Live from Baghdad (2002)

Fantastic!

Excellent, Without a doubt!!

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Mick Jackson's Critical Darling 'Live from Baghdad' is an Awesome watch. A brutal look at Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, comes a film that's hard to forget. And Michael Keaton, One Of THE Best Actors in Cinema, Is In Top Form! 'Live from Baghdad' Synopsis: A group of CNN reporters wrestle with journalistic ethics and the life-and-death perils of reporting during the Gulf War.The Persian Gulf War in 1991, was a human-study. It was calculative, manipulative & aggressive. Robert Wiener, Richard Chapman & John Patrick Shanley's Screenplay is Taut & Unforgettable. It delivers a path-breaking story & uses a brutal history piece as its wallpaper. Mick Jackson's Direction is Razor-Sharp. Cinematography is excellent. Editing is good. Performance-Wise: Michael Keaton as Robert Wiener, is masterful. Keaton sinks his teeth into the part & performs with flying colors. Helena Bonham Carter is magnificent, as usual. Paul Guilfoyle is first-rate. Michael Cudlitz is quite natural. Lili Taylor & Bruce McGill are adequate. On the whole, 'Live from Baghdad' is Bloody Good! Strongly Recommended!

What we now know about CNN is that they kept secret many things they knew that Saddam was doing in order to keep this very Baghdad office open. In at least one instance, this resulted in the deaths of two of Saddam's sons-in-law when CNN failed to warn them that they were to be executed when they came back from the U.S. CNN knew this. They kept quiet about what they knew in order to keep their bureau open. The men came back, they were executed. Here is a link:http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/20/1050777161410.htmlCNN did this throughout the 90's and up until it was clear that the U.S. was going to overrun Baghdad. At that point the senior editor in chief of the Baghdad news bureau did a preemptive admission. He copped to hiding facts that might reflect poorly on Saddam and the Ba'ath Party so that they didn't incur the dictator's wrath. They needed to stay competitive and to protect their Iraqi staff (didn't other networks have this problem as well?) was the justification. My question was and is, if you aren't going to report the truth, or as much of it as you know, then what is the point of your bureau other than that it provided you with a nice income with bonus hazardous duty pay? What is the point in staying competitive when all you are doing is sending out soft stories that steer clear of the truly horrific stuff Saddam was doing? And what is the point of keeping silent about things you know when life and death are in the balance? I need to ask the same thing the guy asks Michael Keaton's character in this film: How do you sleep at night? One might also wonder, why, once CNN cemented itself in the public's mind as the brave network that stuck when others ran, that it curled up in a corner and became a network that protected its own image rather than report the truth of the outrages of Saddam's horrific rule? Whatever they gained in 1991, they lost in 2003, and not only did they lose the confidence of the public, but since 2003 the other networks' credibility has steadily eroded in the face of the multiple checks on them by pajama-clad Internet bloggers who just don't take the networks at their word anymore. This, as far as I'm concerned, is the best thing that has happened to journalism since the Sixties. This movie seems to me to be CNN trying to remind us all how important they are, but events have overtaken them, and this now looks like a display in a museum.

If you like Michael Keaton and you're used to him being funny (which he is), you will be surprised and impressed at his ability to play it serious. The subject is serious, and what happened to the actual people this movie is based on, is really serious, and the ensemble in this movie work well together. They bring in excellent, very believable performances. Helena Bonham-Carter is superb and "bounces" off Keaton well. They have a wonderful "friendship"; someone to talk to in the midst of an upcoming war that no one can stop. The special effects are "dead on" and the viewer will feel as though they are there. David Suchet, the lovable and brilliant Hercule Perot(sp?), will amaze you, again, at his ability to play a role so different than so many he's done. His acting in this film is also "dead on" and you have to empathize with Suchet's character and Keaton's. They are caught in a situation where neither one wants to be. Enjoy this one. You will.

I guess this is a story based on real characters. You would have to be a real news junkie to say for sure, but I seem to recognize many aspects of the story as real history. And there is some real journalism history that shows up as news items in this movie. Sometimes journalism is news too.But history is the only worthwhile story here offered up by the script. Dialog is very weak and our two lead actors clearly have a hard time with it.Way down in the credits here at IMDB is David Suchet who plays Naji Al-Nadithi, a contact with the Iraqi ministry of information. He is only the actor who seems to have any fun with his part. I remember him from the excellent spy thriller, "The Falcon and the Snowman".