Da 5 Bloods
On the Record
I May Destroy You
Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Sign up here
Already have an account? Log in here
and the Terms and Policies,
and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango.
Please enter your email address and we will email you a new password.
We encourage our community to report abusive content and/ or spam. Our team will review flagged items and determine whether or not they meet our community guidelines.
Please choose best explanation for why you are flagging this review.
Thank you for your submission. This post has been submitted for our review.
Sincerely, The Rotten Tomatoes Team
Brilliant satire and characterization in writing and performance.
Cute and really well acted.
In 1987 I was just beginning an experience of working for a local newspaper in the city where I was born and I, at the age of 21, was hired to diagram the pages of that local newspaper.
What I always remember until today of that little adventure in journalism was not necessarily my job, but how exciting it was to be a part, even if indirectly, because I didn't have much experience with that media. The reporters were arriving at night with the news around 7 pm and debating with others the issues that will be on the next day's edition.
That same year the film "Broadcast News" directed by James L Brooks and with a cast of top actors came on the cinemas showing very effectively what happened behind the scenes of a TV network also about journalism. For my pleasure and somewhat differently, that world represented in the film became very familiar to me.
From the speed with which we had to work and make headlines for everyone involved to close that newspaper just before midnight and without delay with the utmost care with the content and quality of the information. Who knew that integrity today would be a thing of the past ... what a pity!
The film is more complete in the sense of being a very authentic and original comedy in the sense of the three main actors had a relationship between themselves and together quite abnormal and in this view at that moment when I found myself also seemed similar because I remember some small conversations (there was not much time for long conversation) in which the editor in chief complained about the problems he had with his wife who demanded more attention from him in married life and he always said he did not have time. Perhaps that is why in the film everyone at the beginning is solitary and very poorly solved with personal dramas that were reflected all the time and since high school that is shown at the beginning of the film when the actors are presented in young versions. The film even invites us to a reflection that as we get older we believe until today that the experience makes us better people but I don't think that is what the film shows us. More stubborn they have become.
The film also shows a very incoherent and even absurd love triangle but that is the most interesting part of the film's script. We have producer Jane (superb Holly Hunter) who is immensely strong and talented but who cries every morning before leaving for work her best friend Aaron (Albert Brooks in one of his memorable performances) and colleague who secretly sows a withdrawn and unrequited love simply because Jane does not imagine him as a kind of boyfriend and finely Tom (William Hurt one of the best actors of the 80s) athletic and handsome, very ambitious and unintelligent but who will not measure scruples to achieve the dream position of almost any reporter ... anchor of the evening newspaper and in the process Jane's heart.
Not to mention the supporting cast, this is equally sensational with a cameo Jack Nicholson. But it is the hilarious script (also by James L Brooks) that remains current, keeping the technology differences of our current world with the one that used to keep this film fresh and funny until today.
This film brings back great memories of a decade when there were social problems like today but there were also information professionals with a certain concept of not compromising their particular vision on the news and in the most impartial way possible, without deceiving or hiding the truth. and seek to promote a smarter public debate always in the sense of seeking solutions as a community and together achieving better results.
Even though we are simply human beings with the defects that Tom, Jane and Aaron had but they also just tried to be happier. Thanks for the memories for the drama and laughter.
Here you can also find my video log CINEMIN dedicated to the film. Thank you.
This is a very good movie from 1987. William Hurt, Holly Hunter and Albert Brooks all received Oscar Nominations for their roles in this film. It was also nominated for Best Picture. Great Character development with a Great story. James L Brooks is at the top of his game with this film.
This one felt kinda half-baked for me. The story has some genuinely funny moments as well as a few pointed bits of media critique, but the whole thing is overall too focused on Holly Hunter's love life to pack much of a wallop to stand the test of time.
I know its not fair to judge it by today's standards, but the big climax being Hunter breaking it off with William Hurt over some phony tears on camera is borderline laughable. I only wish that were still the biggest journalism sin one could commit.
This is a well written heartwarming movie. Albert Brooks nails it as a smart guy that hasn't realized he's a nightmarish "nice guy."
There's a lot of layers to this movie that I liked. I think the ending was a little off for me, it didn't feel right. Overall though, it was a special movie and worth watching.
Supreme acting is the main ingredient.
Three newspeople experience adulthood.
Enjoyed how they introduced the three main characters as children, but the early beginning is choppy. Holly Hunter in her groove is just a joy to watch. Quite the interesting love-triangle. Aaron (Albert Brooks) goes from charming to unbecoming to charming from sentence to sentence. But as the film proceeds, I really found myself liking him less and less — and in the "7 Years Later" scene, he is still an unbecoming, bitter person despite having what he wanted (child, wife, anchor). I feel like the film wants us to feel for the character — he was viciously bullied even as a high-schooler, and although he is talented at the job he has, he doesn't perform when given the shot for the job he wants — but I just couldn't muster up any sympathy for him. The climax shows how vastly different the standards for media have become from the 80s — for the worse.
I loved Terms of Endearment (1983) with such an intense and fevered passion that almost no follow up could have matched that film and unfortunately this film does suffer in comparison. Director James L. Brooks proves he still has the ability to work with talented ensemble casts and includes several sharp, witty lines in his screenplay but the feeling that he didn't know how to end the film and Hunter's occasionally one note performance let the film down. I still enjoyed myself and felt that this film had a lot more to say about relationships and the nature of the media than the average romantic comedy but there was never the magic of Brooks' directorial debut and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth.
Motivated television news producer Jane Craig, Holly Hunter, befriends dimwitted anchorman Tom Grunick, William Hurt, before learning that he has been hired to work with her and the two discuss his insecurities over his lack of intelligence. Her best friend is smart reporter Aaron Altman, Albert Brooks, who is not as good looking as Grunick and is therefore replaced by Grunick as an anchor and not considered a serious romantic prospect by Craig. Craig is conflicted over her feelings for Grunick as she worries that he is shallow and not as committed to his job as she is. Altman fails in his attempt to become an anchor while Grunick continues to climb the corporate ladder despite his questionable journalistic practices. Although Craig and Grunick are initially happy in their relationship a series of layoffs lead to revelations that cause Craig to leave both of her male suitors.
The first half of the film moves along quite nicely as while it often feels like a story in need of a plot and is quite willing to meander that is the same tone that Terms of Endearment adopted and so we give it the benefit of the doubt. Unlike that film this one never finds the moment it has been building up to. Terms of Endearment is a cancer movie that works as a detailed and touching character study in it's first half that makes us really care when the figure suffering from cancer dies. Here we meet three relatively interesting characters who eventually come close to being compatible but, because a love triangle is set up, we must have the women end up with one of the two characters. This movie refuses to commit to either of the men and instead the women ends up with neither of them which does not leave us satisfied. Despite the screenplay arguing that her decision to leave Hurt is about journalistic integrity it is still difficult to understand how she transitions from being completely committed to the relationship to wanting to be alone. The epilogue is also unsatisfactory as it doesn't tell us anything about the characters and feels tacked on, probably another effort to save the film from feeling directionless.
This is a shame because within the film there are a few really memorable scenes that are a mix between observational comedy and touching melodrama. Jack Nicholson gets to shine as selfish anchor Bill Rorish who expresses his sadness over the firing of the majority of the workers in the newsroom but bristles at the accusation that if he dropped his salary by "a million or so" he would make it possible for these people to remain employed. Nicholson is so brilliantly uptight and self centered in this scene that we can't help feeling a certain degree of disgust for him and seeing him taken down a peg is joyous. There were several more moments like this one and these are the sort of scenes that Brooks excels at.
Oddly, the performances, more specifically the lead performance, were what sometimes hurt the film. Hunter works in one register throughout the film and while her plucky but tender on the inside act may have impressed in 1987 it has been improved upon in the following years. I would not have nominated her or William Hurt for Academy Awards because they gave acceptable but never stunning performances and didn't make me fall in love with their characters in the way that I should have.
Holly Hunter is magnetic in this drama about the shift in broadcast news into entertainment. William Hurt also gives a solid performance. While I always love Albert Brooks, his role doesn't age well as the "good guy" who doesn't get the girl and is very sore grapes about it. Overall an entertaining watch, although the ending leaves something to be desired.