You don't need to be a conservative to recognize this as mediocre film-making.

Rating: 3/10 (5 November 2005)

I finally saw this tonight with a friend. We both agree that it's just not a very good film. Clooney's direction and the screenplay give us little sense of how menacing the senator really was. It's very insular; the film would have been better if it took to the streets instead of keeping everyone in the newsroom the whole time. Cool and jazzy is always the mood, with a black woman appearing every now and then to sing random ditties. That doesn't work for me. The film wants to be about something serious but the score conflicts with that. Then there's a subplot about a marriage between staff members played by Patricia Clarkson and Robert Downey, Jr. Nothing comes of it. David's performance as Murrow would be fine if Edward R. Murrow weren't a historic figure. But because he is one and because many of his own performances are readily available in film archives, it becomes obvious that David was either miscast or just didn't do his research. The real Edward R. Murrow was much more charismatic than David would have us believe. Even the decision to shoot the film in black and white is questionable. The characters are smiling and cracking wry jokes half the time. Nothing dark about that, nothing suggestive of Schindler's List. It's a self-important film that probably benefits (at least with critics) from assumed parallels to our current political atmosphere and the fact that it takes place in the middle of the 20th century like so many other acclaimed films of late. I'm a liberal guy but I think it's possible to judge even a film this political without compromising my own views. As a film, it just didn't work for me. I nonetheless admire Clooney for bringing this story to the screen.