Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005) - Biography, Drama, History

Hohum Score

27

Watchable

Broadcast journalist Edward R. Murrow looks to bring down Senator Joseph McCarthy.

IMDB: 7.5
Director: George Clooney
Stars: David Strathairn, George Clooney
Length: 93 Minutes
PG Rating: PG
Reviews: 70 out of 530 found boring (13.2%)

One-line Reviews (325)

The "red scare" era, where everyone and anyone could be suspected of being a communist simply on the basis of rumours or hearsay, and where lives and careers were ruined because of the sometimes questionable connections that were established, and which gave rise to the otherwise obscure and undistinguished Senator Joseph McCarthy, is a fascinating one.

The performances were uniformly enjoyable, and the creation of the '50s environment was masterful, from the nerd-glasses to the cigarette commercials to the all-night gin joints.

The news of the fifties was very entertaining today.

This compelling and honest movie is about the one man who tried to take down the senator, a journalist who eventually started a chain of events leading to the end of McCarthy's terror.

otherwise,i enjoyed it.

I enjoyed the film but thought it moved at a bit of a snail's pace at some parts which is why I took off 2 points.

In mesmerizing black and white photography, the movie opens with languid camera lens roaming across faces at an evening event, to the nostalgic lyrics of "When I fall in love" in the background.

While Network is a satire, they both address the same issues and they remain as both important, fascinating and topical films.

"Good Night and Good Luck" proved to be a very accurate and engaging film telling about 50s TV host Edward R.

Gripping B&W Drama .

What is compelling especially of this film is its comparison to two other noteworthy films about journalism, Citizen Kane and All the President's Men.

I found it intellectually stimulating, engaging and educational.

Sitting in the sparse audience in a Yakima, Washington theater at a recent screening of "Good Night and Good Luck" with David Strathairn in a stunning performance as Edward R.

The film is quite sedate, as I said earlier, with little score (beyond some jazz riffs that can get a bit repetitive), and tight camera-work that focuses solely on the actors, walking down grey halls and talking in offices and meeting rooms.

The film's pace is very slow.

David Strathairn as journalist Edward Murrow gives a terrific performance; his character is very dry and controlled, his eyes the only way to let his inner emotions out.

Even though it is a very important and maybe traumatic episode in American modern history, as a movie it becomes dull and uninteresting.

Wouldn't the person who praises a boring historical film this much be just as happy reading any non-fictional textbook you could find at any public library??

Murrow takes on an eerie quasi-reality which makes this film so absorbing.

A true but boring story about the press freedom...

Goodnight & Goodluck has an intriguing story, excellent cast (though Clooney and Robert Downey Jr are somewhat wasted in supporting roles) and the black and white cinematography works well.

People who knew about the McCarthy period and how journalism should be done are the ones who will love this movie, while the people who need to know what this movie explains will probably switch the channel or fall asleep during watching.

I recommend NETWORK (1976) way over this - it's a lot more engaging and mind opening showing the corruption of television/corporation.

If you just saw the script as words on a page, it would seem boring and preachy.

Murrow and Senator Joseph McCarthy or not, the film is an entertaining document of how fear is used to gain popularity in politics.

This movie is also vastly entertaining, unless your idea of entertainment is limited to a car chase.

I have just experienced cinematic poetry of the highest order that could very possibly be mistaken for extremely subtle propaganda.

' works because it's an engaging story, that grabs your attention.

There are several musical montages that do little to advance the plot (one is a pure music video with no plot whatsoever).

Not that I object at all to the use of modern technology in movies set in the past - it's just that in certain situations, when overused, it can have the effect of giving the subject a somewhat pretentious look.

An absorbing and really very well-acted film which nonetheless strikes me as missing its mark.

If you are the type who can watch a movie and appreciate it for its skill, then this is worth watching.

Instead it's a fascinating, enlightening and sobering history lesson which is particularly important to re-visit today.

However, this movie may rank on the extremely boring list pretty high up.

My succinct review with no plot summary because I don't feel like putting in a whole lot of effort: Good Night, and Good Luck is definitely a well-made film.

boring.

While really not a bad movie, I found myself dreadfully bored while watching....

These days, it seems more like a ploy used by bureaucrats to protect themselves against charges of having wrongly killed and inappropriately spied on citizens, etc. I'll stick with my original '7' because I do believe that this film is worth watching, regardless of one's political slant.

Clooney was, I realised, a film-star in the Classical Hollywood sense - dynamic, entertaining, vibrant, witty, sickeningly good-looking (I'm sure I'll never be able to look that good when I'M grey) - a truly energetic screen-presence.

the screenplay is a bore...

It contained little story and way too much historical footage that seemed to be long and drawn out at times.

The switch in lighting from when Murrow is on the air to just after he goes off is rather thrilling: both are intense, in fact the on-air lighting is stark.

And the film may have also been too fact driven, as if Clooney didn't want to "Hollywoodize" any part of the film, even if it means creating a more interesting, or riveting plot, or characters.

The actors were very busy acting and showing how intense they were and how serious the subject matter was.

Snore-fest .

I personally found it entertaining to the extent to which the dialogue in fact reflected the issues of our day rather than those of its time period.

I give this movie a 3 because it is a propaganda.

Like a long lecture by a very boring professor .

Murrow represented the true potential of the television medium, tirelessly working to ensure it's enduring status as a tool for extrapolating and critically engaging with issues.

I highly recommend it.

But the effectiveness of Clooney's recreation of the 1950s means that it's a gripping tale, in spite of the relative weakness of plot.

The plot depicting the cost of our heroes is bland.

Yes, the long, unwieldy stretch of HUAC testimony made the second half of the film a bit ponderous.

Save your money.

The movie itself is a gripping and and upbeat political drama that leaves no stone unturned.

When he made his directorial debut in "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind", we saw glimpses of something deeper, and his working relationship with Steven Soderbergh began to evolve, seeing the two co-producing numerous movies, some innovative and intelligent, others just generally enjoyable.

However, this also makes it hard to follow the plot at times and it takes a good deal of concentration in some parts to keep up.

We were passive, absorbing stuff on screen without truly being able to engage with it, much in the way the speaker warned television would become if misused.

The audience feels fully immersed in the middle of a 1950's television broadcasting building, so complete is the feel of the picture.

In short, this movie is pretentious.

Good Night, and Good Luck is shot in black and white capturing every intense motion scene giving a feel back to the 1950s.

Stunning .

Well, it was a boring night and I decided to pick this movie on DVD, all can I say is that I get more bored during the watching of this film!

McCarthy retaliates with accusations of Murrow's supposed association with un-American groups just as the parent network, CBS, reels under sponsorship pressure and the unpredictable whims of network president William Paley (Frank Langella).

"Good Night, and Good Luck", however, is worth watching, if only for Strathairn's excellent portrayal of Murrow as a man of decency, integrity and courage.

the title goes well with my reaction to the movie because i fell asleep watching it.

I found this film captivating, visually stunning, and educational without being "preachy.

During the 50's, when the cold war paranoia was still gripping USA, Senator Joseph McCarthy fueled the public fear, uncertainty, doubt by going after many supposed communist sympathizers.

Pausing to hear the sound of a newspaper having its creases ironed out, or the jiggling of ice being twirled with one's fingers in a half empty, well deserved glass of scotch.

One former soldier finds a career in advertising for a soap company, which sponsors a banal proto-reality show, exemplifying what Murrow referred to in his speech as "evidence of decadence, escapism and insulation from the realities of the world in which we live".

When I came into the movie I expected to see a rousing story about the little guy standing up to the big powerful villain and taking him down.

At the same time you don't forget that it's a movie you're watching because there is a story to be followed, a fascinating story that provokes ones thoughts.

It is fascinating to see the old behind-the-scenes methods of CBS News during this period and the influence that advertisers had on news content, which continues to this day.

The narrative is fascinating and it does a great job of recreating the time and using archive footage blended really well.

Can there be any easier target than the late Senator Joseph McCarthy, long since deceased and the subject of pervasive Liberal propaganda for the last 50 years.

Yawn....

'Good Night And Good Luck' (Murrow's catch phrase) also arguably errs towards becoming a stylised filmed stage play in its reliance on confining most of the action to the TV studio but as other directors have proved in the past (such as Sidney Lumet with '12 Angry Men') this can in turns be an equally gripping technique and the word perfect transcribing of Murrow's eloquent broadcasts are thought provoking and moving.

At either extremes, The Media (sic) can be either a degrading escapism that unfocuses the audience away from reality, or harsh propaganda designed to center the masses towards one specific ideology.

If you want my extensive "Left-wing Propaganda In Cinema" list, email me.

It is in many respects a fascinating film, its script drawn from the actual words of the actual people involved in the Murrow telecast.

Clooney could have dramatized some situations, but it may have made the movie too cliché though.

Engaging plot, intelligent humor, beautiful cinematography, and all with a PG rating.

At least it was only 93 minutes of dull.

The scenes between Langella and Strathaim are absorbing to watch; Murrow obstinately refusing to reject his principles while Paley attempts to reconcile corporate interests with the moral strength of the See it Now show.

I can see this film being shown on HBO for the next century, kind of like they did Quiz Show, another generally boring film.

Well worth watching.

", on the other hand, is remarkable for how authentic it feels; I never felt like I was watching scripted actors, but rather was watching an especially exciting documentary.

The other shots are occasional conversations between various characters, which seem to be forced, and repetitive, always along the lines of: Murrow: We need to tell the truth.

The black and white makes it seem more authentic, being set in the days of black and white TV, the singer/musician scenes weren't really necessary and perhaps were a distraction, but all in all, an entertaining civics and history lesson.

The rhetoric is so authentically mundane, it's hard to sit through.

Really, totally boring .

If you're a conservative like me, it can be entertaining.

Well, Clooney has managed to make a film that is as entertaining as it is educational, and misses no opportunity to make its central argument clear.

The Best Film of 2006 - Important, Fascinating and Topical .

Timely and riveting .

More Interesting Than Entertaining .

This is a stunning movie - beautifully filmed, scripted, paced, performed.

First, he has a pointless side story about a married couple (Robert Downey, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson) at CBS that violate the company rule against married employees, then he has a subplot about a man, Don Hollenbeck (Ray Wise), McCarthy drives to suicide (done in Martin Ritt's Woody Allen starring film The Front, with Zero Mostel's character), and finally the film's soundtrack is a bit weak, with a jazz score that seems inapt to the gravity of the situation.

Throughout the film, we are forced to view the unimportant and dull conflicts that the other characters in the story are going through.

During the 1950's there was a wave of communist paranoia where a mixture of government policy and propaganda made everyone afraid that anyone could be a communist.

If you just want to know if it is worth watching .

It is amazing how in your face propaganda can be, and then a film like this comes along that deliver a subtle message.

The numerous choices made by Clooney and co-screenwriter Grant Heslov, to focus primarily on Murrow (brilliantly played by veteran character actor David Strathairn) and his significance in the early days of television and broadcast journalism, made for a very compelling tale.

It's a snore.

And, the lack of scruples in persecuting relatively low-level employees suspected of belonging to the Communist Party or having relatives who at one time subscribed to the Daily Worker shows the paranoia that was gripping much of America in that period.

it is very dry - which can be good, but it is not good in this case because it just becomes boring.

And there's an uninteresting subplot about the relationship between Robert Downey Jr. and Patricia Clarkson that serves no purpose other than to pad the movie's running time.

And if he truly believes that the words of Murrow and McCarthy can tell the story by themselves, then he should have just had stock footage of those two and spared us the unbearable monotony of poorly scripted, identical scenes, meant solely to tie together the various pieces of wisdom espoused by Strathairn's character.

Most of the characters are underwritten, and only two exist to illustrate the dangers and consequences of speaking out - one in so mild a form as to be forgettable, while one harassed colleague tops himself after three scenes, an event so predictable I had bets going as to his method by his second appearance.

Fascinating production details?

The movie is also very boring most of the way through, most of the show takes place in the CBS studio, they don't show much of the actual McCarthy conflict other than what they showed on the air.

George Clooney's acting makes these side-stories even more dull and less authentic.

Ray Wise's tortured newsman who worries about having his life taken away with past affiliations brings much needed heart, emotion and light to an otherwise dreary and depressing film that nearly never finds its legs.

It must be difficult to make an enjoyable film based on historical events especially when the outcome is well known.

With that in mind, I am disappointed to say that, given the task of describing this film in one word, I would have to select the word 'dull'.

This intriguing movie should be seen if only to get a handle as to what the 1950s McCarthy era was like - an informative 8 out of 10.

The adaptation is smart and has a gripping screenplay keeping the audience engaged throughout its 90 minutes offering the audience enough homework to work on it which is fortunately worth in here too.

I mean, seriously, what a boring load of old crap.

The acting is all compelling; Wise and Strathairn deliver what I would argue are by far their most unforgettable performances of their respective careers.

He calls for television instead to educate, provoke and expose the world for its flaws, ugly or boring as they may be.

Talk about pretentious Mr. Clooney!

Strathairn is powerful and compelling as Murrow becomes the later.

Strathairn earns his Oscar Nom in this gripping social commentary .

Murrow in this somewhat talky but intriguing film.

By itself it is dry and slow with far too much time taken up by musical transitions.

He says that television is entertaining and isolating people and it is in a way extremely wrong.

And a jarringly pointless subplot about a married couple working at CBS who have to pretend that they are not married because CBS has a policy against married couples working for CBS.

But the reason I enjoyed it was mainly because it portrayed a significant and damaging period in U.

The implication that Murrow directly influenced the investigation of McCarthy is a new and fascinating slant on the whole issue of McCarthyism.

In fairness, most people would probably find this movie boring.

I tried to watch this once without subtitles, but I quickly found it a bit too hard to follow, so I aborted and let the flick simmer, while waiting for the right opportunity.

Perhaps I'm being alarmist, and am just engaging in more 'McCarthyism', and we already have a system in place that works just fine - well educated, conscientious employees themselves.

I would say that you shouldn't waste your time or money to see this movie.

The cast turned in a world-class performance Strathairn's performance was stunning, Clooney played a brilliantly understated Fred Friendly, Langella played an extraordinary Paley, and Downey's minimalist acting revealed him at his best in years.

For one such as myself with very little prior knowledge of the subject matter, the film is rather confusing at first.

Murrow, the famous American newscaster who waged a media war that eventually brought down Joseph McCarthy, but even if David Strathairn comes nowhere close to accurately impersonating Murrow, he gives a fantastic and intense performance.

So to anyone interested in this fascinating piece of television news history, I highly recommend Good Night, and Good Luck.

Superb performances all round (David Strathairn in particular) and a fascinating look at one of the darkest periods in America's modern history.

When one considers the schlock (albeit very entertaining) that Clooney has been seen in over the years it has been a pleasure of his directed work that it seems to play on many levels.

The news footage serves an useful historical reference but it needs a big performance to deliver the intense drama.

Another mentionable performance was by Ray Wise in his portrayal of the sad, and the slow deterioration of Don Hollenbeck.

boring description of a major political event .

Great Acting but very dull film .

Filming in black and white, and interspersing news conferences with actual footage of McCarthy, Clooney is an emerging talent worth watching.

Directed by George Clooney, it is a riveting tale that allows the viewer to have a ringside seat at what was referred to as a witch hunt.

Good Night, and Good Luck is a singularly gripping, powerful movie about the epic battle between a blustery, Red-obsessed senator and a resolved veteran newsman.

In many ways this is fine - McCarthy was a fascinating character, whatever else may be said of him, and Munroe's eloquence was nonpareil.

However, it concentrates so much on being faithful to the history, including details of television production in Murrow's day (fascinating as they are), that this history lesson does not make for great drama.

Short and entertaining enough to hold the attention span of even those that don't like historical films, and powerful and simple enough in its message to be one of the most important films ever made.

Overall, this is a bland film despite it being pretty historically accurate.

I thought on some scenes, they were way to boring and almost put me straight to sleep.

I fell asleep and i never do that at films.

It makes for fascinating viewing.

Propaganda films taught us to "duck and cover" in school when the bombs start falling.

These take us away from the interesting McCarthy sub-plot and bring us towards the boring moral tales about the television industry.

A runtime of ninety minutes is not too much but the picture, perhaps because of the black and white, proves to be a little slow.

While CAPOTE and MUNICH are both fine pieces of work, the film that I feel really should have won – and, having been left empty-handed on awards night, means that it was well and truly snubbed!

An exciting film would show some kind of REAL conflict, perhaps even with equal opponents (though not necessarily equally likable).

I found myself completely immersed in the story and cannot ask more of any book or movie.

I found the portrayal of Edward Murrow, legendary CBS World War II broadcaster, by the severe and constant jaw clenching of David Strathairn clichéd and consistently boring.

He was boring.

Do you see any Right-wing propaganda films being made there?

It does not stray even the slightest from its mission, and thereby may prove to be a little dull for some viewers.

This is not Michael Moore bash-you-over-the-head film-making -- it's taut, intelligent, moving, and visually/aurally stunning storytelling.

" It's also an intriguing inside look at journalism and its power.

The movie pacing is slow also.

The main problem with it is that there's really no story here.

Important, Relevant And Interesting - But Still A Rather Dry Portrayal Of The Story .

Nonetheless, George Clooney's film is an engaging work about the duties journalism has and about the courage one needs.

Intelligent, intense, moving, at times very funny, the historical subjects are presented in this tight, focused and important film with never a wasted moment.

Great performances, coupled with a taut, almost austere script, makes this film engaging and powerful.

Although filmed well, and the acting, sliding into the realm of TV soap style still, was good, the writing was contrived and weak.

I always find it fascinating to follow political scheming in films, although in real life I couldn't care less.

Yawn!

Boring .

I hoped to see an exciting film and not a predictable, rather boring plot.

Personally, I think Murrow is a journalistic hero just as the movie portrays, however, without any context in which to place See It Now's McCarthy coverage, Murrow's stance comes off a bit like propaganda.

Thoroughly enjoyed it.

Nice history less for the unknowing, but a slow film .

He's meticulous in depicting the way a 50s TV station was run, and it's engaging just to see the old equipment (film instead of tapes, for example).

It's not a masterpiece, but it's well worth watching, especially if you're interested in that specific period of time and how all the people working around it reacted to Murrow's "statements" and how people were scared.

As they lie in bed staring into space, I felt their boredom with their limited characters.

The film's most intriguing performance actually comes from Ray Wise as CBS anchor Don Hollenbeck, displaying a frozen smile and fragile psyche as a powerful New York Post columnist regularly accuses him of being a Communist sympathizer.

Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, makes for a compelling cinematic experience.

They're dedicated and intense.

This film has no tension, no character build up, no plot.

The story -- Edward Murrow, a successful and affluent, if not wealthy, newsman risking his livelihood to take on Joe McCarthy -- is both compelling in its historical context and in the lessons it offers for today's leaders (who probably won't see the movie and who wouldn't heed its message if they did).

The film is low-key, dreary and lacks the special effects, the humor, and the various cinematic gimmicks that contemporary viewers have come to expect from modern films.

It is done with style, class and gripping actual drama.

Brilliant, engaging, dramatic snapshot of Edward R.

As if that wasn't enough, in 2005 Hollywood released the greatest propaganda film since "Triumph of the Will", an anti-McCarthy slander picture known as "Good Night and Good Luck".

Not surprisingly, the media ignored these documents completely, instead choosing to run yet another round of anti-McCarthy propaganda.

Otherwise there is a lot of useless crap that leaves the movie bland.

Unexpected tension and greatness .

This is the one of the most intense, original, and beautifully-crafted films in the history of cinema.

Granted it comes across a bit like a stylized civics lesson on free speech and responsible journalism, the movie is also sharply focused and extremely evocative in recreating the claustrophobic atmosphere of TV journalism in the 1950's.

The 3 piece suits, incessant smoking, claustrophobic broadcasting rooms, 50s mores (such as the policy against marriage within the workplace) add compelling verisimilitude.

' is An Engaging Film, that is nicely written, wonderfully directed & superbly acted.

The movie felt rushed and undeveloped (it's like let's see the showdown with Murrow and McCarthy already), even though it was also tedious, waiting for something to happen.

Beautiful but boring .

As with "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," Clooney looked into the entertaining nuances of real life to draw inspiration for his film.

More Educational Than Entertaining .

You can learn about historical events that are uneventful.

Watchinig a movie about a reporter trying to bring down a public official is about as exciting as watching bread rise.

Overall, this is a well-made, entertaining depiction of a fascinating story.

dull, uninspired, one dimensional .

George Clooney lets history speak for itself in this compelling, no frills drama about the noble Edward R.

I think that movies must be entertaining overall, it's the most important thing, and this one get's 0 of 10 points on amusement or suspense.

It was enjoyable all the same, as the characters portrayed the broadcasting industry of the 1950s very well.

The first is the immediate moral judgement of the actions of Murrow - we expect, after the rousing call to arms to the people of the media world, so influential and affecting, a hero's story, something that has become mythologised and therefore worthy of being commended.

The cinematography is utterly fantastic, and the entire storyline is fascinating (from a future journalist's point-of-view).

The movie is very well directed and the acting is good but the film is simply boring and no more than a two hour documentary with actors instead of real people excluding the scenes with the historical footage.

George Clooney & Grant Heslov's Screenplay is fast-paced, unbiased & absorbing, while Clooney's direction is absolutely wonderful.

But Some Boring .

history which I found fascinating.

That said, for me the film was rather dull and unenlightening.

However, for me and my tastes the film felt empty...

These were most realistic, both politically gripping and very intense.

However, aside from some great performances, a wonderful visual style, and a couple exciting moments...

Absorbing film .

I expected Ben Kingsley to pop in wearing a saffron loincloth to join the entire cast in a rousing chorus of "It's A Small World After All.

I enjoyed it as a film.

This is a work of art as well as a completely absorbing story about a time with eerie parallels to our own (though the '50s had much better fashion and soundtracks).

In brief: this movie is too dull, to be called either drama or historical, and is rather far from facts to be called documentary.

With such a good idea, however, for my taste the script is slow and poorly run.

I'm lucky enough to have lived long enough to remember Murrow in my girlhood, and my father's enforced shushing as he routinely watched, absorbing by osmosis, Murrow's integrity.

Stunning piece of kinescopic cinema.

What boggles me is that very boring people have written unbearably boring reviews ten pages long praising how good this movie is.

This may well be the most boring movie I have seen since "The Accidental Tourist" in 88.

The movie is only 94 minutes and is a bit fast paced and frenetic, but it is well worth watching.

I found Clooney's role in the film to be rather pointless as well, and in fact almost irritating...

It also occasionally breaks out into not only an intellectually stimulating, but emotionally engaging movie with scenes like Murrow prostituting himself by conducting a cloying interview with Liberace on "Person to Person" or in Ray Wise's touching, angst-ridden performance as troubled newsman Don Hollenbeck.

The film, especially Strathairn's intense performance, and the great support from Clooney, Langella and Clarkson, exceeded my expectations greatly.

Viewers may find polishing up their American History knowledge of the 1950's Red Scare beneficial, but note this-- Good Night, & Good Luck's screen play, written by Grant Heslov, follows the events in remarkable accuracy stimulating those old memories of 11th grade history class (7th period while desperately trying to stay awake) allowing any viewer to follow along.

Tight, taught, suspenseful--even though we know the outcome.

Good Night and Good Luck enters into the territory of films like Appolo 13 and to a certain extent even Revenge of the Sith which tell an intensely compelling story to which everyone knows the ending.

Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) **** (out of 4) Extremely well made and compelling drama from director George Clooney about journalist Edward R.

Good Night, and Good Luck is a singularly gripping, powerful movie about the epic battle between a blustery, Red-obsessed senator and a resolved veteran newsman.

David Strathairn gives a stunning, totally faultless performance as Murrow, & there are outstanding performances by Robert Downey Jr, Frank Langella, Jeff Daniels, Ray Wise & Clooney himself!

For folks unfamiliar with the era, this missing context might make the film a bit confusing.

A brief but engrossing bit of Political-Clooney and his most biting work since Batman and Robin (It was a satire of Hollywood Blockbusters…wasn't it?

This film gives the movie audience an opportunity to delve into the plethora of facts and philosophies that immersed this film into intellectual and political rumination!!

It is a thoroughly engrossing "Truth is stranger than fiction" story (my favorite cinema genre!

At times the pace is rather slow, not hindering the movie's dramatic importance.

And it makes for a very riveting film.

If it is propaganda, though, I think it's more in reaction against the 'my Country, right or wrong' mentality of so many mainstream newsmen and commentators, unwilling (or afraid) to be branded as 'unpatriotic' by criticising the current US administration.

I think this film was way too dull and doesn't really tell us what was going on at the time.

They are reminding us all that those days of paranoia and mass confusion are not behind us, that the media isn't always as "fair and balanced" as they proclaim.

It's stunning the way in which the parallels, highlighted in McCarthy's and Murrow's own exact words from the time, can be identified in today's debates over patriotism, secrecy and the Patriot Act.

This jousting that the military, a sub-division of the government, do with the professionalism driven; usually typically egotistically driven journalists at a national TV broadcast centre over the ability to get across information and broadcast 'the truth' to a nation makes for fascinating viewing.

Important story and fascinating production from varying angles and views, "Good Night, and Good Luck.

Compelling performance.

If you're lost, then you'll ultimately be bored out of your mind.

A very interesting theme story about how TV was still under the submission of the government in the 50's decade, the plot is subtly engaging and the message is timeless.

It would have moved at a faster pace then this movie, been more entertaining and to top it off, would have been in color also.

I think George Clooney getting serious has worked, I enjoyed it from start to finish.

I'm sure this was historically an important event, at least for TV journalists, but it was just really boring as a movie.

Or Else Be Bored.

This is a film for those who find text-books fascinating.

Good night, and good luck staying awake .

David Strathairn is stunning in his portrayal of Ed Murrow and George Clooney (who also directed) is effective as Fred Friendly.

George Clooney gets the best of the performances possible especially by his lead actor which makes this drama so compelling.

Talking about the obvious but strangely concealed always sounds stunning when it comes from people of his type.

An Engaging Film.

It's painfully slow-moving and not all that interesting.

This film is shot in stunning silver black and white.

And sadly, seems the perpetuation of its ethical downfall lies in the gullibility of viewing audiences who have become equal partners in crime - allowing themselves to be dragged down into the sludge alongside the programmers, writers, producers and sponsors.

Good Night and Good Luck is one of those rare pieces of cinema that is both immensely important and immensely entertaining.

Dealing with one of the most fascinating – and painful – events in American political history, the film utilizes ample stock footage to throw us back into (rather than merely recreate) the paranoia that swept the country in the Cold War era, though attention must be paid for the narrative to be followed in detail.

If a movie can be compelling without having to be seen, it makes for a great experience.

But the 'most fascinating actor' award goes to McCarthy himself; the footage with him is actual footage from the 1950s, and shows clearly his...

That said, this Film Noir is entertaining with a straight forward plot and it absolutely stands out in the cinematography department.

A lot of viewers are going to be bored.

Georgie Boy also validates "Good Night, and Good Luck" by screening the fast paced style of the television medium.

GN&GL is an engaging, skillfully made period piece which make no bad decisions.

The same question that Murrow canvasses in a 1958 speech which bookends this production faces us today – is the enormous power of the electronic media going to be used for proper public education and discussion, or just to sell soap and peddle propaganda.

He wears many hats here, serving as Director, Co-author and co-star of this gripping and chilling film.

and the 1950s were a time of intense fear of the USSR.

He makes this movie what it is, and it is pretty compelling just to watch him speak (with a cigarette in hand, of course).

Just really dull.

The lenght it good though, as if there had been more stuff it may had caused the movie to be a bit boring.

Needless to say, I was hoping for something entertaining since I don't sleep on planes.

The cinematography perfectly captures the the hectic nature of a newsroom, contrasting well with the slow panning and wide-framing of anything outside.

The acting is superlative on all counts, but is truly breathtaking on the part of David Strathairn.

Yet another in a long line of "Loony Toon Clooney" liberal propaganda films badly disguised as "thrillers".

Morrow, in his time, the most trusted journalist in the medium, and a creatively stunning work of art that is the closest any of us will ever come to time travel.

I love George Clooney, love American history and love journalism; so why was this movie such a bore?

This is a film about the intense work and sweat of a big network TV news staff in that era, informed by two consultants to Clooney who were part of the team that worked elbow to elbow with Murrow, Joe and Shirley Wershba (played in the film by Robert Downey, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson).

Along with most of the Best Picture Nominees for the 2005 Oscars, this film, overall, expectedly fell into the Pit of Boredom.

I was wrong the film seemed to be historically accurate but was boring and tedious and just a plain waste of time.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

I suspect that even the most mature child won't get much out of the movie, and will probably be bored out of his skull.

Anyway, fine performances all around, great tension, and a retelling of a very exciting if terrifying chapter in our history.

His performance is riveting,startling and amazing.

Intriguing .

Stunning movie, with a lot of current day relevance .

The script is snappy and witty, without slipping into comedy territory and tells us everything we need to know, without basically re-telling the audience what it going on.

I would hope that CBS or NBC or even Disney's ABC might look into this film - and the very positive response to the film - at least with the crowd that I enjoyed it with last night (admittedly in Los Angeles.. but still) and let the American people see the other side of Fox's continuing propaganda.

This is an important, engrossing and informative work on the ideology and control of the media with great performances by a top notch cast.

At first I was mostly taken by the stunning visuals presented, shot entirely in black and white, the director's use of shadow and light, camera angles, and imagery are enough to make repeat viewing a necessity.

Bored?

The camerwork is pretty but pretentious.

however,as simply a movie,it is very entertaining,with great performances all around from an ensemble cast.

First, the subplot of the married couple, played by Robert Downey, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson felt pointless and tagged on, just some extra "padding" to increase the already too short running time.

Instead this flat feature is dull and uneventful.

Boring .

The movie in all was enjoyable, and a must see for anyone interested in the Cold War Era or in a good movie!

I am glad the writers told the story as accurately as possible, but there are other true stories in history that are more entertaining.

Kinescopes of McCarthy's hearings go on far too long, making us long for a proper documentary on the subject instead of this pseudo-effort.

Fascinating film with great acting and directing that works as basic history lesson and social commentary .

Also, seeing those first days of TV was fascinating, with Friendly crouched underneath Murrow and the hand written queue cards.

You're likely to fall asleep.

what is wrong with you guys, this movie was so boring and being black and white makes it worse.

This is just another Clooney attempt in using his money and fame to exploit his left-wing propaganda.

It might have been criticized for being a cliché, except of course it really happened.

Left wing propaganda .

This was not the most exciting material to work with, but the movie did a great job in keeping me from getting bored.

Dull, boring, and dry.

Ironically, perhaps the best performance can be attributed to McCarthy himself as newsreels offer a fascinating, perverse glance at the infamous politician whose flamboyance and dogged theatrics doomed the careers of many government officials and film or television actors.

However, it makes for some very trite and two-dimensional supporting characters and almost zero tension and plot.

The fact that the directors did the movie in black and white is part of the reason the movie got a higher rating from me, considering I was bored throughout the whole movie, it seemed more like a documentary to me.

The film portrays the fast paced exciting moments of live television, and with the advantage of hindsight Clooney could make a protagonist out of Murrow and his team (featuring the notable Clooney as Fred Freidnly, Robert Donwey Jr as Joe Wershba, and Jeff Daniels as Sig Mickelson).

" Her easy but intense concentration, her beautiful voice, and her exquisite timing were for me one of the highlights of the movie.

All these things could be told, either in fast paced news clips or newspaper headlines of the day at the beginning of the film, or mixed in later, anything to raise the stakes in this film.

I was a little apprehensive to sit through 97 minutes of a docu-drama in which I already knew the plot, but good ol' Clooney made sure the retelling was as entertaining as it would have been if I hadn't even known the names of Edward R.