With a glimpse into each of the characters' childhood the film brings us thirty years later to a Washington News Network that brings together are three amusing characters. Jane (Holly Hunter), swiftly finds herself attracted to the new anchorman, Tom (William Hurt) hired for his good looks and camera poise. Long time friend of Jane, Aaron (Albert Brooks) reveals his true feelings in the midst of Jane and Tom's relationship to create a tangled triangle. Cutbacks and an unrevealed lie send the trio in their separate ways to be reunited seven years later.

Holly Hunter is Jane Craig, a lovable, high-strung, control-freak news producer, who falls for a dim-witted, handsome and on the rise anchor William Hurt, who plays Tom Grenick. No role was more fitting then Aaron Altman performed by Albert Brooks, Brooks's made a hard working and witty veteran reporter complete with his brilliant performance. Pulling the film together with supporting roles was Lois Chiles, Joan Cusack, and Robert Provosky, not to mention a trivial role as senior anchorman played by Jack Nicholson.

The setting is the high-stakes world of network television news, and although the technology has changed since the mid 1980's when this was made, the politics and the cutthroat environment are still exactly the same. The soundtrack is mainly dialogue driven lacking any memorable hits. Mainly featuring scene based tunes to keep the film flowing allowing the focus to stay with the actors' performances.

Jane's dilemma is more in depth then looks versus love; it is an inner struggle tearing her apart. In one hand she has the handsome anchorman that is everything she cannot stand in media and the other is her long-time honest friend who still believes in integrity. Torn between the choice of integrity and selling the news she takes the new position and starts over.

The performance from the three actors was outstanding and the accurate portrayal of the network production puts you on set. This spunky, romantic, comedy is well deserving of its Seven Oscar nominations. This delightful James L. Brooks film will leave you wondering if it is not too late to consider a new occupation.

Right at the center of the movie are 3 characters: Jane (Holly Hunter), a news writer-producer for the Washington bureau of a TV network. She is smart and is the "go to" person at the network as she works best under pressure and the character who responded to the remark about being the smartest person in a room. Her very best (and possibly only) friend is Aaron Altman (Albert Brooks), a bright, aggressive reporter, who along with Jane, have either true or self-created illusions great looks and intelligence can't coexist. Like Jane, Aaron is also very good at his job, but he wants to be on camera. During a speech that she is giving on the road, Jane meets Tom (William Hurt), an ex-sportscaster who has little education and doesn't know much about current events. But he has been hired for the Washington bureau because he looks good and has a natural relationship with the camera, and isn't that what matters?

Although billed as a romantic comedy, which it is in part, the movie does a brilliant job of how many of us use work to measure who we are and at times use it an excuse to hide from life outside of that myopic perspective. In the course of the movie, the network goes through various upheavals based on the premise that news is losing (or by now has lost) its independence and has become entertainment with talking heads who make us feel good are replacing "true" journalists. Although the script is top notch, one of the reasons that movie resonates so well, is that the actors and the director manage to make even the most partisan statements not seem as didactic as they are on paper.

None of the characters is perfect by any stretch of the imagination and the 3 leads are clearly not afraid to be dislikable. Their individual and collective effort works so well that you wind up being very interested/invested in them despite their flaws. This is without a doubt a career-defining performance by Holly Hunter who was robbed of the Oscar as it was given to Cher for her work in "Moonstruck" to "make up" for not rewarding her work in "Mask." William Hurt, a nuanced and complicated actor who was also nominated for the Oscar gives a change of pace performance as someone who's perfectly aware of his intellectual limitations but who sees no reason for them to interfere with his climb to the top. Albert Brooks is brilliant and comes very close to stealing the movie as he is hilarious and to me represents the moral conscience of the movie. He too was nominated for the Oscar and in my opinion was robbed as it was given to Sean Connery for what I think was a career award rather than his work in "The Untouchables."

Sidebar: This movie received Oscar nominations in all major categories (Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay among others), the movie was not awarded a single Oscar as it was a year with great movies such as "The Last Emperor" and show-stopping performances, as was the case with Michael Douglas in "Wall Street."

But back to the movie. Its writer/director, James L. Brooks, who hit a grand slam with "Terms of Endearment," manages not to let any character run away with the movie as he tempers their self-righteousness (as is the case with Hunter and Brooks) and good luck (William Hurt) by making them more than bumper-sticker characters. There is a great line sequence in the movie in which one reporter asks fellow reporters ''Would you tell a source you loved them just to get information?'' The immediate response, ''Yes,'' is followed by laughter all around. In essence although James L. Brooks makes a strong case that the news BUSINESS has blurred many lines, even those of us who think fall on the "right" side of said line are not presented as heroes nor are those who apparently cross it vilified. The movie is packed with many one-liners that do more than amuse and makes keen observations without beating your head with them.

This movie easily earns 5 stars and would almost be a perfect movie had it ended without a neatly tied-up last act that ALMOST, but not quite, manages to take away a movie that had only taken a single false step until then. That first false step, in my opinion, is what led to the unnecessary and forced last act. The big "surprise" and one character's reaction to it are much to do about nothing in the bigger picture.

Notwithstanding this movie makes very strong statements (a la "Network" but much more subtle) about an industry and does so un such an entertaining and intelligent manner that I have to see this movie every few years, which is something that I rarely do. The outcome is almost irrelevant when compared to the joy of seeing these smart people interact with one another. Without a doubt, this is one of 1987's best movies. Enjoy and if you have not seen this movie, you'll be happily surprised by an unbilled performance by yet another amazing actor