Author |
Message |
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Monday, October 17, 2005 - 5:10 am
An absolute gem of a movie and I cant recommend it highly enough. The acting was just amazing and I was very impressed that George Clooney cowrote the script. David Straithairn gave an oscar caliber performance. Clooney as Fred Friendly was understated but a strong performance. The entire cast, Ray Wise, Frank Langella all very powerful. Run to this movie before it disappears.
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 10:10 am
Saw it. Loved it.
|
Auntiemike
Member
09-17-2001
| Tuesday, October 18, 2005 - 11:10 am
Looking forward to seeing it!
|
Newman
Member
09-25-2004
| Monday, October 24, 2005 - 5:26 am
The guy who played Murrow, David Straithairn, should win an Oscar. What a performance. But on the whole I could only give the movie a 3 cigarette rating out of 4. And that's being generous. It was too damn dry. I went with a group of 4 and the younger one, the one in her 40s, didn't get it. She didn't know about the McCarthy communist witchhunt era in the l950s and the movie didn't grab her. There has got to be a way to make history more interesting. This was too intellectual. Preaching to the choir. I loved it but it's not going to attract young people or wake people up to the similarities in our government today. Back then there was a "Commie" under every bed. Today, if you don't support Bush's War in Iraq, then you are "un-American," "not patriotic," "don't love America." You [may] get swift boated. You [are subject to being] smeared by the attack dogs of the far right like Rush and Hannity. Those similarities jumped out at me but I'm afraid my "young" friend was day dreaming thru the boring movie. It's like the difference between NPR and the Al Franken Show. To me NPR is dry, dull. Al talks about the same topics and makes them come alive. This movie didn't do that. (c)
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-03-2002
| Monday, October 24, 2005 - 11:47 am
Yeah, I feel bad because I thought the movie was boring. And I love arty, intellectual type films. And I love Clooney. Newman, I'm not quite 40 so perhaps you're right -- it's an age thing.
|
Legalboxer
Member
11-17-2003
| Monday, October 24, 2005 - 12:03 pm
never should sterotype/assume on age
|
Rosie
Member
11-12-2003
| Monday, October 24, 2005 - 12:14 pm
It isn't about age - it is about knowledge.
|
Weinermr
Member
08-18-2001
| Monday, October 24, 2005 - 1:02 pm
David Straitharn has been putting in amazing performances for years. He's deserving of a great deal of recognition for his acting and I hope he starts getting it very soon.
|
Newman
Member
09-25-2004
| Monday, October 24, 2005 - 7:52 pm
I don't think you should dismiss the age factor either, Legal. I'll never forget my older son telling me he didn't "understand" some old movie we were watching (maybe he was 14 at the time) because it was in black and white. I agree with Brenda on this one. I wanted to really love this movie. But it was simply dull and boring. They didn't develop the characters much. Was Murrow married? Kids? We know nothing about him from the movie other than he probably died of lung cancer. In fact I'm worried about David Straitharn's health. I think he should get a lung xray, pronto. Was Murrow ever in a scene where he didn't have a cigarette in his hand? I think not. Did he ever crack a smile?
|
Legalboxer
Member
11-17-2003
| Monday, October 24, 2005 - 10:17 pm
again, age has nothing to do with it - rosie is right it is about knowledge - and about willingness - i am barely 30, TV was normal for me, but i have been watching B&W movies since i was 5, AND understanding them because i had a willingness to want to know about history and i enjoyed the past as much as the future (Erroll Flynn, Bogart, Cary Grant, Jimmy stewart were just as much actors i wanted to see as Redford, Harrison Ford and Tom Cruise)- George Clooney was right when he said he had to make this in black and white because that is all people saw back then - no one ever saw the color of Murrow's skin, no one ever saw the other side of murrow past the tvs and it would be an injustice to try to modernize the story trying to be told - i dont claim that everyone out there is like me, who appreciates and finds meaning in all movies, regardless of when they were made - but i do know there are just as many people out there like me as there are others who might be 14 or 40 and would care less about murrow and mccarthey and so there is no reason to assume it is about age because it is more about personality and the people you are around and what you are interested in - not when you were born.
|
Brenda1966
Member
07-03-2002
| Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 11:27 am
OK, then it wasn't about age. I loved Schindler's list and I wasn't around during that time... This film was flat out boring. I wanted to like it, I really did. I wanted to be inspired or angered. This film offered me little more than what I saw Clooney mention about the film in recent interviews.
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Tuesday, October 25, 2005 - 3:42 pm
Murrow was a chain smoker and died of lung cancer. I remember the day when people smoked on TV and Murrow smoked. Whether Murrow was married was irrelevant to the story, he was a newsman, before the days of the the newscelebrity. Murrow was one of those people who was trusted, not just delivered the news. When Murrow questioned McCarthy it was on the same plane as Walter Cronkite saying the US had to get out of Vietnam. The McCarthy hearings were before my time and I never experienced the anticommunist menace paranoia that was prevalent in this country in the early sixties but I thought the movie gave an accurate portrayal of what it was like to be in the situation at the time. I didn't find it dull at all but I admit it lacked glitz and flashiness which was in keeping of the times.
|
Newman
Member
09-25-2004
| Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:24 am
I agree with Brenda. It was boring. I wanted the movie to be good, no, great. Everyone needs to learn about this period of time. There are parallels to today. I think what Brenda and I are saying is that we expected more, wanted more. This movie is preaching to the choir. I can't stand Joe McCarthy and his bully tactics. Likewise I can't stand Rumsfeld, Rush Limbaugh, Tom DeLay and so forth. However this movie will do little to win more people over to my side. The only ones who will see it are already there! I can't even recommend the movie because it was so dull. One last thought. I moved to Denver in l972. There was a chess championship being played at the time. Spassky vs. Bobby Fisher. PBS had a chess teacher on, Shelby Lyman?, who made it fun and interesting. That's what Clooney needed to do here. Make history fun, watchable, entertaining, interesting. It can be done.
|
Babyruth
Member
07-19-2001
| Thursday, November 17, 2005 - 10:55 am
I enjoyed this movie immensely. Loved the biographical feel to it, the script, the acting, the directing and the camera work. I don't need added flash and glitz or subplots to keep my attention, in fact I would have found it distracting. Loved it just the way it was.
|
Ketchuplover
Member
08-30-2000
| Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 12:41 pm
I enjoyed it even though I'm a commie(just kidding comrades )
|
Colordeagua
Member
10-25-2003
| Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 8:57 am
I haven't seen this movie yet, but want to. I'm 59 next month. Have some memories of Murrow. Wasn't really aware of McCarthy, etc. at the time. Those that do and don't like this movie, did you see the movie "The Insider"? Big tobacco starring Al Pacino and Russell Crowe. It's one of my favorites. I've watched it a number of times, but not recently. ('Bout time to again.) What did you think of "The Insider"? Similar feelings about it?
|
Iheartkaysar
Member
08-16-2005
| Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 12:03 am
Hmmmm, I'm so jealous. I want to see this movie, but I don't think it will ever come to my city. I have a lot of respect for the projects George Clooney has taken part in recently. He's very intelligent, a lot "deeper" than I thought when I developed a major crush on him during the ER days. Now I can admire him for his brains, too!
|
Maris
Member
03-28-2002
| Thursday, November 24, 2005 - 9:02 am
I loved the insider, great movie as well. Russell Crowe was magnificent. A different kind of movie, much lighter but great fun to watch is Barbarians at the Gate. James Garner plays F. Ross Johnson the CEO of R.J.R. Nabisco and the movie tells the story of when he decided to take over his company
|
Reiki
Member
08-12-2000
| Monday, November 28, 2005 - 3:02 pm
I went to see this movie this weekend and thought it was very good and very timely. I already knew about Murrow. My mom and sister went with me. Though I was not alive during this era Murrow is one of my journalistic heros. The movie wasn't a biography of Murrow's life, but a look at one specific time period for his CBS news program. My mother, who remembers watching the McCarthy hearings and Murrow's program thought the movie was great and that David Straitharn's portrayal was spot on. There is great Murrow biography "Murrow: His Life and Times" by A.M. Sperber.
|
Legalboxer
Member
11-17-2003
| Sunday, April 02, 2006 - 6:20 pm
As Maris initially said, I can not recommend this movie enough. It met all my expectations and more. I loved all the performances, the dialogue couldn’t have been better – I think David was robbed as best actor – Clooney did a fabulous job directing it and I am so happy he did it in black and white and had some of those perfect camera angles that you would see in the old days but not much anymore… yes the message is very relevant to today’s society but I think if you put this film in any year in any century, it will be relevant. I loved Morrow’s dialogue when he did the piece on McCarthy, - it was the second big show, where they had the hearings with anna moss – and Morrow was just perfect in his closing remarks – reminded me of so many others over the years who believed in America AND the importance of ensuring freedom here just as much as around the world. I can not imagine a more intellectual, thought provoking, and moving film – and I say moving because I did connect to the journalists, the decisions they had to make, the way they had to balance life and work, the way they wanted to get messages across versus the way they thought they would be able to, the chances they took and the willingness they had to stand up to the consequences of those decisions. And although they may have been making statements, I did not see them as being biased – they were reporting on something they thought was wrong and always gave a chance for the other side to respond, but would not just lay down and be silent if they didn’t have the cooperation of all sides. They wanted the nation to know what was going on, and judge for themselves whether it was right or wrong and I did not see anything unbalanced in that approach – yes there is a message being sent when you decide what film clips to show or what info to include but it just seemed to me that they tried to include all the facts they could and to send messages that the nation was not getting by simply seeing certain stories. The music was so fabulous as well and I thought it was great interludes that made time move by in the storyline. A movie that I would recommend for everyone – at least anyone willing to listen to a movie– and I say this as a 30 year old – born 12 years after Murrow died and 18 years after McCarthy died, and as someone who is not on any kind of side, nor was persuaded to any side after the movie – the movie was about the core values of America, about honesty in journalism, freedom in America, the importance of dissent and the responsibility that comes with dissent - things too few realize today but things that people of all parties, beliefs, motivations, and interests should be reminded of. Its out on DVD now - so see it if it didnt get to your local theatre
|
Bbfanatic
Member
08-14-2000
| Monday, April 03, 2006 - 8:50 am
I am not a Clooney fan to start. But I found it boring and a snoozer. Plus, like CRash, probably wasnt my kind of movie.
|
|