Good Night, and Good Luck.
Warner Independent Pictures (WIP) | Release Date: October 7, 2005
7.2
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 192 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
133
Mixed:
35
Negative:
24
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
7
grandpajoe6191Feb 22, 2012
"Good Night, and Good Luck" isn't really a masterpiece as the critics claim, but it has it's sophisticated entertainment values thanks to the wonderful direction / performance of George Clooney and his crew.
8 of 10 users found this helpful82
All this user's reviews
5
BKMMay 2, 2013
Given the relevant subject matter and the talent involved, it's quite surprising that Good Night, and Good Luck is such an inert film. A large part of this seems due to the rudderless direction and writing of George Clooney who can't seem toGiven the relevant subject matter and the talent involved, it's quite surprising that Good Night, and Good Luck is such an inert film. A large part of this seems due to the rudderless direction and writing of George Clooney who can't seem to find the proper approach for the material. Strathairn is excellent as Murrow, but he's stuck in a movie where no one seems to realize that the mere depiction of the events don't qualify this as a great movie. Things like complexity, passion, characters and plotting matter too.… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
10
PaulRYGMay 2, 2011
Seldom does a film pontificate such an intellectually prescient concept to their film the way "Good Night and Good Luck" did so brilliantly! To comprehend the full gist of this movie is to ruminate the prevailing era in this country duringSeldom does a film pontificate such an intellectually prescient concept to their film the way "Good Night and Good Luck" did so brilliantly! To comprehend the full gist of this movie is to ruminate the prevailing era in this country during McCarthyism. What Edward R Murrow hoped to accomplish with his news show was to format objectivity in a manner whereby the truth on any given issue required a full perspective, and, not just one politician's point of view! Today, the dichotimizing of various philosophies concerning different positions on any given issue, seem relatively second nature to the dynamic of the news media, however, in 1954, it was an intrepidly new concept in which Edward R Morrow essentially gave birth to. To theorize on the veracity of any particular concept becomes an intellectual endeavor which broadens our horizons as Americans. Such an esoteric epigram from "Good Night and Good Luck" is what made this film so intellectually spellbinding! So often in films today, the fusillade of special effects supercedes the basic cerebral element of human nature. The success of most films are determined by their box office budget. Steve Soderbourgh and George Clooney attained a clairvoyant effervescence to decide to produce this film. "Good Night and Good Luck" effloresces into a precis for academic fervor in establishing the very real purpose of television. Edward R Murrow became the single biggest purveyor for unprecedented accuracy in the news world of television just by virtue of delving into every angle of a volatile, and formerly misunderstood issue. Issues such as Communist paranoia, which was vehemently advocated by Joe McCarthy! It was probably the hacked out stoicism to predetermined news programming which Edward R Murrow wished to severely abbreviate. Murrow's philosophy of the news was to conceptualize the aggregate circumstances to a news story to determine the accuracy and significance of the actual controversy pertaining to this news item. Newsworthiness became a prerogative of every American in the United States after Murrow's entrance in the news realm of professionalism. The fact is, the truth is multi faceted, and the simple mendacity to the American News Media, is that is was not represented by that criteria! What was placatory doggerel back then, became hard bitten reality thanks to Edward R Murrow. By 1954, it was time for stilted national heroism to be dragged down from the soap box and revolutionized to the paradigm which accommodated the overall wishes of the American public. For now, television was not just about ratings and innocuous entertainment, it was incumbent upon someone such as Edward R Murrow to introduce the informative element of television as a foundation to enhance professional integrity. The visceral outlook in which the film "Good Night and Good Luck" assumed was an intelligent and an enlightening perspective that brought the birth of prolific news media coverage to the American people. Was this film exciting? No! It could not possibly be. This movie is about the truth, and, the truth is not exciting. The truth is stubborn, the truth is wry as well as abrasive, but, most of all, the truth is a necessary evil which keeps our eyes wide open to determine the full scope of political philosophy as opposed to another. This acute presentation of fundamental principals and policies which Edward R Murrow established as a precedent for news anchormen in the ensuing years ahead, made the film "Good Night and Good Luck" a cogently accurate account of how Americans have dissected the accuracy of hard bitten news on television. The film "Good Night and Good Luck" is unbelievably brilliant in the overall premise by which it purveys. Put it this way: Christopher Columbus discovered America, and Edward R Murrow discovered objectivity for television news shows. While I thought this film was fabulous, if people didn't like it, it is good in some ways, mostly because we do not realize how much we have taken the privilege of a well rounded perspective on a political issue for granted., therefore, we do not perceive that this film was groundbreaking in any way, but,, it most assuredly was! A simple solution for a seemingly complicated issue is merely a simple response! This movie "Good Night and Good Luck" is what made me just say that. One more thing, make sure you go out there and vote!!… Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
WakoJakoNov 16, 2005
BOOOOOOORRRRRIIIIIING!!! Unless you are a middle aged old fart with soft spot for those particular times, this movie will put you to sleep. It lacks plot or any other device that makes a movie what it is supposed to do. Do not waste your BOOOOOOORRRRRIIIIIING!!! Unless you are a middle aged old fart with soft spot for those particular times, this movie will put you to sleep. It lacks plot or any other device that makes a movie what it is supposed to do. Do not waste your money on this piece of crap.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
5
billys.Nov 9, 2005
The critics are right. Good Night and Good Luck is a socially relavent, timely lesson on the power of media and the role it plays in politics, both historically and currently. The technical credits are all top-notch and Oscar worthy, as is The critics are right. Good Night and Good Luck is a socially relavent, timely lesson on the power of media and the role it plays in politics, both historically and currently. The technical credits are all top-notch and Oscar worthy, as is the briiiant performance of David Strathairn. The use of newsreel footage of Senator McCarthy, however, gave the whole movie too much of a documentary feel and left you wondering what an actor like Pacino or DeNiro would have done with such a choice role as Strathairh did with Murrow. The one thing the critics have not mentioned though, and maybe its me, but this is one hellavu boring movie. This years designer "film" with a gimmick, but i'll watch Zelig when I want gimmicks!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
PatD.Oct 5, 2005
I saw this at the Opening Night of the New York Film Festival where it received an extended standing ovation by the audience. It is an amazing film. A must see.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
TomM.Oct 7, 2005
While we didn't have a television at home I do remember the newspaper and movie newsreel coverage of the McCarthy hearings. It was a time when things got a little crazy as they were driven by a Senator who thought he was doing the While we didn't have a television at home I do remember the newspaper and movie newsreel coverage of the McCarthy hearings. It was a time when things got a little crazy as they were driven by a Senator who thought he was doing the people's business. This excellent film provides an inside look at how a group of journalists at CBS recognized their obligation to the public and risked everything to tell the story. Unfortunately, Murrow was right in his closing remarks where he expressed his concern that the medium would become "nothing but wires in a box". Good Night, and Good Luck has much to say about the times we live in.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MisterThomYorkeFeb 4, 2006
I'm 22 and thought the movie was incredibly powerful. I really think cinema must have died around the time of my birth (maybe at the hands of an increasingly mentally incapable audience) because people nowadays can't handle I'm 22 and thought the movie was incredibly powerful. I really think cinema must have died around the time of my birth (maybe at the hands of an increasingly mentally incapable audience) because people nowadays can't handle anything that functions on a more intellectual level (I'm not saying the movie went over the naysayers' heads, just that they demand more in-your-face entertainment - the kind of people who would prefer "Transporter" to "Taxi Driver." Oh God, I feel sick...) What this movie is about is the power of the medium of television: how it can be used to shift the course of human history at its best, or serve as an amusing distraction for the masses at its worst. Oh yeah, and Strathairn was great as Murrow. Murrow's character was incredibly moving and makes you wonder if journalism and the media will ever be used for such a high cause again. His jokes were funny (these might have gone over naysayers' heads since they didn't involve feces or sex). Also, how was this movie liberal? You conservative critics need to cool it with the "L" word. Logical doesn't equal liberal.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
VirginiaD.Mar 27, 2006
Murrow is one of my heroes. I thought he came to life so vividly in this depiction. Clooney masterfully created an era for the view of many young adults that have not touched the 50's. I've been there and my father was a news man. Murrow is one of my heroes. I thought he came to life so vividly in this depiction. Clooney masterfully created an era for the view of many young adults that have not touched the 50's. I've been there and my father was a news man. This movie caught the guts of the era and the need for the woman's rights movement. This was an era of male domination and Clooney does not miss a beat. Many social movements a rose from this era. It reminded me how far I have come.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
FrederikF.Mar 30, 2006
One of the best films this year.. As involving and entertaining as the Godfather.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
ForaO.Oct 15, 2005
Within the first 5 minutes I knew what a horrible experience watching this movie would be. Not only was the movie extremely boring, it was an excruciating experience to watch it. I found myself constantly checking the time to find a way to Within the first 5 minutes I knew what a horrible experience watching this movie would be. Not only was the movie extremely boring, it was an excruciating experience to watch it. I found myself constantly checking the time to find a way to put myself out of my misery. If you have problems sleeping this is the movie for you. Never have I fallen asleep during a movie, but this film was just the lackluster performance to do so. Unless you are over 70 years of age, this is a nightmare of a movie to see. Trust me the theater was filled with old farts who laughed at the corniest jokes that it made me wantt to puke. Don't put yourself in the pain I endured trying to watch this movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
LadyLibertyDec 25, 2005
Can a movie be more boring? I walked out after an hour. Simply awful.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
E.VeraOct 23, 2005
Every American should watch this film and pray that somewhere in the television, radio and print swamp of journalism that exists today an Edward R. Murrow will arise with the guts to take on 'the big boys' and the injustice they Every American should watch this film and pray that somewhere in the television, radio and print swamp of journalism that exists today an Edward R. Murrow will arise with the guts to take on 'the big boys' and the injustice they wreak upon the rest of us.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
C.B.Oct 24, 2005
Well directed, superbly acted and a great portrayl of an american icon.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
SHFBDec 5, 2005
Very unique and interesting movie. I found the black&white format quite lovely and sumptous and very evocative of a certain time/place. And the acting was truly suberb. I think it's a compliment that so many people say that this feels Very unique and interesting movie. I found the black&white format quite lovely and sumptous and very evocative of a certain time/place. And the acting was truly suberb. I think it's a compliment that so many people say that this feels like a documentary - it's because the acting is not overwrought. You could be watching real people in real time. As for the so-called liberal slant: I've noticed that many conservatives find that the *truth* has a liberal slant. lol. Get over it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
susang.Oct 6, 2005
Saw it at a screening with David in attendance. He was Murrow down to every gesture in this film. Magnificent!!! The story was spellbinding.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
NigelWJan 10, 2006
Awesome. David Strathairn's lead performance shone through and showed the crucial role that good journalists play in holding our governments to account. Excellent supporting performances all round. The clever use of McCarthy footage and Awesome. David Strathairn's lead performance shone through and showed the crucial role that good journalists play in holding our governments to account. Excellent supporting performances all round. The clever use of McCarthy footage and the mood created by the black and white filming created an authentic and powerful message that seems all the more relevant in today's politicial climate. Outstanding.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
OlegM.Jan 27, 2006
What is this movie about, I wonder? How the dour journalist upset McCarthy? (unconvincing, that). How freedom of speech rules in the US? (it does indeed; but CBS is hardly the beacon of free speech). It is about how Clooney assembled a great What is this movie about, I wonder? How the dour journalist upset McCarthy? (unconvincing, that). How freedom of speech rules in the US? (it does indeed; but CBS is hardly the beacon of free speech). It is about how Clooney assembled a great team of actors and failed to come up with a clear message. Let alone an good story. Very un-entertaining and un-elucidating effort. Clooney should stay in the Sexiest-Man-Alive list and not venture anywhere.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
PeterS.Jan 5, 2006
I'm curious about the people who found this film wanting. My guess is that they're under 50 and have no sense of the time this film accurately portrays. So, to them I say: Ask not what a movie can bring to you, but what you can I'm curious about the people who found this film wanting. My guess is that they're under 50 and have no sense of the time this film accurately portrays. So, to them I say: Ask not what a movie can bring to you, but what you can bring to a movie. Know your history, folks. You're living the results of it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MikeG.Jan 6, 2006
Watchable, but not as crisp or sharp as I expected. There's nothing wrong with the acting, story, direction or anything else, but I feel like I've seen 10,000 movies about Joe McCarthy right now, and this story seems trivial Watchable, but not as crisp or sharp as I expected. There's nothing wrong with the acting, story, direction or anything else, but I feel like I've seen 10,000 movies about Joe McCarthy right now, and this story seems trivial compared to some of the stronger movies or books about the same subject. I also didn't feel that the movie was as poignant or timely as others who saw it did. If we need to be told that violating Americans' 1st Amendment rights is wrong in 2005, then we've got more problems than a movie is going to solve.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JonathanH.Feb 22, 2006
Take a very average episode of The West Wing, switch White House for CBS 1950 studios, film it in black and white and you've got GNAGL. Dwelt almost exclusively on the McCarthy thing. Murrow's background is sketched out in speech Take a very average episode of The West Wing, switch White House for CBS 1950 studios, film it in black and white and you've got GNAGL. Dwelt almost exclusively on the McCarthy thing. Murrow's background is sketched out in speech at an award ceremony of 1958. Everything is studio based and feels very static. Some big fat cliches e.g. The newroom meeting a la All The President's Men: room full of earnest newsmen - What we got storywise? We got this. We got that. Look into it! We need some tape for six o'clock. I'll speak to editor but you're putting us all on the line etc etc. Bigs up journos at CBS as though they were massive heroes. Let's not forget these guys wrote their own history. Odd thing was the film gave the impression that Morrow was pretty much pushing an open door on the downfall of McCarthy. Pretty dull, and desperately worthy.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
WillW.Feb 3, 2006
This movie started out as a 9. Then George Clooney's whiny voice and bad acting filled the screen. Okay, so a 8. Then they added on a pointless story about a married couple (Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey Jr.) about how one would This movie started out as a 9. Then George Clooney's whiny voice and bad acting filled the screen. Okay, so a 8. Then they added on a pointless story about a married couple (Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey Jr.) about how one would have to leave their jobs working for Murrow. Now a 7. 6 because it had a low budget and George Clooney couldnt pour anymore of his millions of dollars in it (makes no sense, even for a artistic point of view that he has such a small budget for this film). Finally 5 because it ended way too soon.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
D.B.Feb 5, 2006
Director George Clooney crafts an absolutely riveting drama that packs an extremely relevant political punch. It's stylish, simple, and sensationally well acted; a very solid little film that is enjoyable and thought-provoking. While it Director George Clooney crafts an absolutely riveting drama that packs an extremely relevant political punch. It's stylish, simple, and sensationally well acted; a very solid little film that is enjoyable and thought-provoking. While it might not change your life, it might change your mind.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
LostV.Apr 4, 2006
Although it runs a little short, it is still an excellent film. What is most extraordinary is that Murrow fortold the future of the medium quite accurately. In Murrow's vision of infotainment, it is a rewarding experience to see and Although it runs a little short, it is still an excellent film. What is most extraordinary is that Murrow fortold the future of the medium quite accurately. In Murrow's vision of infotainment, it is a rewarding experience to see and even imagine what real national media must have been like in an earlier time and seemingly on a different planet given the state of things today.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
AdamL.Apr 6, 2006
Highly overrated, a plotless piece of moral rhetoric devoid of all the things worthwhile in a moviegoing experience, including, but not limited to, plot, pacing, and purpose. A film you admire more than you love.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DicksJan 20, 2008
Every citizen should see it before they ever vote again. The Bush administration would not have happened if top journalists were as brave as Murrow and his associates.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
CassianJJan 6, 2008
This is a class movie by a class director full of great subtle performances by the whole cast. Clooney directs and fills a supporting role in this movie based around the media
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ChadS.Nov 13, 2005
"It's over already?" murmured some lady behind me, and yes, "Good Night & Good Luck" seems a little short. But then again, George Clooney appears to have done his job and showed everything that's relevant to Murrow's stance "It's over already?" murmured some lady behind me, and yes, "Good Night & Good Luck" seems a little short. But then again, George Clooney appears to have done his job and showed everything that's relevant to Murrow's stance against Ann Coulter's hero. What's quietly brilliant about the screenplay is that all of its domestic scenes are handed to its supporting players. As Joe & Shirley Wershba(Robert Downey Jr. & Patricia Clarkson) lay down at night, "Good Night & Good Luck" gives you the impression that Murrow is burning the midnight oil, and not making little Edward Juniors and Edwinas with his wife. This film is about journalistic integrity. To show a man balancing his personal and professional life is extra fat that could've brought "Good Night & Good Luck" closer to two hours, but Clooney decided to keep it lean, probably wisely. The black & white photography is, of course, appropriate. It gives "Good Night & Good Luck" a "you are there" feel to David Strathairn's readings, so why not dramatize the McCarthy hearings? Strathairn is very good, but it's Frank Langella as William Paley that makes the John Sayles player seem real.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AddisonD.Nov 19, 2005
An unusual format, pseudo-documentary, taking us back to the supposed style and mood of the '50s. However, the movie is overburdened with sanctimonious liberalism as well as historical distortions. For persons with even the slightest An unusual format, pseudo-documentary, taking us back to the supposed style and mood of the '50s. However, the movie is overburdened with sanctimonious liberalism as well as historical distortions. For persons with even the slightest conservative orientation or appreciation of what the Cold War was like, don't bother with this production.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
[Anonymous]Nov 22, 2005
Excellent; thoughtful, informative, interesting.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
VictoriaCNov 28, 2005
I'm surprised to see any negative reviews. I felt like I was actually in the studio in the 50s, and experiencing things firsthand. I thought the acting was well done, and the sets suberb. The original footage from the 50s blended in I'm surprised to see any negative reviews. I felt like I was actually in the studio in the 50s, and experiencing things firsthand. I thought the acting was well done, and the sets suberb. The original footage from the 50s blended in seamlessly. I think that some of the issues the movie addresses (such as the an edited media bias, the push television made/makes to create tv shows with lower cost and more entertainment but little content (think reality tv), and the responsibility we have to stay informed about the news) are very important today. The paralells between the communist scare and the current terrorist scare make this a very timely subject matter to reflect upon.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
ArnoldP.Oct 14, 2005
Above all: the B&W time warp to the 5o's, the exceptional acting (Strahairn and Langella excell), it was a cinamatic civic lesson that is more relevant today than ever, and you were breathless ever one of the 93 minutes. forget about Above all: the B&W time warp to the 5o's, the exceptional acting (Strahairn and Langella excell), it was a cinamatic civic lesson that is more relevant today than ever, and you were breathless ever one of the 93 minutes. forget about any minor flaws, every American must see it, lest we forget . Bravo Clooney you are following the director's path of Robert Redford.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
DWOct 15, 2005
I'm sorry, it's just not a movie. True stories are difficult to make work because you have to stick to the untheatrical truth (or, as with "A Beautiful Mind," bastardize it). I love to be educated, but I think the test has to be: I'm sorry, it's just not a movie. True stories are difficult to make work because you have to stick to the untheatrical truth (or, as with "A Beautiful Mind," bastardize it). I love to be educated, but I think the test has to be: would this still make an interesting story if it weren't true. With nothing of the personal lives and no great performances to pull you into the human story, all that's left is the politics, which are actually rather vague.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JanetteY.Nov 6, 2005
A film shot with superb eloquence and sophistication - and so rich with details as any praiseworthy docudrama. The message, it brings, rings clear and loud, and so seemingly endless with time. Great cast and performances! The film never A film shot with superb eloquence and sophistication - and so rich with details as any praiseworthy docudrama. The message, it brings, rings clear and loud, and so seemingly endless with time. Great cast and performances! The film never stops in forcing me to face the ugly and shocking realities of the McCarthy era. A very intense movie that succeeds in keeping me trembling in my seat. Definitely a solid, powerful and unforgetable film to keep me cheering for Democracy and Freedom!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BenR.Oct 17, 2005
Really I don't want to preach to the choir. I just hope Clooney recieves the recognition that he deserves for this film at the end of the year. Yeah.. he isn't subtle with his themes, but I must say, the fantastic execution of them Really I don't want to preach to the choir. I just hope Clooney recieves the recognition that he deserves for this film at the end of the year. Yeah.. he isn't subtle with his themes, but I must say, the fantastic execution of them are astounding! Bravo Mr. Clooney, Bravo!… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
ScottMDec 1, 2005
Extremely engrossing. Hell of a debut from Clooney.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
AndrewK.Dec 8, 2005
Amazing film. Anyone who says this film is boring has absoluetly no attention span. This movie had such a great feel to it. Great acting, great everything. One of the few films that truly deserves all the praise that's been given to it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
MontyDec 9, 2005
Well-intentioned political drama about Edward R. Murrow is unfortunately fumbled by a script that doesn't work hard enough and direction that - I hate to say - is plain weak. One wonders what this film might have been like in more Well-intentioned political drama about Edward R. Murrow is unfortunately fumbled by a script that doesn't work hard enough and direction that - I hate to say - is plain weak. One wonders what this film might have been like in more expert hands - but, then, it took the clout and integrity of a George Clooney to make it happen. A solid performance by David Strathairn gives the material some gravitas but it never rises to the potential of its compelling subject. Seems like a tv movie; and not a terribly good one, unfortunately.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
BenG.Jan 28, 2006
confims George Clooney's Status as his generations Robert Redford....a truly encapsulating marvel of a film
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DaveSJan 3, 2006
Very engaging and impeccably shot. David Strathairn's performance is amazing!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
ConundrumFeb 17, 2006
Excellent. A gripping, well-crafted story. David Strathairn inhabits the role of the legendary Edward R Murrow, and reminds us of why he is a legend. The use of actual film of the contemptible Sen. McCarthy is brilliant. The only negative Excellent. A gripping, well-crafted story. David Strathairn inhabits the role of the legendary Edward R Murrow, and reminds us of why he is a legend. The use of actual film of the contemptible Sen. McCarthy is brilliant. The only negative thing I would have to say is that the characters could have been better developed. An important reminder of a dire and dangerous moment in American history.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
DrunkenMasterMar 14, 2006
The best film of 2005, hands down. Clooney does more in and hour and a half than other filmmakers can achieve in three. Lyric cinematography accents the really fine acting by David Strathairn. Brilliant.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
JoeP.Mar 19, 2006
Good acting, more of a history lesson. This is a snoozer.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
WayneB.Apr 12, 2006
Hands down the best film of the year. Better than Crash, far better than Brokeback, better then Capote, better than anything else out there. This is a monumental masterpiece of filmmaking.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
AndrewT.Apr 2, 2006
Sorry, this is just not entertaining. I do not go to the movies to be lectured to. Although the acting is excellent and the 1950's setting is realistic, the focus on CBS's fight with McCarthy does not make a very compelling movie.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
ChrisR.May 25, 2006
This is a tight little gem of a flick, which seems to go out of its way to simply portray the story and reveal the intense hubris and zeal of the real main character (Sen. McCarthy), and the role that the newly canonized media/soma machine This is a tight little gem of a flick, which seems to go out of its way to simply portray the story and reveal the intense hubris and zeal of the real main character (Sen. McCarthy), and the role that the newly canonized media/soma machine known as television played in his misguided crusade. The jazz soundtrack and seemingly tacked-on hidden marriage between Downey and Clarkson serve to subtly illuminate the cultural context of the time period, providing flavor if not real substance. Strathairn's performance is stellar; both subtle and powerful; possibly the best character acting work seen in a long time. Clooney's work is also subtle, but more everyman; he consciously takes on a supporting role which does not shine outright, as if to concentrate the focus on the story itself, and not so much on the supporting cast. Oscar worthy? Not so much, but at least worth admiration, considering his devotion to getting this flick made. The picture shines in its minor, seemingly unobtrusive details; the pen-tap on the leg signaling Murrow that he's live; Murrow watching another television feed while in the midst of conducting an interview, the ever-burning cigarettes (and silly ads to boot) so en-vogue, and the intense, "way-it's-done" shuffling of film canisters and on-the-fly splicing of interview with live overdubs that defined the television news experience long before magnetic video tape was ever used. A slice-of-life journalism piece which never sways from its own crusade or purpose, much like the men and women who did what was right because it was simply their job, and calling, to do so. Refereshing, given today's media glut. All-in-all, well worth watching.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AndrewH.Jun 23, 2006
One of the best films of the year. And my personal pick for Best Picture
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
ShannonP.Jul 9, 2006
Way over-rated. This film presupposes that you know details about McCarthy and Murrow, and that you agree the former was pure evil and the latter a saint. It then invites you to wallow in the resulting pious sentiments. McCarthy may well Way over-rated. This film presupposes that you know details about McCarthy and Murrow, and that you agree the former was pure evil and the latter a saint. It then invites you to wallow in the resulting pious sentiments. McCarthy may well have been a bad man and Murrow a good one, but this movie lacks the context necessary to show why. It's not so much a story as a self-indulgent exercise in political correctness.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
carasNov 9, 2007
This movie is a fantastic portrayal of the behind-the-scenes view of the courage of Ed Murrow and the media's role in such a crucial time period. This is by all means my favorite movie of all time. I am seventeen years old, so it is This movie is a fantastic portrayal of the behind-the-scenes view of the courage of Ed Murrow and the media's role in such a crucial time period. This is by all means my favorite movie of all time. I am seventeen years old, so it is hard to find people who write movies that actually have relevence or some substance today. Ed Murrow's actual words were used in this movie, which I am thrilled about, and also the real footage of the McCarthy hearings are also fantastic. This movie is so close to looking at the real thing it gives me chills. Thank you to all the wonderful people who made this movie.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
RirenJan 28, 2007
Unlike some Best Picture nominees at the Academy, Good Night and Good Luck features some actual characters and a plot that isn't forced forward. It benefits from its plot progression being part of history instead of fiction, but still - Unlike some Best Picture nominees at the Academy, Good Night and Good Luck features some actual characters and a plot that isn't forced forward. It benefits from its plot progression being part of history instead of fiction, but still - even as a black and white film in the era of color - is a more genuine piece of film making than you would find in theatres that year. It's weakest points are its grimness and unrelenting moral stance, which inhibit it from exploring or debating these positions. In that sense, it is as much a black and white picture as it is a black and white story. Still, it earns what it makes of itself, and its contemporary political overtones are for the most part subdued enough to be something that could remain worthwhile viewing decades from now.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
LindseyNov 12, 2005
The acting is superb and the period is captured perfectly. Then why such a low score you ask? As I sat through this black and white recreation I felt as if I was watching a documentary and not a movie. Instead of giving the viewer an inside The acting is superb and the period is captured perfectly. Then why such a low score you ask? As I sat through this black and white recreation I felt as if I was watching a documentary and not a movie. Instead of giving the viewer an inside look at the two major characters and what drove each to the left and right, instead we get a tedious slow moving boring documentary. I felt as if I was watching paint dry or moss grow on a rock. Part of the audience started walking out after 45 minutes. If you are looking into the soul of the characters you will be greatly disappointed as no one is home. Avoid.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
0
AdrianNov 16, 2005
Walked out after an hour. Just a bunch of stiff acting but little insight.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JamesB.Nov 22, 2005
This film might not be for those too young to appreciate it, but they should watch it just the same. An important AND relevant piece of history. It makes you feel like you're right there. Brilliant acting all around; along with the This film might not be for those too young to appreciate it, but they should watch it just the same. An important AND relevant piece of history. It makes you feel like you're right there. Brilliant acting all around; along with the screenplay and directing. Clooney has become a huge Hollywood powerhouse and deserves it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
RodS.Nov 29, 2005
Extremely relevent.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DavidOct 16, 2005
A tour de force of journalistic integrity and courage, highlighting a dark chapter in American History, one which we should never forget, lest we revisit it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
MatthewL.Nov 6, 2005
Just...wow. George Clooney has made a masterpiece. "Good Night, and Good Luck" left me astounded, wanting to stand up and cheer not only for Clooney and his amazing movie, but for Edward R. Murrow, who had the guts to stand up to Senator Just...wow. George Clooney has made a masterpiece. "Good Night, and Good Luck" left me astounded, wanting to stand up and cheer not only for Clooney and his amazing movie, but for Edward R. Murrow, who had the guts to stand up to Senator Joseph McCarthy during the Communist witch hunts of the 1950s, and for his stern warning of the power of television as a tool to educate and enlighten, or to dull the masses into a fat, complacent crowd of simpletons. Simple, powerful, unnerving, and frighteningly, urgently relevant. This is one film everyone should see.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
DaveOct 17, 2005
Excellent, one of the best films of the year!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
yanab.Dec 14, 2005
A great interesting movie, maybe the best one of the year.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
JeromeH.Dec 5, 2005
"Movie goers don
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
MarkB.Oct 25, 2005
I don't know who first uttered the truism, "The more things change, the more they remain the same", but it's clear that George Clooney, the co-writer/co-star/director of this riveting account of CBS News during the Joseph McCarthy I don't know who first uttered the truism, "The more things change, the more they remain the same", but it's clear that George Clooney, the co-writer/co-star/director of this riveting account of CBS News during the Joseph McCarthy witch-hunts of the early 1950s, has clearly taken it to heart. We may have 300 TV channels to choose from rather than 3, with most black-and-white programming restricted to Turner Classic Movies or TV Land, and if a broadcaster or commentator offends our political stance, all we need to do is push a button rather than walk across the living room to change the channel. But as Clooney and co-writer Grant Heslov repeatedly demonstrate, it was just as possible then as it is now for less than completely scrupulous, agenda-driven political figures to try to control the content and tone of news coverage by intimidating networks and sponsors. Thank God newsmen Fred Friendly and Edward R. Murrow (an astonishing portrayal by David Straithairn, who expresses emotion with his two cigarette-holding fingers as vividly and eloquently as Gromit the dog does with his two eyebrows) refused to be intimidated, but what a shame that few of their present-day descendants have even come close to reaching their standards of ethics and courage. Some liberal moviegoers (and in all probability conservative pit bull and McCarthy groupie Ann Coulter) may feel somewhat let down by Good Night's cool, cerebral approach to its subject, but its refusal to rely on easy scores or cheap shots is precisely what makes it work so well. (It may even make some viewers extremely nostalgic for the days in which such antagonists as Murrow and McCarthy, as diametrically opposed as they were and as much was at stake for each of them, conducted their debate in such a relatively genteel fashion: when was the last time you clicked on any cable or radio news show and heard two people quoting Shakespeare to one another?) Those who have nitpicked Clooney for giving Murrow and CBS too much credit for McCarthy's downfall are missing the point: the movie tells the story of the McCarthy area AS IT AFFECTED CBS and is no more an overall view of Tail Gunner Joe's reign of terror than the movie Patton was a panoramic view of World War II. I loved the early scenes of Murrow doing "Person-to-Person" celebrity interviews--a tradeoff for being allowed to do the hard news he was really interested in--because any accusations of Murrow being a knee-jerk liberal clearly fall by the wayside as we witness his clear disgust at being forced to promulgate the falsehood of entertainer Liberace's heterosexuality, even though Murrow knew that outing him would've destroyed his career; the look on Murrow's face clearly shows us that he prized the truth above any type of doctrine. That's why I think Good Night's pivotal point--and the one that speaks most clearly to us today--deals with McCarthy's tarbrushing Murrow as a Communist sympathizer because of the latter's friendship with a Socialist author whom he disagreed with but still shared a mutual friendship and intellectual respect. Watch this sequence and weep a little for what we've lost in the climate of our current political dialogue: how far is it from "If you don't support McCarthy's actions, you're at least a pinko" to "If you're not completely behind the War on Terror, the Iraq invasion and the USA Patriot Act, you're on the side of the terrorists"? Except that although Murrow's eventual victory turned out to be a Pyrrhic one at CBS, chances are that if he were around today, his show would've been dropped by CNN or CSNBC after only 13 weeks for not being sufficiently deferential to the Fox News-watching audiences that those networks are trying to scoop.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
MarcK.Oct 26, 2005
A Hollywood wet dream. While not as obvious as "The Contender," this film is clearly slanted to the left. This film will definitely get a slew of Oscar nominations...partly because 2005 has been a lackluster film year, and partly because A Hollywood wet dream. While not as obvious as "The Contender," this film is clearly slanted to the left. This film will definitely get a slew of Oscar nominations...partly because 2005 has been a lackluster film year, and partly because Hollywood loves left-leaning films that self-congratulate themselves on how "enlightened" they all are.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
6
FilmfanOct 29, 2005
I left this film disappointed. In the end there was nothing really memorable or revealing about it, at least for anyone even superficially knowledgeable about this period. Strathairn was great, as usual, but for the most part this felt like I left this film disappointed. In the end there was nothing really memorable or revealing about it, at least for anyone even superficially knowledgeable about this period. Strathairn was great, as usual, but for the most part this felt like a hollywood period piece. Better than most, and more intelligent than most, but still too much about style while neglecting to create true cinematic drama.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
MichaelL.Mar 14, 2006
Clooney did an average job of presenting the story, but the story has so much relevance to our time period that it makes this movie that much more inspiring. Talk of the red scare, and tv losing its intelligence find its way to our Clooney did an average job of presenting the story, but the story has so much relevance to our time period that it makes this movie that much more inspiring. Talk of the red scare, and tv losing its intelligence find its way to our particular social situations. (i.e terrorism, and america becoming increasingly stupid) David Strathairn carries the entire movie and message. This movie should not be missed.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JanisD.Mar 28, 2006
Solid entertainment and a work of art that asks questions of the soul.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
M.MillsApr 15, 2006
A disappointing failure to portray Murrow as a brave journalist in a social and journalistic context. The film is a collection of Murrow vignettes that touch upon the issues of McCarthyism and growing corporate control of television. The A disappointing failure to portray Murrow as a brave journalist in a social and journalistic context. The film is a collection of Murrow vignettes that touch upon the issues of McCarthyism and growing corporate control of television. The acting is one-dimensional, the plot partially developed and the pacing uneven. The choppy editing is stitched together with a jazz thread which adds nothing to the drama. Murrow and the values he stood for deserve better.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
5
TonyB.May 21, 2006
Perhaps well-intentioned and definitely well-acted, but good intentions and good acting do not always make a good film. The pretentious graininess of the cinematography becomes unsettling after a while as does the choppy editing. The musical Perhaps well-intentioned and definitely well-acted, but good intentions and good acting do not always make a good film. The pretentious graininess of the cinematography becomes unsettling after a while as does the choppy editing. The musical interludes serve no purpose except to add several minutes to a relatively short film. George Clooney's performance did not deserve an Oscar, or even a nomination. Frank Langella was far superior to Hollywood's current golden boy. What was the point of the Robert Downey-Patricia Clarkson relationship? And finally, the scene in which someone reads Jack O'Brian's review is absolutely absurd, if not downright deceptive. O'Brian wrote for the Journal American, a NY afternoon daily which certainly would not have been on the street as early as the film says it was. Who knows what other discrepancies this overly rated film has?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
JohnS.Nov 25, 2005
Great movie - the best I have seen all year. Really captures the feel of the times (yes I was alive then) and central issue that has returned to haunt us -- the equation of dissent with disloyalty. Only now, instead of a junior senator, we Great movie - the best I have seen all year. Really captures the feel of the times (yes I was alive then) and central issue that has returned to haunt us -- the equation of dissent with disloyalty. Only now, instead of a junior senator, we have the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld axis challenging our constitutional rights. A chilling wake up call.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
AaronSNov 26, 2005
One of the best films of the year. Very timely in that it's the right movie at the right time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
JimG.Nov 27, 2005
Wow. Why don't we get more black and white movies? Forget the excess of Sin City, black and white truth is stranger than pulp fiction. Lots of style: Visually very interesting, punctuated with breathy vocals by Diana Reeves. What's Wow. Why don't we get more black and white movies? Forget the excess of Sin City, black and white truth is stranger than pulp fiction. Lots of style: Visually very interesting, punctuated with breathy vocals by Diana Reeves. What's better is the lesson that history repeats "first as tragedy, then as farce." Most timely, the clip of Eisenhower talking about the importance of habeas corpus. (Look it up, naysayers.) Don't know whether hawks have started with potshots about historical accuracy yet, but the quoted material on its own, particularly McCarthy's words, speak for themselves and offer significant drama. If only we'd learn.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
7
AdamHNov 29, 2005
David Strathairn is excellent as Murrow and there is some great writing, but the movie as a whole is just a bit of a slog even if I admire its intent. My lack of solid enthusiasm may be due to the very dirty and distracting print that I saw.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
8
S.GoldDec 17, 2005
Great performances and one of the best scripts of the year highligh a film with a very timely messages with 2 cons being an ongoing style pattern and sloppy camerawork.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
4
richardb.Dec 18, 2005
I wanted to like this movie. Its important that audiences today learn that American journalists can, and have, stood up to powerful men abusing their power. But somehow, the life-draining, period drag of this movie got in the way of what I wanted to like this movie. Its important that audiences today learn that American journalists can, and have, stood up to powerful men abusing their power. But somehow, the life-draining, period drag of this movie got in the way of what should have been an easy dramatization of a stirring real-life battle. This is one colorless film, and not just because it's shot in black & white. Why,after about a half hour in, did I feel like I was watching a weak 30's melodrama, instead of an updated The Front Page or All The President's Men or Broadcast News? Movie journalists have rarely been this dull. Was Ed Murrow really that constipated, such a self-important Shakespearean name-checker,so insufferably urbane? What did he do off the job, and how come we never saw how his wife and family figured in his career? In fact, why did we waste so much screen time on Robert Downey and Patricia Clarkson's secret marriage, at the expense of learning more about Murrow, or anything at all about Fred Friendly, or Bill Paley? What's especially weird is that stock footage Joe Mc Carthy becomes, by default, the most appealing character in the flick.He's a red-blooded ranter, sometimes rabid, sometimes clever, but always a lot more human than you'd expect. I'm sure that's hardly the message George Clooney means to send his audience but, when it comes down to it, beasts'll beat bores every time. Check out Emile de Antonio's 1964 documentary, Point of Order, if you want to know what really happened.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
10
RhettW.Dec 28, 2005
I knew I was going to drown in this movie at the moment the opening rolled with no credits just actor's faces and the jazz soundtrack.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
9
Christopher_G2Mar 14, 2015
The fight against the powerful takes bravery, such as shown Edward R Murrow and the people he worked during the witch-hunts of McCarthyism. "Good Night and Good Luck" displays that fight brilliantly. George Clooney gives his best directorialThe fight against the powerful takes bravery, such as shown Edward R Murrow and the people he worked during the witch-hunts of McCarthyism. "Good Night and Good Luck" displays that fight brilliantly. George Clooney gives his best directorial work and David Strathairn as Murrow gives his best performance to date, in one of the best films about journalism since "All The Presidents Men". It may not be high flying sensationalistic twists and turns, but all the little details, the beautiful black and white cinematography, and the great cast of a number of known names, add up to a compelling piece, and a timeless story about what it takes to stand up for what's right.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
SpangleFeb 7, 2014
The acting is great, but this film is classic director George Clooney for me. It is a very interesting subject matter that moves at a snail's pace and all interest in the story is lost, ultimately winding up being a quite boring film. IThe acting is great, but this film is classic director George Clooney for me. It is a very interesting subject matter that moves at a snail's pace and all interest in the story is lost, ultimately winding up being a quite boring film. I wanted to like it, but I simply cannot.

However, I felt as though the black and white worked well, as I said before, the acting was really well done, and I really liked the blending of the real newscasts with the events going on in the screening room.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
7
worleyjamersJun 7, 2013
Good film. Great cast. George Clooney directs the heck out of this film; I liked his subtle approach of the material, but I also feel like that held the film back a bit. Also, it's a little short.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
JarvisNov 13, 2019
Simply put This film is just devoid of all life. The Story is very disjointed, with most subplots having no baring on the overall narrative; Characters feel bland and have no real depth or personality; and there is zero character developmentSimply put This film is just devoid of all life. The Story is very disjointed, with most subplots having no baring on the overall narrative; Characters feel bland and have no real depth or personality; and there is zero character development across the entire cast. nothing memorable really happens in this movie; nothing that you couldn't have learned more efficiently from a single history lecture anyway. This movie settles for telling you what's supposed to be important rather than showing it, major plot points are dropped on you in the third act with no foreshadowing, and character relationships aren't fleshed out beyond them claiming to be friends. The film's overall presentation is about as bland as a movie can be; the entire film is set indoors, and only a handful of different locations are used. The claustrophobic setting eliminates the possibility of any creative or interesting camera work, meaning that the majority of the film is just shot reverse shot dialogue. The black and white color scheme may seem endearing, but combined with the already drab setting it just makes the film feel even more dead. All and all this film was clearly only given so much praise because it's a "smart movie". It's slow paced, and completely built around dialogue, therefore you must be really intelligent if you like it; but in truth almost any other drama is better than this.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
amheretojudgeJun 14, 2018
a provocative homage to the martyrs who lived..

Good Night, And Good Luck There is a lot of content to offer to the audience in a very short and smartly timed, which can be off putting as it doesn't allow the audience to breathe and let ita provocative homage to the martyrs who lived..

Good Night, And Good Luck There is a lot of content to offer to the audience in a very short and smartly timed, which can be off putting as it doesn't allow the audience to breathe and let it all sink in. It is accurately infomercial and highly adaptive but if considered as a dramatic act, there isn't much installed art to explore in here. 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. George Clooney; the screenwriter and director, has done an excellent work on creating the '50s corporate world and the characters that revolves around it. David Strathairn is convincing in here and is supported well too by an amazing cast like George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr. and Jeff Daniels. It is short on technical aspects like sound department and art design, but scores majestically on its amazing cinematography and brilliant camera work; it is shot beautifully. Good Night And Good Luck is a provocative homage to the martyrs who lived in the battlefield despite of ever entering one or preparing for one for that matter.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
9
FilipeNetoJan 16, 2022
I confess that I didn't really like this movie the first time I saw it, but I felt that it was not the time to evaluate it, because I wasn't fully aware and expected something different. After a few years, I watched the film again, with aI confess that I didn't really like this movie the first time I saw it, but I felt that it was not the time to evaluate it, because I wasn't fully aware and expected something different. After a few years, I watched the film again, with a different mindset, other expectations and more prepared for what I was about to see. The result was totally different: I loved this movie.

The film is set in the period of the Cold War, and addresses the fear that many North Americans had of communist activities on American soil, mainly of communists who were supposed to be infiltrated within the government, army and high finance. The face of all fear was, for years, Senator McCarthy, who gave substance and voice to a policy of purging suspected communists from the state apparatus. In a short time, suspicion became widespread and even the most unsuspected were under scrutiny for things as trivial as having a communist friend or having attended an activity promoted by communists. Against this situation, so bizarre that it goes against our notion of democracy, stood up journalist and television anchor Edward R. Murrow, from CBS News. On his television show "See it Now", he will do a job of deconstructing Senator McCarthy's allegations, questioning his methods and way of thinking.

The film works wonderfully and manages to get the message across very well. However, it is one of those films that has the problem of only working for those who already know the basics of what is going to be talked about: the Cold War, the "Red Peril", McCarthyism. Anyone waiting for the movie to explain something about it or make some sort of introductory note will miss it. Therefore, I recommend to those less versed in contemporary history a brief read before the film. The film addresses yet another subject, albeit much more superficially: the advent of TV and television journalism, of which Murrow was one of the first great figures in the US.

George Clooney is, in this film, an almost omnipresent figure, since he is responsible for the direction, the script and for one of the main characters of the plot. Impeccable as always, the actor does a very good job. The cast is intelligently led by David Strathairn in the lead role. The actor is competent, charismatic, intense, sharp and skillful, giving us, in this film, the strongest interpretation of his career. Also Robert Downey Jr. And Patricia Clarkson deserve an applause for their work. Most of the cast smokes a lot, but that was something really common at the time.

On a technical level, the film makes a strong impact as it is entirely in black and white. It was something I didn't expect the first time I saw the film, but it made perfect sense when I saw it again... in addition to immediately transporting us to the time in question, the feature allowed the original black-and-white scenes perfectly match the film, as if they were one and the same. It doesn't have a very noticeable soundtrack, but the jazz themes chosen for the soundtrack are really good.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

80 Critic Reviews

7.2 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 72 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL