Shallow story with too much hype; unfit for movie

Rating: 3/10 (9 July 2006)

Good Night and Good Luck was a typical Hollywood heart warming, feel good kind of a movie that leaves us with nothing to wonder or debate about. It simply presented us with a story about an evil man who threatened our freedom (McCarthy); and quickly supplied us with the hero (Murrow) who confronted that man and saved our democracy, just in time. Wow, that was close! Thanks to Ed Murrow, now we can all sleep better, secure in the knowledge that we're safe and our freedom is in good hands, namely the media heroes. The media continues to invent superstars as a way of romantically relieving us from the task of thinking for ourselves and directly dealing with our problems rationally. I am disappointed to say that this movie missed a golden opportunity to make us question the practices of our trusted officials, then and now. Instead of stirring us intellectually into debating the conduct (or misconduct) of people of authority back then, and more importantly connecting with today's politicians' alarming violations of our rights, it gave us a very simple good versus evil story with a shallow plot and obvious conclusions. And, as expected, it left us feeling warm and fuzzy about our hero(es) who, as always, magically save our democracy at the end, leaving us with nothing to worry about or debate, other than the all important "less filling; tastes great" debate and Coke versus Pepsi dialog. The subject, our freedom, would have been much better served if the movie left us feeling angry and threatened by those individuals who rob us, and continue to do so, of our rights.
As a director, George Clooney showed us no artistic talent in building characters and exploiting emotions. He has followed in Hollywood typical approach of making a shallow movie that doesn't challenge our state of intellectual hypnosis. For such a highly controversial and significant subject, the film lacked any meaningful tension. It didn't really make one bond with or feel anything toward any of the characters, as it never breathed any life into them. We were never challenged intellectually or emotionally into evaluating the characters and their role during that time period because we never got to know any of them well. Everything happened so quickly: the problem, its effect, and then the happy solution. I was never emotionally involved in this movie and felt nothing for its characters. At the end of the film, all I can think is what was the point of that movie? This film could've been better presented in a 20 minute clip on 60 Minutes. Additionally, several of the characters, like Robert Downey Jr. and his wife, were a complete waste and their absence wouldn't have been missed at all. Even George Clooney's contribution to the story was very limited and his acting lacked depth. I really can't understand why the critics liked this movie, artistically or intellectually. But again, what do you expect from the big happy Hollywood family where they're good at massaging each other's egos and exchanging favors.
Factually, the movie was misleading. McCarthyism went on for years and destroyed many lives before it was brought down. It wasn't brought down by Ed Murrow, as the movie leads us into believing, but by its challenge of other powerful institutions, namely the Army, the Senate and other powerful individuals, including the President. There were many events that took place before Murrow's attack on McCarthy, including heated confrontations between McCarthy and the Army. One might argue that Ed Murrow's attack on McCarthy was a bit too late and came at a time when McCarthy's popularity was on the decline, making him an easy target.