Incannerax What a waste of my time!!!

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Ortiz Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

sddavis63 This isn't really about the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It deals more with the lead-up to the war, especially from the point of view of the journalists covering the period, focusing especially on the CNN team that was assigned to Baghdad. In a way, that's really more the focus. The movie depicts CNN - then a relative newcomer to the news scene - as it "comes of age" in a sense, the team dealing with putdowns from other reporters, having to navigate the maze of Saddam Hussein era Iraqi bureaucracy to do much of anything, sometimes being used by the Iraqis to get their message across and finally getting the story that no other news agency was able to get - being "on the ground" so to speak as the American bombing of Baghdad began. Although it was clear that the story of the CNN news team was going to be front and centre - and therefore it wasn't a surprise - that did somewhat weaken the movie, which at times seemed like a bit of a commercial for CNN. The story begins with a depiction of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and in its first few scenes offers a fair bit of colour as it portrays a Baghdad increasingly apprehensive about the potential of war. Michael Keaton did a decent job as CNN producer Robert Wiener, and David Suchet was totally believable as the Iraqi official with whom he mostly deals. Both characters are portrayed as playing the roles assigned to them (US reporter and Iraqi official) but they're also shown as tentatively stepping out of those roles to develop a relationship - even friendship - with each other. The story becomes a bit repetitive and mundane for a while (which probably is an accurate portrayal of the frustration Wiener and his team felt as they tried to do accurate reporting while bound by Iraqi censorship.) You develop a sort of "bring it on" feeling after a while, knowing that this is all leading up to CNN's coverage of the American bombing of Baghdad (they being the only network left in Baghdad to cover it) which, when it finally comes, is brilliantly and realistically portrayed.In general, the supporting performances were all very good, with perhaps the weakest being that of Robert Wisdom as CNN anchor Bernard Shaw, who seemed to come across as a bit forced in the part - although his shell-shocked meandering (during an on-air report) into the turkey sandwich he'd be enjoying at his desk in Atlanta if he weren't in Baghdad added some necessary humour after a rather heavy few scenes. As I noted, it's a bit too much of a commercial for CNN - especially the footage of virtually every other network talking about what a great job CNN had done and how CNN had "come of age." The cat and mouse game between the crew and the Iraqi government also gets a bit dry after a while. But for the ending alone as the bombing starts, it's good entertainment.

ekw ekw 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.

LydiaHollowell 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.

mans99 "Live From Baghdad" is an excellent first person account of CNN's place in history as the news organization permitted by the Iraqi government to broadcast during the Gulf War.That being said, I do have complaints. Mainly that the movie leaves the impression that CNN was the only network on the air when the bombing campaign began. In fact - and printed transcripts back this up - former ABC News correspondent Garry Shepherd was the first western journalist to report that the bombing campaign had begun, beating out CNN by about 6 minutes. ABC's World News Tonight dumped out, in the middle of a report on the mood in Baghdad, to air Shepherd's phone account of the bombing campaign. He was allowed to continue for about 5 to 10 minutes before the Iraqi government cut the phone lines to the Al Rasheed Hotel, where the journalists were staying.If they had not been watching ABC that night, most viewers of this movie would not know that ABC broke the story of the bombing campaign. The movie implies that on 1/15/91 all other western journalists were trying to get out of Baghdad. Only later when we see that ABC producer in the bomb shelter is there any evidence that ABC was still there.I understand this is Robert Weiner's story to tell, and to that extent it is an excellent docudrama of his and CNN's place in history.