3.5 stars out of 4
Added 5/6/2009
The Bottom Line:
A fun and funny take on newscasters' love (both of other each other and of their work) in the 1980s, Broadcast News may not have deserved the slew of Oscar nominations it gathered but it's still a very entertaining film that doesn't wear out its welcome and offers 2 hours in the company of people that I'd enjoy spending time with.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The truth, and nothing but the truth...
Added 11/14/2008
Wildly witty and richly textured with raw human connection; James L. Brooks' comedic masterpiece `Broadcast News' is most definitely one of a kind.
Well, talk about spilling it all in the opening sentence. I don't even know how to follow that up.
The film centers around three working bodies. You have Tom Grunick, the pretty boy turned TV-Reporter who is embittered with himself for being too good. He has a knack for something that he doesn't quite understand and it causes him to feel less than deserving; but it's apparently a mock-humility, as if he's searching for manipulated sympathies. Then you have Aaron Altman, a very gifted and passionate reporter who lacks the presence and connection that Tom so effortlessly oozes. He is battling his own insecurities as he is surely battling himself, trying to put up a front and become something he's not sure he wants to be. Stuck in the middle of this testosterone ridden battle is a female producer, Jane Craig, who struggles with her feelings for these two men as she struggles with her feelings about herself and where she is headed; professionally and personally.
`Broadcast News' is not a film merely about television, or the media, or the workplace but is a genuinely sincere look at relationships of the most important kind; the ones we have with ourselves.
Each of these characters is not a whole person. They are fractures shells of who they are meant to be, still struggling to put all their pieces together and figure out just who they truly are. Tom is a mess, manipulating himself to believe that his gift is to manipulate the masses. He believes that selling the news is more important than believing in it. He has a talent for something he isn't quite sure he cares for, and thus his talent is wasted. Jane is barely holding herself together as she attempts to separate her personal life from her professional life; a task that has taken its toll on both aspects. She has scheduled times throughout the day to just cry, as if she spent the remaining twenty-three hours of her day forcing herself not to cry. Aaron, to me, is the most interesting character because he seems to be the most confused. His love for Jane feels almost forced, as if he feels that that is how he is supposed to feel, when I get the feeling that he was more in love with Tom than Jane, and his hatred for the man and everything he stood for was more a way for him to reject the feelings he convinced himself were not really there. His personal life as well as his professional life is a mess and it's because he cannot for one second be honest with himself.
But that's just my take.
The three stars are all wonderful here (thus all garnering Oscar nominations), each one playing off the other with brilliant chemistry and naturalism. William Hurt is perfectly wounded in his demeanor, as if he is trying to constantly defend his stance even when he doesn't have to; and Brooks (who is lead here, not supporting) is marvelously conflicted, etching the truth within Aaron's lies so wonderfully. Holly Hunter, in my opinion, is a comic (and dramatic) gem here. She really understands Jane, who is the moral centerpiece for the film. She grasps her own demons and conflictions and dilemmas beautifully and creates one of her finest onscreen characters.
The supporting cast, including the brilliant Joan Cusack (she really should be in every movie) and the always amazing Jack Nicholson, is also top notch, but this show belongs to the three leads.
I definitely recommend this film, highly. It's no wonder that all three leads received nominations at the Oscars, or that the film was up for four other awards that night, including Original Screenplay and Best Picture. It is a shame that the film lost all seven though, especially since Holly Hunter's performance alone was the best in any category that year; bar none.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A Classic--Excels In Every Way
Added 7/9/2008
I saw this when it first came out in 1987, and remembered liking it. Watched it again last week, and liked it even more. Its achievement is that it is able to tell a compelling personal story (a love triangle of sorts) at the same time that it takes a snapshot of a pivotal moment in time in an industry critical to American democracy. It's very different from Network, which mixes black humor and over-the-top satire with a couple of personal stories and a cheesy, poorly realized romance, but the two taken together can tell you a lot about where American news media went wrong. I think James L. Brooks' script and direction are topnotch, and the three principals, Hunter, (Albert) Brooks, and Hurt are all good. Hunter is brilliant, and Brooks is as real and convincing as he has ever been in anything!
So many movies tack on the romance as an artificial way of generating audience interest. But this movie makes the romance part of the overall commentary, and the love triangle's eventual resolution is completely intertwined with the film's take on journalistic ethics--such an effective way of delivering a social statement in a personal way that is convincing and integral to the larger story.
Pretty much everyone got nominated for this--Albert Brooks, Hunter, Hurt, and James Brooks. And they got nothing, unfortunately, losing out to The Last Emperor, Moonstruck, and Wall Street, for goodness' sake. Still, a fine movie, well-crafted, intensely acted, and poignant. And still pretty tight and crisp twenty years later. Not a lot of excess, even at just over two hours. Well worth a view.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Never forget, WE'RE the story...
Added 4/6/2008
The only movie worthy of being paired with Paddy Chayefsky's Network. Yes, James L. Brooks is brilliant (isn't that a given?), but the man's a prophetic wizard, too, because in this single film, he correctly predicted the downard slide of our modern news business.
Of course, Chayefsky did this years earlier in Network (news as entertainment; hijacking of "objectivity" for political agenda; ratings ruling and overruling everything; news "stars" in front of cameras mattering more to "corporate" than good writing and reporting). Chayefsky's take, however, is much darker, less human, and does push the envelope of credulity. Broadcast News is all too accurate. Eerily accurate. If you haven't seen it, you sure should (and Network, too, if you haven't - a great double feature).
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
One of the 80's Best
Added 10/17/2007
Every once in a while Hollywood hits one out of the park. See this movie.
In a decade mostly unremarkable in terms of cinematic history, "Broadcast News" stands out like a polished gem. There isn't a single aspect of the film---acting, writing, directing---that can be faulted.
Too, it is a rare Hollywood offering which is actually ABOUT something---in this case, the gradual transforming of a television news department into just another cache of profits and entertainment. All of the characters play their roles skillfully yet humanly and no one is a cardboard cutout.
Director James Brooks passed on any availably facile plot lines and let the story take its own difficult, rocky road, to great artistic advantage. So many directors would have contrived a glossy romantic wrapup to the film and Brooks, to his credit, resisted that temptation.
Jack Nicholson makes a cameo in a rare, subtle performance which I think is one of his best.
To me, this movie is a veritable litmus test of people and their values. If you go to see this picture with someone and they say, "Well, I don't think what William Hurt's character did was so bad," you know you're dealing with one kind of person; if another person says, "Are you kidding? What he did was terrible, a monstrous betrayal!" you know you're dealing with another kind of person. These two types should definitely not attempt to marry or raise kids together!
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
3.5 stars out of 4
Added 5/6/2009
The Bottom Line:
A fun and funny take on newscasters' love (both of other each other and of their work) in the 1980s, Broadcast News may not have deserved the slew of Oscar nominations it gathered but it's still a very entertaining film that doesn't wear out its welcome and offers 2 hours in the company of people that I'd enjoy spending time with.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
The truth, and nothing but the truth...
Added 11/14/2008
Wildly witty and richly textured with raw human connection; James L. Brooks' comedic masterpiece `Broadcast News' is most definitely one of a kind.
Well, talk about spilling it all in the opening sentence. I don't even know how to follow that up.
The film centers around three working bodies. You have Tom Grunick, the pretty boy turned TV-Reporter who is embittered with himself for being too good. He has a knack for something that he doesn't quite understand and it causes him to feel less than deserving; but it's apparently a mock-humility, as if he's searching for manipulated sympathies. Then you have Aaron Altman, a very gifted and passionate reporter who lacks the presence and connection that Tom so effortlessly oozes. He is battling his own insecurities as he is surely battling himself, trying to put up a front and become something he's not sure he wants to be. Stuck in the middle of this testosterone ridden battle is a female producer, Jane Craig, who struggles with her feelings for these two men as she struggles with her feelings about herself and where she is headed; professionally and personally.
`Broadcast News' is not a film merely about television, or the media, or the workplace but is a genuinely sincere look at relationships of the most important kind; the ones we have with ourselves.
Each of these characters is not a whole person. They are fractures shells of who they are meant to be, still struggling to put all their pieces together and figure out just who they truly are. Tom is a mess, manipulating himself to believe that his gift is to manipulate the masses. He believes that selling the news is more important than believing in it. He has a talent for something he isn't quite sure he cares for, and thus his talent is wasted. Jane is barely holding herself together as she attempts to separate her personal life from her professional life; a task that has taken its toll on both aspects. She has scheduled times throughout the day to just cry, as if she spent the remaining twenty-three hours of her day forcing herself not to cry. Aaron, to me, is the most interesting character because he seems to be the most confused. His love for Jane feels almost forced, as if he feels that that is how he is supposed to feel, when I get the feeling that he was more in love with Tom than Jane, and his hatred for the man and everything he stood for was more a way for him to reject the feelings he convinced himself were not really there. His personal life as well as his professional life is a mess and it's because he cannot for one second be honest with himself.
But that's just my take.
The three stars are all wonderful here (thus all garnering Oscar nominations), each one playing off the other with brilliant chemistry and naturalism. William Hurt is perfectly wounded in his demeanor, as if he is trying to constantly defend his stance even when he doesn't have to; and Brooks (who is lead here, not supporting) is marvelously conflicted, etching the truth within Aaron's lies so wonderfully. Holly Hunter, in my opinion, is a comic (and dramatic) gem here. She really understands Jane, who is the moral centerpiece for the film. She grasps her own demons and conflictions and dilemmas beautifully and creates one of her finest onscreen characters.
The supporting cast, including the brilliant Joan Cusack (she really should be in every movie) and the always amazing Jack Nicholson, is also top notch, but this show belongs to the three leads.
I definitely recommend this film, highly. It's no wonder that all three leads received nominations at the Oscars, or that the film was up for four other awards that night, including Original Screenplay and Best Picture. It is a shame that the film lost all seven though, especially since Holly Hunter's performance alone was the best in any category that year; bar none.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
A Classic--Excels In Every Way
Added 7/9/2008
I saw this when it first came out in 1987, and remembered liking it. Watched it again last week, and liked it even more. Its achievement is that it is able to tell a compelling personal story (a love triangle of sorts) at the same time that it takes a snapshot of a pivotal moment in time in an industry critical to American democracy. It's very different from Network, which mixes black humor and over-the-top satire with a couple of personal stories and a cheesy, poorly realized romance, but the two taken together can tell you a lot about where American news media went wrong. I think James L. Brooks' script and direction are topnotch, and the three principals, Hunter, (Albert) Brooks, and Hurt are all good. Hunter is brilliant, and Brooks is as real and convincing as he has ever been in anything!
So many movies tack on the romance as an artificial way of generating audience interest. But this movie makes the romance part of the overall commentary, and the love triangle's eventual resolution is completely intertwined with the film's take on journalistic ethics--such an effective way of delivering a social statement in a personal way that is convincing and integral to the larger story.
Pretty much everyone got nominated for this--Albert Brooks, Hunter, Hurt, and James Brooks. And they got nothing, unfortunately, losing out to The Last Emperor, Moonstruck, and Wall Street, for goodness' sake. Still, a fine movie, well-crafted, intensely acted, and poignant. And still pretty tight and crisp twenty years later. Not a lot of excess, even at just over two hours. Well worth a view.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
