I see 42's point. In many cases, we would have given a bit more time to the set up of story, but since this is a movie wherin the basic setup is a matter of widley known history, I suppose we just assumed that people would know the basics. This may have been a mistake.
The plot of the movie is very starightforward: it's simply about Edward R. Murrow, a reporter for the CBS network, who did a series of editorial peices which challenged the bullying tactics of Senator Joseph McCarthy. The story follows the airing of those peices and the fallout from them, both in terms of what McCarthy attempted to do in retaliation, and how the peices effected meaningful change.
I have no problem with someone disliking our reviews - I think it would be hypocritical for a critic to be unwilling to take criticism (say that three times fast.). But when you cover the fact that a movie is brilliantly acted, written and directed (and explaining what about the direction), to me the three most important aspects in any film, it's hard for me to understand where the complaint is coming from. Again, I feel that perhaps we assumed too much as far as public knowledge of the history of these events.
