'Shock and Awe' is a rote piece of work
The movie, which proves yet again that righteousness does not in itself make for a good film, depicts the work of the Knight Ridder journalists who worked in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War.
'Shock and Awe' stars James Marsden (l.) and Woody Harrelson (r.).
Courtesy of Vertical Entertainment
These days, if you want to make another movie about the trials and tribulations of the press, you have to come up with something pretty special. When 鈥淪potlight鈥� came out, everybody compared it to 鈥淎ll the President鈥檚 Men.鈥� When 鈥淭he Post鈥� opened last year, it was compared, not always favorably, to both of those films.
Now comes Rob Reiner鈥檚 鈥淪hock and Awe,鈥� about the crusading Knight Ridder journalists who, in the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, dared question the George W. Bush administration鈥檚 weapons of mass destruction rationale for taking military action. One can admire the doggedness of these newspapermen 鈥� Warren Strobel (James Marsden); Jonathan Landay (a miscast Woody Harrelson, though still fun to watch); their editor, John Walcott (Reiner); and Joe Galloway (Tommy Lee Jones), the celebrated war correspondent who was brought in as an adviser 鈥� and still feel that 鈥淪hock and Awe鈥� is fundamentally lacking in either quality.
It鈥檚 a rote piece of work that, oddly, also feels dated even at a time when the press and the White House have rarely been more at odds. Reiner and his screenwriter, Joey Hartstone (with whom he also collaborated on the moribund 鈥淟BJ,鈥� starring Harrelson), present the indefatigable reporters as Knight Ridders in Shining Armor countering not only the White House but also an establishment press that, in the film鈥檚 view, certified the administration鈥檚 WMD hysteria. (The New York Times and its reporter Judith Miller are especially singled out for opprobrium.) 鈥淪hock and Awe鈥� is proof yet again that righteousness does not in itself make for a good movie. Grade:聽C (Rated R for language, including some sexual references.)