could finally say Good Night to this boring movie.

psc 1744261:

My only compliant with this film is that the antagonist never fully realized his potential as a villain. It didn't seem like much of a struggle to bring McCarthy down. The film never really made me tense and the outcome was never in doubt. Still a movie about a tyrant getting his just due is always great in my opinion