Rating: 
Summary: "Wouldn't it be a great world ...
Review: ". . . if desperation and insecurity made us attractive? If needy were a turn on?" Though Albert Brooks delivers this line, *Broadcast News* is not directed by him; it's directed by JAMES Brooks (who also wrote and produced -- truly a product of one creative mind, here). It's a measure of how well James Brooks knows his 3 principal characters that the actors who play them speak as if they wrote their own dialogue. *Broadcast News* is a classic primarily because these characters are so completely realized, so lived-in, as it were. We end up knowing these characters nearly as well as they seem to know themselves ("I'll meet you at the place near the thing where we went that time"). William Hurt is the not-terribly bright aspiring anchorman; Holly Hunter is the type-A news producer; and Albert Brooks is the reporter after "hard news" (meaning, REAL news). One reviewer here complained that he didn't like Albert Brooks as much as he was "supposed to" and that Hurt's character wasn't villainous enough. But that's the point. While we side with Brooks' work ethics throughout, we are often disappointed in him, particularly when out of lovesick frustration he descends to cheap pettiness by rubbing his intellectual superiority in Hurt's nose and says hurtful things to Hunter's character. And while we disdain Hurt's corner-cutting career ambitions, we're also surprised at the man's humaneness, as when he calls his father in a touching scene, joyously proclaiming, "Dad, I think I can do this job!" The point being, of course, that these are REAL people, presented in such a way as nowadays seems impossible in mainstream Hollywood productions. As if this wasn't wonderful enough, the movie is interested in actual WORK: it's quite educational on how a network news program is edited, staged, and generally put together, even providing the inside skinny on how to straighten the shoulders of one's suit-jacket. And certainly the concern with ethics in journalism puts this romantic comedy on a far higher level than is usual with the genre. I'm talking a level on par with some of the great novelists of the 19th century, like Austen and Henry James and Trollope and Hardy. In other words, *Broadcast News* is nothing less than a formal comedy of manners . . . one of the best ever put on the screen. Oh, and by the way: the bittersweet ending is precise and true. Much like the rest of the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Funny and incisive. One of 1987's very best.
Review: ''It must be nice to always think you're the smartest person in the room,'' she replies, ''No, it's awful'' .... The matter of fact reply to the accusation is of the reasons why I love this movie so much. I initially saw it when it came out in 1987, and although the technology and wardrobe look dated, the film's core may be even more relevant today than it was when initially released and continues to play beautifully due to strong performances and a funny yet unusually incisive script.Right at the center of the movie are 3 characters: Jane (Holly Hunter), a news writer-producer for the Washington bureau of a TV network. She is smart and is the "go to" person at the network as she works best under pressure and the character who responded to the remark about being the smartest person in a room. Her very best (and possibly only) friend is Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks), a bright, aggressive reporter, who along with Jane, have either true or self-created illusions great looks and intelligence can't coexist. Like Jane, Aaron is also very good at his job, but he wants to be on camera. During a speech that she is giving on the road, Jane meets Tom (William Hurt), an ex-sportscaster who has little education and doesn't know much about current events. But he has been hired for the Washington bureau because he looks good and has a natural relationship with the camera, and isn't that what matters? Although billed as a romantic comedy, which it is in part, the movie does a brilliant job of how many of us use work to measure who we are and at times use it an excuse to hide from life outside of that myopic perspective. In the course of the movie, the network goes through various upheavals based on the premise that news is losing (or by now has lost) its independence and has become entertainment with talking heads who make us feel good are replacing "true" journalists. Although the script is top notch, one of the reasons that movie resonates so well, is that the actors and the director manage to make even the most partisan statements not seem as didactic as they are on paper. None of the characters is perfect by any stretch of the imagination and the 3 leads are clearly not afraid to be dislikable. Their individual and collective effort works so well that you wind up being very interested/invested in them despite their flaws. This is without a doubt a career-defining performance by Holly Hunter who was robbed of the Oscar as it was given to Cher for her work in "Moonstruck" to "make up" for not rewarding her work in "Mask." William Hurt, a nuanced and complicated actor who was also nominated for the Oscar gives a change of pace performance as someone who's perfectly aware of his intellectual limitations but who sees no reason for them to interfere with his climb to the top. Albert Brooks is brilliant and comes very close to stealing the movie as he is hilarious and to me represents the moral conscience of the movie. He too was nominated for the Oscar and in my opinion was robbed as it was given to Sean Connery for what I think was a career award rather than his work in "The Untouchables." Sidebar: This movie received Oscar nominations in all major categories (Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay among others), the movie was not awarded a single Oscar as it was a year with great movies such as "The Last Emperor" and show-stopping performances, as was the case with Michael Douglas in "Wall Street." But back to the movie. Its writer/director, James L. Brooks, who hit a grand slam with "Terms of Endearment," manages not to let any character run away with the movie as he tempers their self-righteousness (as is the case with Hunter and Brooks) and good luck (William Hurt) by making them more than bumper-sticker characters. There is a great line sequence in the movie in which one reporter asks fellow reporters ''Would you tell a source you loved them just to get information?'' The immediate response, ''Yes,'' is followed by laughter all around. In essence although James L. Brooks makes a strong case that the news BUSINESS has blurred many lines, even those of us who think fall on the "right" side of said line are not presented as heroes nor are those who apparently cross it vilified. The movie is packed with many one-liners that do more than amuse and makes keen observations without beating your head with them. This movie easily earns 5 stars and would almost be a perfect movie had it ended without a neatly tied-up last act that ALMOST, but not quite, manages to take away a movie that had only taken a single false step until then. That first false step, in my opinion, is what led to the unnecessary and forced last act. The big "surprise" and one character's reaction to it are much to do about nothing in the bigger picture. Notwithstanding this movie makes very strong statements (a la "Network" but much more subtle) about an industry and does so un such an entertaining and intelligent manner that I have to see this movie every few years, which is something that I rarely do. The outcome is almost irrelevant when compared to the joy of seeing these smart people interact with one another. Without a doubt, this is one of 1987's best movies. Enjoy and if you have not seen this movie, you'll be happily surprised by an unbilled performance by yet another amazing actor
Rating: 
Summary: Well I finally saw this "wonderful movie"..
Review: ..and while I wont projectile vomit, I will say that after a few friends highly recommending this movie, friends whose opinions I hold in some regard, I think they missed it on this one. Although well written, the movie is the typical American movie where characters, while flawed and less cartoonish than the typical Hollywood assembly line garbage are completely UNIKEABLE! I think with the passing of the torch from the generation that proceeded those born in the post World War II era to (the "60s generation"- I just HATE that noxious frase "Baby Boomer", but then this IS the first generation that refuses to "grow up"), the movies like this one have given us a new twist on the old flawed but sympathetic "anti-hero", and forced us to view films where characters are TOTALLY irredeemable with NO qualities you can admire-- real wastes of skin! Holly Hunter's obsessive -compulsive control freak, William Hurt as his usual overly earnest self, and the somehow completely obnoxious Albert Brooks(I cant figure out WHY he bugs me so much, he is maybe a 2nd rate Woody Allen after all , I am only guessing..)dont solicit any sympathy or empathy from me, I dont relate to them at all, they seem creepy and obtuse.
The supporting cast are just as skin curdling- there is no one that earns your admiration in this film at all ! I did like the fact that the film DID NOT have your usual "hapy ending",( the end result of the Hollywood screen testing that have mucked up so many feature films through the last few decades), though still the final "airport scene" with Hunter and Hurt is as painful to watch as a toothache it is so corny and contrived.
The big "layoff from the job scene" near the end of the film is a nice microcosm of the corporate American business attitude that stresses bottom line over compassion and fair play,it is one of the few highlights of the film.
I almost contradict myself by actually recommending this movie though, because it bugged me so much viscerally! Believe me, there are far WORSE movies you could see than this one, so I suggest you check it out yourself, as these words have been opinions of mine that are based only on gut emotions I felt after finally seeing this much heralded film!
Rating:
Summary: Everything in Broadcast News seems to fit
Review: A very popular and well-read newspaperman once said,..."it's not the story, not the verbiage, it's style that sells." So what is it about "Broadcast News" that you just can't bear to like, but can't help but love? Is it the bold portrayal of the literary heart-n-soul of American News finally succumbing to the irresistible forces of commerce and popular culture. Could it be the telling of the demonic triumph of feel-good visual entertainment over the angelic virtues of fact and prose? Can it simply be that audiences find an exposé of the inner workings of broadcast news in the mid 1980s enthralling? Or are the individually stellar performances of gifted actors in pursuit of a comedic dramatization just that darn right compelling? James Brook's splendid rendition of the all-to-human connection between three well-intentioned but deeply flawed people is at the same time delightful and painfully funny. In turn, the seeds of each obsession are briefly defined in a childhood glimpse. Next the compulsive ingeniously brilliant network news producer, Jane (Holly Hunter) and the neurotic elegantly dull research/reporter, Aaron (Albert Brook), prepare the stage. By day they impulsively pursue a quixotic crusade for a lost cause that never was...against the dreaded falling dominos? Why are they the only ones that get it? At night, they share a mutually exclusive borderline admiration-like-lovesque affair replete with meaningful late night chats. Good times yea, but when the phone talk fads Jane finds herself alone, in bed, crying...real tears, which begs, what's wrong with this picture? Obviously not wanting to, she instinctively knows both the question and the answer. So as the curtain raises this anxious yet cozily safe codependence is shattered by a dimly groping but charmingly hansom anchorman want-to-be, Tom (William Hurt). But to be honest, besides the cast, crew, and audience of Springer, how many people really know the number of cabinet seats, let alone the names of those who occupy them? With no apologies we find ourselves liking these characters...simply because we see ourselves in them. Rationally speaking, they're really not bad people, but sometimes they just can't help themselves. With unintended fake sincerity, Tom incessantly self-depravities while protesting against his general ignorance and technical inadequacy. Meanwhile he swiftly ascends the ladder in pursuit of his particular obsession by perfecting what he does best; peer milking, charm, and seduction. The film's central figure, Jane, is by far the most likeable, sympathetic, empathic, benevolent, yet inadvertently bankrupt character. With the slow motion machinations of a demure Machiavellian fencing coach we watch her stake claim, now parry and yield, then turn to instigate a deep freeze exile for a rival, only to reverse and reject the love interest. In another scene Jane lies about that nights expectations to her most trusted and intimate confidante, while standing not six feet away with back turned, as she secretly stuffs a red pack of prophylactics into a waiting handbag. Next, the hurting but always-loyal companion, Aaron, after seeing his dear friend's panic attack, with a knowing smile uses guile and wit to outmaneuver and deliver a deadly departing broadside designed to sink her budding romance. Aaron knows both Jane and Tom's fatal weakness well,...the timing and authenticity of a simple tear? Sure, because of her excessive selectivity she's primed into thinking Tom is finally the real thing; magnetic, attentive, caring, and genuine. But, the truth is the tear has nothing at all to do with ethics and every thing to do with the fact that Tom is Jane's ideological archenemy incarnate; a likable but shallow ambitious well-meaning fraud with the fate of their futile crusade in his indifferent hands. Finally, like a long discarded sled named "Rosebud," an ancient Roman villa reassembled in sunny southern California, or an ill-advised career move by a millionaire heiress turned bank robber, Jack Nickelson's cameo, as the older wiser version of Tom, light heartily mocks Jane and Aaron's unobstructed view of excellence. So the question persists, why do we love the seven times nominated, but not academy awarded Broadcast News? Can we see ourselves mirrored as the protagonists doing the wrong things for all the right reasons? Is it that despite all their positive aspects, we still see ourselves in them, doing all the wrong things, but now they're done the right way? Or could it possibly be how everything in Broadcast News seems to fit, "like a voice inside your head...feeding you the lines...just when you need them."
Rating: 
Summary: Good, not great
Review: All the actors do a fine job in this romantic triangle movie, especially Holly Hunter. I like the way the film focuses on its characters (a rare thing in this day and age of special effects) and tries to make each one of them three dimensional. Unfortunately, I never cared much for either of the lead male characters - I didn't like Albert Brooks's character as much as I was supposed to and I didn't dislike William Hurt all that much as the villain either. There are few real laughs here, except for the scene of Brooks delivering a newscast while sweating. I felt that the theme about the vapidization of television news could have been made more of, both for comic effect and for biting criticism. Visually, the film is uninteresting, and its ending is inconclusive. In short I found the whole thing decent but ultimately forgettable.
Rating:
Summary: Broadcast News - In Review
Review: Amidst the hustle and bustle of a demanding newsroom a love triangle builds right in your living from this witty, romantic, comedy Broadcast News. Holly Hunter who plays a network news producer falls between pretty-boy anchorman William Hurt and Albert Brooks, who provides contrast as the gifted reporter. Director James L. Brooks brings this romantic comedy to life through the busy Washington D.C. pressroom. With a glimpse into each of the characters' childhood the film brings us thirty years later to a Washington News Network that brings together are three amusing characters. Jane (Holly Hunter), swiftly finds herself attracted to the new anchorman, Tom (William Hurt) hired for his good looks and camera poise. Long time friend of Jane, Aaron (Albert Brooks) reveals his true feelings in the midst of Jane and Tom's relationship to create a tangled triangle. Cutbacks and an unrevealed lie send the trio in their separate ways to be reunited seven years later. Holly Hunter is Jane Craig, a lovable, high-strung, control-freak news producer, who falls for a dim-witted, handsome and on the rise anchor William Hurt, who plays Tom Grenick. No role was more fitting then Aaron Altman performed by Albert Brooks, Brooks's made a hard working and witty veteran reporter complete with his brilliant performance. Pulling the film together with supporting roles was Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack, and Robert Provosky, not to mention a trivial role as senior anchorman played by Jack Nicholson. The setting is the high-stakes world of network television news, and although the technology has changed since the mid 1980's when this was made, the politics and the cutthroat environment are still exactly the same. The soundtrack is mainly dialogue driven lacking any memorable hits. Mainly featuring scene based tunes to keep the film flowing allowing the focus to stay with the actors' performances. Jane's dilemma is more in depth then looks versus love; it is an inner struggle tearing her apart. In one hand she has the handsome anchorman that is everything she cannot stand in media and the other is her long-time honest friend who still believes in integrity. Torn between the choice of integrity and selling the news she takes the new position and starts over. The performance from the three actors was outstanding and the accurate portrayal of the network production puts you on set. This spunky, romantic, comedy is well deserving of its Seven Oscar nominations. This delightful James L. Brooks film will leave you wondering if it is not too late to consider a new occupation.
Rating:
Summary: Broadcast News - In Review
Review: Amidst the hustle and bustle of a demanding newsroom a love triangle builds right in your living from this witty, romantic, comedy Broadcast News. Holly Hunter who plays a network news producer falls between pretty-boy anchorman William Hurt and Albert Brooks, who provides contrast as the gifted reporter. Director James L. Brooks brings this romantic comedy to life through the busy Washington D.C. pressroom. With a glimpse into each of the characters' childhood the film brings us thirty years later to a Washington News Network that brings together are three amusing characters. Jane (Holly Hunter), swiftly finds herself attracted to the new anchorman, Tom (William Hurt) hired for his good looks and camera poise. Long time friend of Jane, Aaron (Albert Brooks) reveals his true feelings in the midst of Jane and Tom's relationship to create a tangled triangle. Cutbacks and an unrevealed lie send the trio in their separate ways to be reunited seven years later. Holly Hunter is Jane Craig, a lovable, high-strung, control-freak news producer, who falls for a dim-witted, handsome and on the rise anchor William Hurt, who plays Tom Grenick. No role was more fitting then Aaron Altman performed by Albert Brooks, Brooks's made a hard working and witty veteran reporter complete with his brilliant performance. Pulling the film together with supporting roles was Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack, and Robert Provosky, not to mention a trivial role as senior anchorman played by Jack Nicholson. The setting is the high-stakes world of network television news, and although the technology has changed since the mid 1980's when this was made, the politics and the cutthroat environment are still exactly the same. The soundtrack is mainly dialogue driven lacking any memorable hits. Mainly featuring scene based tunes to keep the film flowing allowing the focus to stay with the actors' performances. Jane's dilemma is more in depth then looks versus love; it is an inner struggle tearing her apart. In one hand she has the handsome anchorman that is everything she cannot stand in media and the other is her long-time honest friend who still believes in integrity. Torn between the choice of integrity and selling the news she takes the new position and starts over. The performance from the three actors was outstanding and the accurate portrayal of the network production puts you on set. This spunky, romantic, comedy is well deserving of its Seven Oscar nominations. This delightful James L. Brooks film will leave you wondering if it is not too late to consider a new occupation.
Rating: 
Summary: News You Can Use
Review: Anyone who is interested in why television has done such damage to the news business just needs to watch this movie. (It is fun as well as informative)
Rating:
Summary: A true, intelligent romantic comedy
Review: Apart from sporting the most powerful newsroom dynamics since His Girl Friday, this film is a lasting account of the delicate balance between intelligence, power, and sexual attraction, and that manages to gently skewer the news industry at the same time. It is a simple yet intelligent romantic comedy, held up by crisp witty dialogue and topnotch performances by Holly Hunter and William Hurt both at the top of their game. Albert Brooks was nominated for an Oscar for his portrayal of a TV reporter who wants to be an anchor (even Jack Nicholson and John Cusack in little know roles turn in a surprise guest performance). One could speculate that this movie didn't walk away with any statuettes depite being nominated in several Oscar categories -- and this is my main gripe with the movie -- because the very interesting build-up did not really culminate into a very satisfying ending. Sort of leaves me wanting for something more everytime. Nevertless, the bustle of the entire movie is definitely worth a ride, if only due to its convincing examination of the atavistic social obsession with physical appearance and its ultimate triumph over intellect as a valued human attribute (personified by the meteoric career success of William Hurt's character in contrast to Brookes relative decline). I have seen this movie about 11 times now, and I can still take it -- that is saying something.
Rating:
Summary: Very Funny!!
Review: Being in the news business myself, I found this movie to be very funny. Some of the characters were actually characatures of some of the ego-driven, compulsive people I have met in the business. Brooks, Hunter and Hurt are the big three here and they work wonderfully together!!
|
