Live from Baghdad (2002)

Fantastic movie!

This is a great movie because it is about the first Gulf War. I think people forget what happened then and how it relates to today. It is also an interesting accounting of the beginning of 24 hour news. All actors do a great job. February 6, 2007

Reaffirms my opinion

While this movie was well written and acted, it did strengthen my opinion about those in the media. I know alot of people may disagree with me on this, but in this film I saw nothing more than sick, egotistical vultures scrambling around trying to find "the next big story" with little regard to the people they hurt. For those of you who view the media of being comprised of elitist know-it-alls, watching this movie will assure you that your assessment is correct.

There are many examples throughout the course of the movie. The obvious fear of the British child being held hostage by Saddam being reduced to merely being a great story. The members of the other networks basically saying that it is their job to tell viewers what is important and why. The CNN crew agreeing to keep quiet about atrocities they saw in Iraq and Kuwait to avoid being thrown out of the country (so much for "we report, you decide"). Weiner sympathizing with the Iraqi propaganda official despite the fact that a hostage he interviewed was kidnapped, most likely under the orders of the same official. And on, and on.

Bottom line, this movie does a splendid job of showing how most of those in the media are legends in their own minds who will stop at nothing to exploit any human tragedy and suffering in the hopes of making it big, although I'm sure that this is not what the makers of the film were going for. There is nothing honorable about them. They were, and are, vultures. May 18, 2006

Sound and Fury

This is probably a fairly accurate representation of how newscasters operated in Iraq during the Desert Storm War, and of how they operate in general in front-line, crisis situations. I think the movie was aiming at evoking viewers' admiration for the newscasters' courage and stamina in "getting the story." It was supposed to be a paean to CNN as it established itself as a credible, round-the-clock news source during this War. But for me, the movie had the opposite effect. It showed how rash and ultimately futile most of the media people's actions on the scene were.

Everyone is either on an adrenaline rush in this movie, or else is waiting it out in a tavern getting sloshed and sloppy. There is no happy in-between when any sane, informative reporting can take place. During their "on" periods, newscasters are seen rushing down corridors, pushing each other, jostling, jockeying to get the story before other broadcast networks can get it. And the story is usually some canned speech by Saddam Hussein or one of his cabinet members. People stoke their sense of self-importance by surrounding themselves with ringing phones. They agonize over power outages. It's all frenetic activity - signifying nothing.

Because when the War really starts, all that we get out of these many reporters' efforts are exclamations announcing another SCUD missile hit. We get "Wow! That was a big explosion! Wow, another one! The sky is lit up!" People risked their lives to tell the listening American public that a bomb just lit up the sky?

It seems there would have been opportunities for intrepid reporters to go out into Baghdad and get stories that would really have mattered - stories that would have enlightened the American public about the climate of opinion there, about conditions among Iraqi citizens, and about reasons for going to War or not going to War. But virtually nothing like that comes across. In the end, it all comes down to, "Wow, that was a big one!"

So I do think this movie is worth watching, but probably not for the reasons it was made. Instead of coming away from the film with an illustration of how good and worthy our reporters are, you, like me, may come away with an illustration of how far our news coverage needs to advance in order to be a really useful tool in the democratic decision-making process.
May 11, 2006

Making Money Will Win Out

The movie portrays a group of CNN reporters grappling with journalistic ethics and the hazards of reporting in a modern war-zone. The message the film generally sends to its audience, although a bit corny, is that nations can avoid conflict by discussion and, of course, CNN would like to be the ones to orchestrate and film it. In the film Robert Wiener is a pushy on-location producer who is know for doing anything to get a story. Ingrid Formanek is his assistant producer and she turns the hardened journalist away from pursuing the risky ultimate story by reminding him of his family; really pulls those heart strings huh? As stated above the plot is beyond cheesy; it is simply Hollywood entertaining us with the typical fast love and action story. Although Mick Jackson and HBO might say differently, what happened in Baghdad was probably very different then what happened in the film.
It was said that the art of making movies is the art of the middle. Making a film basic enough so that most people can get the jokes and understand what is happening. Hollywood's objective is, obviously, to make enough money to cover the cost of producing a film and at the same time to turn a profit. So, it is understandable if not enjoyable that Mick Jackson makes the events that transpired in Baghdad into some trite love story; he is trying to appeal to a certain kind of crowd that is drawn to those tired old clichés. It is sad that most directors are concerned with making money first and getting their messages out second.
One thing, however, that Jackson does well is to portray the CNN reporters in his film as people with agendas. He does not try to fool the audience by having his characters spout garbage about "the people's right to know," he cuts straight to the bone with how Weiner is trying to get the ultimate story in order to advance his career. Overall the film works as an entertaining drama, but it provides surprisingly little information of the events surrounding the 1991 Gulf War.
February 8, 2006

"People start dying when we stop talking"

"Live From Baghdad" is a truely facinating movie, probably the best movie focusing on journalism since "All the President's Men". Set in 1990, Michael Keaton plays CNN producer Robert Wiesner who manages to convince his boss to send him a a small crew to Baghdad to cover the mounting conflict between Iraq (which had just invaded Kuwait) and the U.N., spearheaded by the U.S. As the tenstions mount politically the CNN crew, now being co-supervised by producer Ingrid Formaneck (Helena Bohnam Carter), are being constantly belittled by the Big Three, ABC, CBS, and NBC. But on the eve of Desert Storm, the others clear out, leaving CNN the only crew in town to cover the war.

The production values are outstanding. You would almsot think they were filming in Iraq (in fact a lot of it was stock footage). The story is truelly great, if a little redundent, you know, cynical reporter finds his humanity in the middle of the war. But with Michael Keaton, Carter, Bruce McGill (as vetern war correspondant Peter Arnett) and most especially David Suchet, he dose an incredible job as Iraqi Information Minister Naji Sabri al-Hadithi by portreying him as a deeply patriotic man, very dedicated to his people and his country. This is a great film, I can not recomend it enough. January 13, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...