ManiakJiggy This is How Movies Should Be Made

Develiker terrible... so disappointed.

Peereddi I was totally surprised at how great this film.You could feel your paranoia rise as the film went on and as you gradually learned the details of the real situation.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

preppy-3 Movie about the House Committee on Un-American Activities and their attack on supposed communism in Hollywood. It takes place in 1951 and director David Merrill (Robert DeNiro) returns from France to find Hollywood and his friends living in terror of being called to testify in front of the committee. If you didn't name names your career was officially over and you were (unofficially) suspected of being a communist. Merrill refuses to name anybody and his life becomes a nightmare. It also affects his ex-wife Ruth (Annette Bening) and friend Bunny Baxter (George Wendt).This movie has good intentions and it's great that anybody made a film dealing with the horrendous witch hunts in the 1950s--but this film just doesn't work. It's simplistic to a ridiculous degree--EVERYTHING is dumbed down so anyone can get it. Also the plot is obvious (I was always one step ahead of this) and the movie is overlong. However the movie looks just great and the music is wonderful. Acting really helps this one--DeNiro is a little subdued but still good; Bening is given the thankless ex-wife role but pulls it off; Wendt overdoes it at times but is basically pretty good and Patricia Wettig (as a friend who cracks under the strain) is WAY over the top to an embarrassing degree. Also it's amusing to see Martin Scorses in a small role as a director. Ultimately the film is too bland to really work--but the courtroom sequence at the end does provide real fireworks. Worth seeing if you know nothing about what happened in Hollywood back then. I can only give it a 5.

bob the moo In 1947 the House Committee on Un-American Activities began an investigation into Communism in Hollywood. Shortly after this director David Merrill returns from filming abroad. It is not long before he is targeted for having attended "a few meetings" a few years ago. The approach is softly, softly with the committee just wanting Merrill to name some more names for them. When he refuses to help, he finds himself gradually cut out of studios and projects, with fewer and fewer people willing to take his calls.The period of history around which this film is set is an interesting one and one that is worth knowing about as part of the whole "learning from history" ideal. However this is not the same as the film itself being good because unfortunately it is not what I would have liked. It relies too heavily on the informative nature of the recreation of the period rather than developing an interesting script with realistic characters. It doesn't help that the film tries to be all very serious and respectful but does rather fail and ends up coming over all earnest and self important. The script also tries not to really upset anyone who didn't take the moral stance of the fictional Merrill by just focusing on him even though it would have been a lot more interesting if it had had outrage, bitterness and realism at its heart.Winkler directs without a great deal of style and his courtroom scene is average where it should have been the best scene of the film. De Niro works his material hard and makes for an engaging lead, however it is the lack of depth and complexity in his material that limits his performance. This is more or less true of the rest of the cast which, although starry, doesn't really provide anyone in particular with an opportunity to mark themselves out. Bening, Wendt, Wettig, Wanamaker, Sizemore, Scorsese, Cooper and others are good presences but not much more than that.Overall then an interesting film in so much as it informs about an important period of history. However it is all very earnest and safe and lost a lot of potential for me. The cast is starry but the material is middle-of-the-road and didn't give anyone the complexity and outrage that the subject deserved.

PortugalOle7 Entertaining film about the Hollywood blacklisting scandal during the 1950's. Follows the story of a film director (De Niro) who returns from Europe to find Hollywood a little different than when he left. Before he can make his next big film he must clear his name in front of a committee to prove he is not a Communist. Sounds easy enough? Not really. He must agree to name 10 people, most are his friends, who will be charged with being Communists. This list includes his closest friend who is a writer, played by George Wendt. When De Niro's character refuses, his ability to get work vanishes. I expected more from the acting. De Niro was OK but I was disappointed with Bening, who plays De Niro's ex-wife and the rest of the cast. They all seem very bland, like they are going through the motions. The story drags a little bit when you keep thinking De Niro will never get another job until he decides to agree upon some of these names for the committee. One thing this film does do is expose the foolishness that was going on in Hollywood. Innocent men and woman were put out of work under falsehoods over and over.

Mark The merit of this film is that it portrays the mechanism, the mentality and the impact on human character of what might very well be any communist regime there ever was in a stunningly perfect way (as a person grown up in a socialist country, believe me - I know!) - only here represented by people who are supposed to prevent communism from spreading! A great comment on human nature - whether intended or not is less important. If I didn't know better, I'd believe this was a Hollywood remake of some film about Stalin's 30:s purges or Polish repressions against the right wing combatants in the 50:s. Solid performance from De Niro, supported by a talented cast. Martin Scorsese appears in a cameo that must be one of the most extensive in his acting career.