Was Good Night, Good Luck really a good movie?

the_fusionist

the_fusionist

Well-known member
I thought this movie was crap. I didn't see any battle of words nor did the story have anything profound in it. About the only good thing was the line that ended the movie.
 
I disagree, I really liked ths film. First of all, I thought it was beautifully shot - loved the high contrast black and white. Though it was somewhat idealized, I enjoyed the story of newsrooms that actually debated their role in providing relevant content vs. content simply to sell commercials. Given the flashy entertainment "news" that dominates newscasts today, I found this film a beautiful rendering of the genesis of "infotainment" and a refreshing reminder that some recognized early on the harm this does to independent journalism. I found the storyline between Robert Downey Jr. and Patricia Clarkson a little clumsy, but other than that I really liked the film.
 
I guess the degree to which it was crap, or not, might depend upon whether or not you're familiar with the real people and events it's depicting.

As for whether or not it contained anything profound...I kind of thought there's something profound in journalists valuing truth, and justice, and rule-of-law, enough to stand up to an extremely powerful senator who'd already proven his ability and willingness (and eagerness) to break careers and ruin lives. But of course different people find profundity in different places.
 
One of the finest examples I've seen of "drama in the pause" ... such tension in those moments before they'd go on the air. Loved it.

Don't think the Downey/Clarkson romance was necessary at all, but I do love both of them as actors.
 
dustino said:
I disagree, I really liked ths film. First of all, I thought it was beautifully shot - loved the high contrast black and white. Though it was somewhat idealized, I enjoyed the story of newsrooms that actually debated their role in providing relevant content vs. content simply to sell commercials. Given the flashy entertainment "news" that dominates newscasts today, I found this film a beautiful rendering of the genesis of "infotainment" and a refreshing reminder that some recognized early on the harm this does to independent journalism. I found the storyline between Robert Downey Jr. and Patricia Clarkson a little clumsy, but other than that I really liked the film.
Click to expand...

Agreed- beautifully shot, excessive cigarettes (to portrait the time is a good excuse, but i can't help but think there was a big payment behind that), nice story relevant to our times, and impressive acting.
 
I think this movie falls into the category where the execution is not interesting, but the subject matter is (i.e. United 93). When I saw Good Night and Good Luck nothing really captivating was really happening on screen, just a bunch of people talking and arguing, no climax, no drama. But at the same time, I appreciated the message that the film is delivering. So it was more of an educational experience than an entertaining one.
 
SPZ said:
excessive cigarettes (to portrait the time is a good excuse, but i can't help but think there was a big payment behind that),
Click to expand...

highly unlikely, given the fact that Murrow died of lung cancer. Not exactly the thing cigarette companies want their products associated with in the minds of consumers.

Also it's not just representing the period to have a lot of cigarettes around. Murrow smoked about 3-4 packs a day. He pretty much always had a cigarette.
 
i thought it was a really good film but i think you also need to find the subject of the movie interesting else it might be a bore
 
That's the point, I never saw a heated argument between McCarthy and Murrow. All I saw were people smoking, infatuated love, and more b.s. about preparing an argument. I though some of the shots were great though. I'll watch it again.
 
SPZ said:
excessive cigarettes
Click to expand...

That movie was of a different time when you were OUT OF THE NORM if you DIDN'T smoke. It's amazing how times and social norms have changed.
 
Blaine said:
That movie was of a different time when you were OUT OF THE NORM if you DIDN'T smoke. It's amazing how times and social norms have changed.
Click to expand...

Yes, but adding it didn't actually add anything to the story. Maybe a nice texture that smoke adds to Black and White, and add atmosphere and tension. Nothing wrong about adding cigarettes, but, yeah, maybe I'm being too politicaly correct.
 
Dude, thats like making a cop movie without guns, because guns can kill people. How can you make a movie about cops without a gun on the side?
 
Evan S said:
Dude, thats like making a cop movie without guns, because guns can kill people. How can you make a movie about cops without a gun on the side?
Click to expand...

Yes, I understand your analogy- Journalists without cigarettes is like cops without guns.
 
Steven Spielberg already went back and roto'd out the guns in E.T.

Only a matter of time before we start going back and removing the cigarettes from Key Largo and Casablanca and Lawrence of Arabia...

...come to think of it, Arthur C. Clarke has that in one of his novels.
 
I think the quality of a film has a lot to do with how faithfully it evokes the time period, and GDAGL does it very well. It didn't need to be flashy, because it wasn't. It was about people having ideas and going with their gut to deliver those ideas. The smoking was actually very interesting to watch (considering how villified it is now). The characters were great, Strathairn does a wonderful job of evoking (not mimicking) Murrow. Overall, excellent work by Clooney. Very impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top