Good movie but grossly overrated

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

Well done biopic about the late journalist Gary Webb starring Jeremy Renner. Not sure how I missed this one at release but caught up on Cinemax. Great Cast and very interesting storyline. Another strike against our Government. that needed to be told !

Government cover ups and how people tried to uncover them are always a good source for a movie. It's the whole thing about David versus Goliath sort of. Overcoming odds that seem too big too overcome. But not all stories do end like most would want them too. Will this be any different and did you already know the case? Because as you may already know, this is based in reality/true story.It's really suspenseful from beginning to start and it will be able to keep you at the edge of your seat. The one time Bourne substitute and Avengers team player can show off some other talents here. And Jeremy Renner did so before of course (remember Hurt Locker?), though some may have forgotten. This is to remind everybody of that raw material he's working with. A really good movie from start to finish

Kill The Messenger is a film based on the true story of Gary Webb (played by Jeremy Renner) who is a journalist working for a small and little known newspaper called the San Jose Mercury News. When Webb stumbles upon a potential conspiracy between drug-lords and government officials to fund an illegal war in Nicaragua he realises that this is the kind of story that has the potential to put this small newspaper on the map. However, this isn't plain sailing and Webb discovers that a story as big as this can result in consequences that he couldn't possibly begin to imagine.Kill The Messenger is a film that reminded me of All The President's Men - another film where journalists uncover a major scandal. Like All The President's Men, Kill The Messenger uses archive footage presumably to try and make it more realistic and to give the audience a feel for the time and place. Unlike All The President's Men, Kill The Messenger takes place a decade or so after the event has taken place (rather than in 'real time'), but the plot mechanics are similar and see our journalist Gary Webb doing everything in his power to not only get the story, but ultimately discover the truth. Story-wise, it's a very easy film to get involved in as everyone loves to cheer on the little man and witness him uncovering the truth and taking the big boys down.A major strength with Kill The Messenger is that the filmmakers ensure that the film remains focused and the film rarely deviates from Webb's investigation - there are occasions when we're witnessing some soapy 'family stuff', but this is kept to a minimum and is warranted as it does give us an insight into the impact of how uncovering a big story and doing everything you can to find the truth can also have a detrimental effect on those around you. Good direction and writing help to keep the film on track, but this is enhanced by a good central performance by Jeremy Renner. As the heart of the film, Renner had to be at the top of the game to make us be able to feel and identify with the character and he succeeds in achieving this objective.All in all, Kill The Messenger is well worth watching particularly if you like conspiracy thrillers. If you've seen All The President's Men and enjoyed that film then I'm almost certain that you'll enjoy this film.

Nice acting all around. Especially the central figure, Jeremy Renner, whom I like a lot. The reasons I find him admirable are not just that he's a reliable actor, which he is, but that he's no taller and no more handsome than I am. (Let us operationalize our value judgments.) I respect the location shooting too, and I lived in San Jose about the time these events were transpiring. Elections were underway. And I found the coverage of the San Jose Mercury-News to be at least the equal of those two colossi to the north, the Chronicle and the Examiner. I was doing research on the milieu to which recently discharged psychiatric patients were trying to adjust, and the Mercury-News was a fountain of data. The CIA are after reporter Gary Webb for spilling some beans that should not have been spilled. A pretty olla podrida of rotten beans too. The CIA had been selling cocaine in the black districts of Los Angeles in order to fund illegal arms shipments to a CIA-sponsored revolutionary group in Nicaragua, ruled by a government we didn't like. There was never much doubt about the CIA's illegal support of the Contras. The president said that the facts led him to believe it was true. The question had to do with the importation of crack cocaine and its sale by the CIA.It was controversial and important stuff. It received a great deal of criticism from papers like the Post and the L.A. Times. The Inspector General's report acknowledged that the CIA had indeed worked with suspected drug runners while supporting the contras. The public wasn't anxious to hear its judicial icons knee-capped, I guess, because there were plenty of pick up trucks around with bumper stickers calling for Ollie North to be president. Ollie North was the instrument that organized the illegal operation because, as his secretary put it, they had to answer to a higher authority than the United States Constitution. And why not "North For President?" When you get right down to it, what else is the constitution but an old piece of paper crawling with germs?But the strength of the story is knee-capped by dramatic misstatements. It is simply not well written. A man calls Webb in the middle of the night and warns him to be alert. The man on the other end, calling alone from an office, is whispering. Why is he whispering? Okay. There are shots of Webb coming and going at his home and at work. The shots are dominated by gigantic close ups of solemn faces. Why? Close ups, if necessary, are used for portentous moments unless you're making a commercial for a toothpaste. The ultimate effect is that of being hit over the head with a crowbar.Okay. Webb is sitting at home with his wife, his adolescent son lounging in the doorway, during a visit by Webb's sympathetic young editor and boss. The editor hesitantly tells Webb that the CIA had dug into his past and found evidence of an extra-marital liaison. The guy's family knows nothing of this and the friendly editor pops up with this news item that threatens its integrity.Okay. We're now in the garage where Webb is trying to explain the affair to his son. The kid, who is about sixteen, is so choked up, so close to tears, that he can barely speak. "I made a mistake!", explains Webb. "Did -- did you love her?" "Do you love Mom?" "I'm really disappointed in you." I don't believe a word of that conversation.The film is based on a book by Gary Webb. Everybody wants to be the hero of his own story. Nobody wants to be comic relief.The writers need to go back and watch "The Insider" again and pick up all the mistakes they should have avoided. Then they should watch "All the President's Men" again to see how it should be done. The director needs someone to tell him he's making a dramatic feature film, not a commercial for Mennen underarm deodorant or one of those Canadian specials that show us a universe filled with betrayal and heartbreak on Lifetime Movie Network.Yet there are implications that, however muted, take us beyond one hero's tragedy. The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times both try to torpedo Webb's story, not only because they question his sources but evidently because they dislike seeing hot news in a smaller newspaper. They "attack the messenger" by digging into his private life as if this somehow taints his story -- which it does. The logical fallacy is called "ad hominem", meaning "to the man." It works very well, even now.