Has anyone read this Slate.com review of "Good Night and Good Luck"?

[lateo]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2127595/?nav=ais

The reviewer, Jack Shafer, started out by saying Clooney tried to turn Morrow into Jesus. It just goes downhill from there. It has a very anti-Morrow and Clooney slant...which really has no business in an objective movie review.

[phaseolus]

1. He must be in the minority

I've heard nothing but raves from other reviewers...

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Slate always came across to me as insider beltway.

Maybe even DLC-oriented.

[lateo]

3. Well...

The thing is...I have been checking out this guy Jack Shafer's articles...he is very much on our side....non-DLC type. He does have a kind of mixed bag of articles though.

[Ready4Change]

4. Political review of a political movie.

I haven't seen it, so I can't say I agree with the movies viewpoint, but from all I hear it seems clear the viewpoint is very political. And Slate is a definitely political site. So, to me, it's not surprising that Slate presented a review of the movies politics, rather than the movie itself.

[Dudley_DUright]

5. His biggest complaint seems to be that the movie is not completely

historically accurate. Duh! You want historical accuracy, watch a documentary.

[Demit]

6. Yup. He sounds like a disgruntled fan who doesn't like the movie because

it doesn't contain every scene in the book. And yet, finally, at the end of his "and another thing" nitpicky diatribe, it dawns on him that

"If I judge it correctly, Good Night, and Good Luck intends to serve as a parable for our times and not a history lesson. ..."

Congratulations, Mr. Shafer! Too bad we had to wade through all your tsk-tsking about what the movie WASN'T. someone should remind you of what a noted French film director said, it was something like, "If you don't like the movie I made, make the movie you want to make."