Stylish but barely mediocre overall

Am I Missing Something?

It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

This movie is beautifully shot with a superb cast and script - opening with a rather frank and accurate prediction as to what journalism, and news as entertainment has become. Where balanced arguments were set to one side to push political agendas and the fear journalists faced in losing not just their careers, but their lives if they voiced a dissenting or balanced argument. The McCarthy era, fear of being labelled a liberal, a lefty, was synonymous with communism where the slightest suggestion caused fear of reprisals and silenced the majority. This movie could be seen as a precursor or warning of the eventuality of Fox and Newscorps powers of persuasion and influence. and the Orwellian dystopian future that has already arrived. Kudos to journalistic integrity and the platforms that support them. Thoroughly enjoyed it.

This is an important subject from a historical perspective. 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. This is even a relevant movie - because to some extent the smear tactics used against communists are being used once again against Muslims today, as politicians try to make names for themselves and win elections by whipping up fear. This is an interesting subject - because it focuses on the work of Edward R. Murrow, one of the greatest reporters of all time, in standing up against McCarthy, and committing himself to bringing the man down. And yet, important, relevant and interesting though it is, this is also a pretty dry presentation.Some people liked the decision of director (and co-star, as producer Fred Friendly) George Clooney to film this in black and white. I suppose there were reasons for it. First because it gave the movie a nostalgic feel (although increasingly there are fewer people who would feel the nostalgia because black and white television isn't even in the memory banks of very many people under the age of 50.) It might be that a political point was being made - the dangers of everything being seen in black and white terms. There are good guys and bad guys and never the two shall mix. To me, and I do have some memories of black and white TV, the black and white was a distraction. It added little to the movie. Overall, beyond the black and white, I thought the story seemed to lack something in the power department. It was very low key - TOO low key for my liking. Obviously I wasn't expecting an action movie, but I was expecting something a bit more dramatic.Not that there weren't many good things about this. First, I liked David Strathairn's performance as Murrow. He portrayed Murrow as I would imagine him - a no nonsense, tell it like it is kind of reporter who's willing to butt heads with the powers that be at CBS if he has to in order to tell it like it is. That certainly led to a critique of television that truly relevant today. To what extent does TV news seek to inform, and to what extent does it exist to entertain? How powerful are sponsors in deciding what can and can't be covered? Worthwhile questions, to be sure. I also appreciated the video clips of McCarthy himself. The movie also portrayed the tragedy of CBS newsman Don Hollenbeck (Ray Wise) who became himself tainted with communism after choosing to associate himself with Murrow's attacks an McCarthy, and ended up committing suicide - although, in reality, several weeks passed between that incident and Hollenback's death.Too much was made of the relationship between Joe and Shirley Wershba (Robert Downey, Jr. and Patricia Clarkson.) Co-workers at CBS, they were also secretly married, because at the time CBS didn't allow fellow employees of the network to be married. Quaint, perhaps, but I didn't think it warranted the amount of screen time it got.

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. Cinematically, it is truly beautiful. The way Clooney manipulates lighting with the black and white creates some great images. That being said, I thought I would really enjoy this movie for 2 reasons. First: I love American history, especially the mid-century. Second: I am a journalism major. While really not a bad movie, I found myself dreadfully bored while watching.... it just didn't live up to my expectations. Do I regret watching it? No, but I didn't particularly enjoy the plot and the way the story was told.

Set during the reign of Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist witch hunt, Good Night, and Good Luck. is the story of CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow's public battle against the senator. Shot in a beautiful black and white, the film details the pressure put on the public to declare loyalty to the United States and denounce Communism, as well as the struggle to resist that pressure. Murrow was able to leverage his position in the media to expose the evil of McCarthy's crusade, and the film shows the lengths he and his team had to go to do that, as well as some of the contradictions and compromises involved. David Strathairn is brilliant as Murrow, and all in all the film captures the mood and explores the terms at stake in that era with clear purpose. It's also an interesting film on the question of objectivity in journalism. Murrow has a definite perspective, and yet his reporting is fair and accurate. This kind of "activist" journalism is more honest and truthful and ultimately informative than the kind of false "objective" reporting we've been conditioned to accept as the standard.