September 5 (2024)

Mintzer finds the film riveting and relevant, praising its suspenseful account of the newsroom’s response to the Munich attacks. He singles out the performances and the film’s skillful integration of archival footage with intimate recreations.

Ebiri finds the film tightly constructed and intensely suspenseful, making a familiar historical outcome feel uncertain. He especially praises the meticulous recreation of ABC’s studio and the use of real archival footage.

Bradshaw finds the film smart, involving and muscularly made, though its deliberate avoidance of historical and political implications may seem naive or obtuse. He praises its tense, claustrophobic depiction of live television journalism under pressure.

Weitzman presents it as a gripping newsroom drama. The review singles out its account of one world-altering day in Munich.

The critic finds the film a gripping, distinctive single-room thriller, though its exploration of media ethics is less penetrating than it might be. They praise the archival news footage and John Magaro’s compelling performance.

Webb finds the film compelling and well performed, praising its tense, immersive depiction of the broadcast team at work. She says its focus on newsroom operations leaves some of the event’s larger political questions underexplored.

Nicholson finds the film a brisk, tense account of the ethical strain of live crisis reporting, though its contained approach can grow less compelling as events slow. She praises its tactile period details and the way it shows how television images shape a story.

Debruge finds the newsroom drama relevant and taut, though its focus leaves important aspects of the hostage crisis outside the frame. He praises its documentary-like style and the tense, careful performances of Peter Sarsgaard and John Magaro.

The accessible page identifies this as a Venice review, but the review text is behind a paywall. The standfirst describes a tense newsroom drama, but the critic’s verdict and specific praise or complaint are unavailable.

The page could not be read, so the critic’s verdict is unavailable. No specific praise or complaint can be verified from the provided content.

Brody finds the film vigorous but narrow, praising the cast’s energetic portrayal of the journalists’ pursuit of scoops and facts. He faults the script for detaching its characters from history and politics, and suggests the film only hints at a more compelling treatment of those issues.

The critic finds the film taut but politically unserious and too eager to avoid the crisis’s geopolitical significance. They single out its docu-realistic depiction of the ABC crew’s 17-hour ordeal as effective.

Hammond finds the docudrama riveting and says it succeeds on every level. He especially praises John Magaro’s performance and the film’s skillful blend of archival broadcast footage with recreated action.

The review calls the film a compelling, fiercely relevant thriller. It praises the ensemble cast and the seamless integration of real footage.

The critic finds it a tense, nail-biting thriller despite its shortcomings. The live-reporting perspective and stylistic choices work well, while the film’s socially charged angle remains underdeveloped.

The review finds the newsroom thriller riveting but ultimately less impactful because of its apolitical stance and abrupt ending. It praises the tense atmosphere and the standout performances by Peter Sarsgaard and John Magaro.

The critic finds the film an effective and valuable addition to journalism and terrorism dramas, while acknowledging its serious moral ambivalence. They praise its confined perspective for bringing the story’s ethical dilemmas into focus.