What makes it different from others?

Purely Joyful Movie!

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

I almost want to give this movie a 6 out of 10 but whatever, I'm never going to watch it again. If someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to watch it, I'll beg that they fast forward to the last 20 minutes or so. This film is based on a true story but whoever wrote the script for the film added so much in and turned this movie away from an interesting singular story into an abomination with multiple little subplots which bore you out of your viewing experience. It is a shame because Ralph Fiennes gives an excellent performance. Fiennes is the only reason you should watch this film. The scenes Fiennes has with whoever the actor is playing the father of his character, makes the film interesting. Why couldn't it just be a film about the Quiz Show and the relationship between a father and son? This movie could have been a memorable drama but I'm sure I'll forget it by next week. John Turturro literally stinks up the screen. His performance is just too cheesy and doesn't fit. The only other good thing I can say about this movie is that the end credits are the best part of the movie. If you're about to watch this on TV, do yourself a favor and change the channel.

The mere fact that the discovery of a TV quiz show as being "rigged" caused such a nationwide scandal in 1950s America is enough to speak volumes about the lost innocence of an era (a similar event today would barely raise an eyebrow). Robert Redford understands that, so he makes his points without hammering them across. "Quiz Show" is, above all, great entertainment: handsome production, terrific recreation of the period, attention to detail, pacey and unstuffy direction, and quite a bit of humor. Redford's handling of his subject is remarkably even-handed (with no clear-cut "good guys and bad guys"), and the acting is exceptional in every role, big or small (it's hard to choose a favorite performance). My biggest objection would have to be Ron Morrow's sometimes overdone accent - which is hardly a major complaint! *** out of 4.

Wow, I sat glued to the screen for two hours without a break. That doesn't happen often, but the movie was that good, even with a one-note plot, and no action or romance. Yes, it did bring back 60-year old memories, sometimes fond, sometimes not. First a few words on historical context.In the summer of 1955, Revlon cosmetics experimented with a big money quiz show, not sure how it would work in prime network time. It was called the $64,000 Question. Up to that point, quiz shows, whether radio or new-fangled TV, offered only small amounts of prize money. So this was an unimaginable amount to offer. Not surprisingly, the show was an immediate hit, earning a permanent place on the CBS network. Viewers were clearly enthralled, especially when a delicate little Dr. Joyce Brothers showed off her expert knowledge of Boxing, of all things. Thus, it was possible for contestants to win not only big money, but become minor celebrities in the process, that is, if they caught the public's fancy.Of course, network programming being a commercial enterprise, imitators soon followed, the most successful (I think) being Twenty-One. Unlike $64,000, it had the distinction of two contestants competing against one another from inside the famous isolation booths. There viewers could watch them sweat as they pondered their answers. The format was also a come-on since most everyone had played the simple card game of being the first to reach 21 in point count. I think this format had the most built-in drama of any other TV quiz show, which by 1956, were at least several.The movie, of course, exposes the biggest scandal in quiz show history, which occurred in 1956-57 on Twenty-One. I was in high school at the time and never missed these shows. I think it's fair to say that practically all viewers believed the shows were honest—I know my family did. And that's even when quiz-whiz Herb Stemple missed probably the easiest question asked him, namely, who won Best Picture Oscar from just 2-years earlier. We all shouted "Marty" at the screen while he appeared terminally stumped, and we felt suddenly superior to this know-it-all. Likely, more discerning viewers suspected something fishy from that point on. But remember, this was the 1950's when, coming off a triumphal big war, most everyone still believed unquestioningly in authority. My friends and family certainly did. So when the rigged nature of Twenty-One was exposed in 1959, the public was generally shocked, especially as fair-haired boy Charles Van Doren was implicated. In fact, the big money quiz format was so discredited, it didn't revive for many decades.The movie itself amounts to a narrative triumph. Skillfully scripted, acted, and produced. The contrast between the nerdy-looking Stemple and the aristocratic Van Doren is striking. So, in retrospect, it's not surprising that producers Barry and Enright would see real ratings potential in a good-looking guy with a well-known family name. Fiennes's smirking Van Doren comes across as a rather slimy character once he's been compromised. Still, that scene of him amid the outdoor intellectual gathering is one a commoner like me can only imagine. As a result, I can understand how he could be seduced into establishing a reputation separate from his illustrious father (Scofield). Then there's the blue-collar Stemple harrumphing around his cold-water flat, having trusted the producers to come through for him after he took the humiliating dive. At times he's almost a comedic figure in his thrashing about.I guess my only reservation is with Morrow's casting as the bulldog investigator Jim Goodwin. To me, he doesn't project the kind of force necessary for untangling the shenanigans or tangling with stone walling network bigshots. But then, maybe he's intended to be a Peter Falk type Columbo with his disheveled appearance and mild manner. Be that as it may, the network honcho's are well cast and appropriately slippery as they seduce Stemple and Van Doren with prize money and promises of network jobs. Viewers can almost see their numbers-crunching brains in action. Tellingly, no woman is featured in the two hour runtime; and as an odd moment of curiosity, there's no indication whether Van Doren's successor Vivian Nearing was fed her answers or not.Anyway, the movie's fascinating in what it shows about the corruptive potency of TV ratings and commercial sponsors, a risky marriage that nevertheless endures. Thanks Robert Redford for reviving this sorry episode for generations later than mine.

Quiz Show portrays various Jews of the 1950's with great brilliance: (1) John Turturro is a "schlimazel" -- Yiddish for someone inept and unlucky. Turturro plays an intelligent man, a striver, but also a failure. He is very cynical. He is dishonest, but not really such a bad guy. He will never be fully integrated into American society. He will always wear a sign around his neck reading "Jew". "Jew" because he makes no effort to hide his Jewishness and because he fits antisemitic stereotypes: clever, dishonest, hook-nosed and ugly.(2) Rob Morrow is Turturro's opposite -- well-educated, good-looking, and highly successful as a hotshot young government lawyer. Morrow thinks highly of himself. He is super-ethical and is offended by other people's dishonesty. He greatly admires the Van Doren family -- the ultimate academic WASPs with a WASP house and WASP speech and WASP attitudes -- in principle above the dirty game of making money, their minds set on higher things. Morrow can integrate if he wishes -- but at the price of giving up much of his Jewishness. His wife sees this clearly and objects.(3) The producers of the rigged quiz show are Jews, as is the owner of the TV network. These characters are dishonest, indifferent to morality, and highly successful -- especially the owner, played with spine-tingling accuracy by Alan Rich.In contrast to these Jews is Charles Van Doren, played by Ralph Fiennes. He is tall, handsome, and American (i.e., a Gentile). He is like Morrow in being well-educated. He is like Turturro in being dishonest. He is even more dishonest than Turturro, since he is also a hypocrite.I have known all these characters. They are highly familiar to me. I can attest to how close to reality they are. The movie nails them. It gets them exactly right. A triumph.