It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

The acting, screen-writing and inter-personal dynamics are very good in this movie. The plot is cohesive and mostly coherent and no scenes were wasted on trivial "fluff". The only thing I wish had happened was for William Hurt's character to be more developed. This was an over-sight in the film's script, in my opinion.Tom Grunnick is too-nice-of-a-guy to be the malevolent, shallow, sensationalist manipulator of the public that both Albert Brooks' character and Holly Hunter's (eventually) make him him to be. It seems like the director wanted to have his news and read it, too:A mellow, likable, moderately-intelligent, but good-looking sports caster is thrust into the role of anchorman, probably on his looks and connections, and is then accused by some of his closest workmates of shallowness and sensationalism, but we are given only one instance of Grunnick embodying and displaying this propensity.What we needed was to meet Tom Grunnick. We are never given much indication of what is important to him and what he considers good news casting/reporting. This is a problem with many movies, where character development is minimal or absent. At the very least, Jane should have asked him (in the car) "What made you choose the subject of date-rape as your first original piece? Why is that important to you?"Why didn't she ask to collaborate on this piece, given her alleged social altruism?We see, here, that Holly Hunter's character needs development, too. We know she is ambitious and her timing and inter-personal skills are good, but what are her ideals that Albert Brooks' character alludes to toward the end of the movie? Jane Craig is much more moral and substantial than Tom Grunnick? If so, we need to see and explore this. Director and screen-writer James Brooks should have spent more time illustrating and emphasizing this dynamic.Albert Brooks' character may have been the best part of the movie. His even-tempered caring for Jane, covering a simmering passion and sometimes anger, were acted in an excellent manner. With the theme of date-rape in the movie, we half-expect Aaron Altman to take advantage of Jane at some point, but he never does. I found his humor and self-discipline very well displayed.All three; Brooks, Hunter and Hurt do great acting in this movie and the dynamics are excellent. A little more character development would have gone a long way.

Finally after many years watched this 1987 film "Broadcast News" and it was done and paced well as most James L. Brooks(as he directed) films are. It's a look and take on the world of news that of a network news wing and it's blends work with the life and times of the central characters involved. Holly Hunter is good as an eager headstrong and direct news producer who will work around the clock to get a news story on the news as she tries to get stories true to the times and make it a ratings hit! On the side William Hurt is proper and a little arrogant as the head news anchor who will have his life turned upside down. And Albert Brooks is humble and hard working as an up and coming want to be news star who's just a reporter it's like he's behind the scenes.Aside from seeing the behind the scenes and inner working of news and breaking stories in the room the film blends with the relationships and love life's of the central characters and it's nice to see the legendary Jack Nicholson with some cameo work as the top nightly news anchor and the attractive Lois Chiles as a sexy news reporter who has a one night stand with William Hurt's character. Thru it all this film is about life, work, and change as in the end all of the characters reach a wrap in their own life it's like a new start a new beginning. Overall pretty good film that keeps interest and it's chemistry between the central characters keeps the film at bay and the performances from all involved are real and heartfelt.

Wow, I thought this movie was great. It was captivating and easy to keep up with. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to see the whole movie but the story still made sense. The love triangle between Tom, Aaron, and Jane was also quite interesting. Jane was in love with Tom but Aaron was in love with Jane. But the part that stood out most to me was the shoulder kiss. Jane came over to Aaron's home just for moral support and Aaron just had to go and made it awkward. A handshake or simple hug wasn't enough for Aaron, he just had to go and kiss her. But the real question is: Why the shoulder? What is significant about Jane's shoulder. I mean yes, she has nice shoulders but is it worth a kiss. If someone kissed my shoulder, I would be uncomfortable. Boyfriend or not, it is still weird. In addition, she was still in love with Tom. In conclusion, this movie gave the inside scoop on what journalism is really like and the places where you can kiss someone. I gave 7 stars because I think this movie deserves more recognition than it is getting.

Broadcast News is a compelling story of three very different people in the news business. The characters, played by Holly Hunter (Jane), William Hurt (Tom) and Albert Brooks (Aaron), are a dynamic trio of very different and conflicting personalities. The movie follows the three characters through their lives and struggles inside and outside of the newsroom. Overall, Broadcast News was a compelling, funny, entertaining watch. A good use of time.