Officials sit at a long table during a formal government hearing
Series review

The Looming Tower

2018 · Created by Lawrence Wright, Dan Futterman, Alex Gibney · Series · 50m

In a sentenceJeff Daniels shouts at the CIA for eight hours and, annoyingly for the CIA, history agrees with him

New York, 1998. John O’Neill (Jeff Daniels) runs the FBI’s counterterrorism squad and is convinced that Osama bin Laden means to strike the United States. Standing in his way is Martin Schmidt (Peter Sarsgaard), who runs the CIA’s bin Laden unit in Washington and will not share what his analysts, among them Diane Priest (Wrenn Schmidt), have found. Richard Clarke (Michael Stuhlbarg) at the White House tries to keep the two agencies in the same room. O’Neill’s young agent Ali Soufan (Tahar Rahim), an Arabic speaker, is sent to read the documents nobody else can. In August 1998, bombs go off at the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, and the FBI flies out. The story is told from a hearing room in 2004, where Soufan is asked what went wrong.

Plays from YouTube when you press play; nothing loads from them until then.

Fi1m review

A patient, well-acted account of how the FBI and the CIA failed to talk to each other in the years before 11 September 2001. Jeff Daniels and Tahar Rahim are excellent; the CIA is written as a pantomime, and the series is weaker for it.

Lawrence Wright’s book The Looming Tower set out to explain how the United States had the pieces of the 11 September plot in front of it and never put them together. Wright, Dan Futterman and Alex Gibney have turned it into ten episodes of about fifty minutes, and their answer is simple: the CIA knew things, the FBI could have acted on them, and the two would not talk. It is a good series, patiently made and well acted, and worth your evenings if institutional failure is your idea of drama. Its weakness is the CIA, which it writes as a pantomime.

Jeff Daniels plays John O’Neill, who runs the FBI’s counterterrorism squad in New York, as a big, loud man in expensive suits who goes to Mass in the morning and to one of several women at night. Daniels lets him be a bully and a bore and still the cleverest man in most rooms, and he is good company for eight hours. Tahar Rahim’s Ali Soufan is the still point beside him, a young agent who speaks Arabic, reads the documents nobody else will read, and can sit across a table from a suspect and quote the Quran back at him. Rahim does most of his acting with his eyes, and the series is at its best when it stops and lets him listen.

The producers include Ali Soufan himself, and it shows in the shape of the thing. The FBI is never wrong. Peter Sarsgaard plays Martin Schmidt, a fictional composite standing in for the CIA’s bin Laden unit, as a soft-voiced man who withholds cables out of what looks like vanity, and Sarsgaard does the sneer well because the script gives him nothing else. The series does not ask why an intelligent man might believe the FBI would burn his sources; it simply has him refuse and lets us hiss. Michael Stuhlbarg’s Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism man caught between them, is the most believable of the three, exasperated in doorways, always one meeting short of authority.

Here is what we felt. Watching Schmidt sit on a piece of information the New York office needed, we were angry, properly so, hands tight on the arm of the sofa. A minute later we were slightly embarrassed, because the series had stacked the deck to get us there, and anger you have been handed is not worth as much as anger you have earned.

The craft is sober and mostly right. Lester Cohen designs the FBI’s New York office as beige partitions and stacked paper, and Schmidt’s unit as a windowless room of screens, so the contrast makes the argument without anyone stating it. Will Bates’s score stays low, a drone under the phone calls, and does not tell us when to be frightened. Real news footage of the period is cut in between scenes, Clinton at a podium, the impeachment hearings, so that the country’s attention is always shown to be elsewhere. The directors, Craig Zisk, Ali Selim, Michael Slovis, John Dahl and Gibney, keep the camera steady and the takes long, and the overseas episodes, in Nairobi and later in Yemen, are the strongest, because the agents are out of their depth and the series admits it.

The women are the other problem. Wrenn Schmidt’s Diane Priest, an analyst in Schmidt’s unit, is given a conscience and nothing to do with it. Virginia Kull’s Kathy Shaughnessy and Ella Rae Peck’s Heather exist to wait for O’Neill and Soufan to come home and to be lied to when they do. The scripts, by Futterman, Shannon Houston, Bathsheba Doran, Adam Rapp and Selim, also have a habit of making characters explain to each other things they both already know, so that we can overhear. Bill Camp’s Robert Chesney, across an interrogation table, is the exception: the series slows down, trusts two faces, and is briefly as good as anything in the genre.

Against Zero Dark Thirty, which followed the same enemy with fewer heroes, this is the more comfortable work. It ends where everybody knows it ends, and the last episode has the sense not to stage what we all watched on television. Watch it two episodes at a time and it holds. Do not expect it to argue with you; it decided who was to blame before the first cable was sent.

Critical consensus AI synthesised

65
Positive
8
Mixed
1
Negative
4

Most critics find The Looming Tower gripping and worth the time, a thorough and accessible account of the intelligence failures before 11 September that avoids flag-waving. The praise settles on the cast. Tahar Rahim’s Ali Soufan is the performance named most often, admired for its warmth and steadiness, with Jeff Daniels and Peter Sarsgaard commended for the hostility between their FBI and CIA men. Several reviews single out a long interrogation scene as the series at its best, and the restrained handling of the attack itself is repeatedly noted.

The reservations are consistent even among admirers: the female characters are thin, the romantic subplots feel routine, and the CIA figures shade towards caricature. The spread is wide. Four reviews are outright negative, with The Ringer calling it a comprehensive failure, Collider arguing it mistakes research for insight, and Vulture faulting it for flattening the ideological conflicts it sets out to explain.

IndieWire
26 February 2018 · A- · Ben Travers
90

Travers gives the series an enthusiastic verdict, calling it a gripping and indispensable telling of the 9/11 story. He praises the grounded performances, especially Jeff Daniels and Tahar Rahim, alongside the careful direction and period detail.

Read the full review →
The i Paper
28 June 2019 · ***** · Jeff Robson
90*

Robson calls the finale devastating and the series a superbly acted, well-scripted, tautly directed drama. He especially praises how the attack and its aftermath are conveyed through restrained scenes and poignant footage rather than CGI.

Read the full review →
The AV Club
28 February 2018 · B · Allison Shoemaker
77

Shoemaker finds the episode gripping despite predictable scenes, an unnecessary Alec Baldwin appearance, and underdeveloped female characters. She particularly praises the engrossing interrogation-room face-off between Bill Camp and Youssef Berouain.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
27 February 2018 · Jake Nevins
75*

The critic finds the series compelling and thorough, with its familiar ending made gripping by the careful build-up of tension. Daniels and Sarsgaard’s performances, especially their characters’ simmering hostility, stand out, though the women’s storylines feel underdeveloped.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
19 February 2018 · Daniel Fienberg
75*

Fienberg finds the limited series gripping and historically illuminating, though some of its romantic subplots feel rote and its female characters underdeveloped. He particularly praises Tahar Rahim’s empathetic portrayal of Ali Soufan and the ensemble’s balance.

Read the full review →
Variety
28 February 2018 · Maureen Ryan
75*

Ryan finds the series accessible and illuminating, handling its complicated history without triumphalism or oversimplification. She especially praises the human texture of the characters and the cast’s performances, while noting that Soufan’s personal life falls flat.

Read the full review →

Straight answers AI written, from our review

Is The Looming Tower worth watching?
The Looming Tower is worth watching if institutional failure is your idea of drama, and we scored it 70. Jeff Daniels and Tahar Rahim are excellent as the FBI men who saw the 11 September plot coming, but the CIA is written as a pantomime villain, so the series never argues with itself. Watch it two episodes at a time and it holds.
How long is The Looming Tower, and what is it rated?
The Looming Tower has episodes of about 50m. It is a war & politics and drama series.
Where can I watch The Looming Tower in Portugal?
The Looming Tower is not on any streaming or rental service in Portugal at the moment. It is available in 6 other countries; change your country at the top of the page to see where. Availability is checked daily.
How violent or frightening is The Looming Tower, and is it suitable for children?
The Looming Tower is not suitable for children: it carries an American TV-MA rating and has no UK certificate, and its subject is the run-up to the 11 September attacks. The embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam are shown, interrogations run long, and the hero keeps several women he lies to. Older teenagers with an interest in the history will manage it.
How does The Looming Tower compare to Zero Dark Thirty?
The Looming Tower tells the same hunt for bin Laden as Zero Dark Thirty, but from the FBI side, over eight hours, and with far more certainty about who was to blame. Kathryn Bigelow's film is the colder and harder of the two, less sure anyone deserves credit, and it makes the better argument. The series is the warmer company, with Jeff Daniels a bigger presence than anyone Bigelow allows.
What should I watch after The Looming Tower?
After The Looming Tower, try Zero Dark Thirty (2012, Fi1m 80): The same hunt from the other agency, colder, and less sure anyone deserves credit. Then The Battle of Algiers (1966, Fi1m 93): Sixty years old and still the sharpest film about how insurgencies are found and fought.

Cast

If you liked this, try…

  1. Carlos (2010) · not on Fi1m yetAssayas follows a terrorist for five hours and never once tells you what to think.

  2. Zero Dark Thirty (2012, Fi1m 80)The same hunt from the other agency, colder, and less sure anyone deserves credit.

  3. The Report (2019) · not on Fi1m yetOne Senate staffer, a basement and a decade of CIA paperwork; drier and angrier.

  4. A Most Wanted Man (2014) · not on Fi1m yetHoffman’s last lead, a Hamburg spy watching the Americans arrive to ruin his patient work.

  5. The Battle of Algiers (1966, Fi1m 93)Sixty years old and still the sharpest film about how insurgencies are found and fought.