Good Night, and Good Luck.

2005 "We will not walk in fear of one another."
Good Night, and Good Luck.
7.4| 1h32m| PG| en| More Info
Released: 07 October 2005 Released
Producted By: Section Eight
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website: https://www.warnerbros.com/movies/good-night-and-good-luck
Synopsis

The story of journalist Edward R. Murrow's stand against Senator Joseph McCarthy's anti-communist witch-hunts in the early 1950s.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Section Eight

Trailers & Images

Reviews

SlyGuy21 It's fun to entertain the thought of what modern movies will be seen as "Classics" years from now. And I'm not just talking' about the Top 250, I'm talking about movies that go into the National Archives as "Culturally significant". And while, I don't think this'll get that far, it'll certainly be regarded as a classic. It presents a problem that is still pretty prevalent in today's media. People can become passive receivers because they can just take information at face value instead of investigating. I don't watch American news anymore, and I haven't for three years now. But this movie's not about watching American media, it's about challenging controversy and rolling with the punches. I love movies like this and "Spotlight" that show how journalism can be used for good, not divide people further. The film even presents it point of view without shoving it down your throat. It's not about politics, it's about persevering and challenging what you believe isn't right, but doing it in an appropriate manner.
sddavis63 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.
billcr12 George Clooney directed and also stars as Fred Friendly, who was Edward R Murrow's boss during the red scare days in the 1950's. This is well known material well told by Clooney and featuring David Strathairn as the chain smoking news man. The entire film is in black and white, giving it the look of a documentary of the time period. Real footage of Senator McCarthy is used with the intended chilling effect. Murrow is shown sitting at a manual typewriter actually composing his own material for the CBS broadcast. The past equivalent of Fox News; at that time in the print newspaper media, presented a vicious attack on Murrow and anyone attacking Senator McCarthy. History, of course, has proved Murrow courageous and correct for his fight against McCarthy. The movie is only 94 minutes and is a bit fast paced and frenetic, but it is well worth watching.
vincentlynch-moonoi I was alive in the early 1950s. And, as far as I remember, life was still in color. So why is this movie in black and white? Well, the artsy fartsies would probably say it brings reality to the story. Really? Because in reality, televisions -- like motion pictures -- at the time were at 1.33:1, not 1.85:1. The CBS studios were in completely separate locations, not in the same building. So from the perspective of making things "real", this film doesn't really do that.Now, not criticizing the film, but reality. In the discussion between William S. Paley and Edward R. Murrow in the film, the issue is the truth about Eugene McCarthy. But it occurred to me that Murrow didn't care so much about revealing the truth about...Liberace when he apparently knew he was being dishonest in an interview.In some ways, it must have been an easy film to write. Many scenes are verbatim from Edward R. Murrow's television broadcasts. Of course, putting them all together in an interesting sequence was important. I question the opening scenes of the film...boring.The acting in the film is excellent...I think. I'm not sure any actor could have truly captured the essence of Murrow, but David Strathairn, a superb actor, did about as well as anyone could have. Everyone else is secondary, and it's difficult for us to judge their performances since we don't know much about the real people they represented. However, it seems good.Of course, the film got rave reviews, which is pretty typical of films that deal with the McCarthy topic. It's certainly not a new topic, but it's a story that must be told over and over because there are always demagogs like Murrow, and they always seem to be conservatives who wish to restrict personal freedoms.But, as I watched the film, I sensed a lot of self-congratulations on the part of the media. Aren't "we" wonderful! Well, yes. But, sometimes no.Finally, I'm just curious. Did anyone at CBS not smoke?