330 user 143 critic

Network (1976)

A television network cynically exploits a deranged former anchor's ravings and revelations about the news media for its own profit.



2,757 ( 737)

Watch Now

From $2.99 (SD) on Amazon Video

Top Rated Movies #190 | Won 4 Oscars. Another 15 wins & 25 nominations. See more awards »


Cast overview, first billed only:
Arthur Burghardt ...
Bill Burrows ...
TV Director
John Carpenter ...
Harry Hunter
Kathy Cronkite ...
Mary Ann Gifford
Ed Crowley ...
Joe Donnelly
Walter C. Amundsen
Gene Gross ...
Milton K. Steinman


In the 1970s, terrorist violence is the stuff of networks' nightly news programming and the corporate structure of the UBS Television Network is changing. Meanwhile, Howard Beale, the aging UBS news anchor, has lost his once strong ratings share and so the network fires him. Beale reacts in an unexpected way. We then see how this affects the fortunes of Beale, his coworkers (Max Schumacher and Diana Christensen), and the network. Written by Bruce Janson <bruce@cs.su.oz.au>

Plot Summary | Plot Synopsis


"NETWORK"... the humanoids, the love story, the trials and tribulations, the savior of television, the attempted suicides, the assassination -- it's ALL coming along with a galaxy of stars you know and love! See more »




R | See all certifications »

Parents Guide:





Release Date:

27 November 1976 (USA)  »

Also Known As:

Poder que mata  »

Box Office


$3,800,000 (estimated)

Company Credits

Production Co:

Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs


Sound Mix:



Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1
See  »

Did You Know?


Gene Hackman turned down the role of Howard Beale. See more »


The obituary for UBS Chairman of the Board Edward George Ruddy is shown with the character's information superimposed over the title area, with real January, 1975 obituaries for Revlon founder Charles Revson and screenwriter Sidney Buchman listed below. Additionally, the movie is set during fall 1975, months after Ruddy's death. See more »


[first lines]
Narrator: This story is about Howard Beale, who was the news anchorman on UBS TV. In his time, Howard Beale had been a mandarin of television, the grand old man of news, with a HUT rating of 16 and a 28 audience share. In 1969, however, his fortunes began to decline. He fell to a 22 share. The following year, his wife died, and he was left a childless widower with an 8 rating and a 12 share. He became morose and isolated, began to drink heavily, and on September 22, 1975, he was fired, ...
See more »

Frequently Asked Questions

See more (Spoiler Alert!) »

User Reviews

Good But Also Overrated, Too Literary and Boring
7 July 2015 | by (United States) – See all my reviews

Spoilers Ahead;

Yes, Beale is great the first half of the movie then he becomes a dreadful bore. Diana is a cartoon characterization that has utterly no resemblance to any real life woman. She keeps babbling about ratings during coitus? Please, this is one of the main flaws of the movie. It is too literary; the dialog is so esoteric with words only intellectuals use. Do you really believe television people speak this intellectually? It gives the film such a sense of unreality about it. Yes, Beale's great scenes at the beginning are why I gave it six stars. But please, after the first half when Jensen turns him into a corporate stooge it is solid boredom until he turns on the Network. By this point, we are all asleep. Duvall as Hackett is also a caricature that seems completely contrived and unrelentingly hostile to everybody. It really is two movies in one. The first half is a nine star movie though Holden grosses us out with that reprise of his later Breezy. Please, we do not want to see him having sex with the stunning Dunaway. Yes, I know, she is using him, it is symbiosis, but hey not on camera while I am eating. Gross Out. The film starts wandering after Jensen takes over Beale. It slows way, way, down; the part with the commies fighting over the royalties is strained and not funny.

The believability of Diana still lusting after Max after he has been thrown out and served his purpose is absurd. Paddy had him living with her in her apartment. Why? Does anyone believe such a mercenary, cruel manipulator like Diana would have given him a moment of her time? What, she covets the money from his memoirs? The fatal flaw of the movie is simply stated. The characters are contrived and unreal; the dialog sounds like we are reading a book. Who talks like this? You think practical people putting bread on the table speak in ten syllable words to each other, give me a break: how phony!! Satire is great, but the ending of the movie is beyond the realm of satire into insanity. Yes, let's hire the commies to gun Howard down. Yes, it is funny but it drains what little credibility the overrated behemoth had left in it. If I hear Max tell that crappy joke about the guy and the George Washington bridge, one more time: How many times did they think it would still be funny?

We have all kinds of confusion about what tone the film wants to strike. When Max is thrown out by his wife, it is deadly serious she almost has a breakdown. Later, when Max leaves Diana the scene is played for laughs. He mocks how their relationship could be a television program. Yet, and this is the irony, the scene plays exactly like the one he is mocking. Pick a tone! Satire all the way or serious all the way; the elements are so juxtaposed, and interpolated that you get a potato salad with serious and comic elements all blended incoherently together. Who doesn't hate television? If you are going to mock it, try not to become the image of your target. The movie is the very essence of what Carl Jung meant by we become what we hate. Do what I do, watch the film until Ned Beatty shows up about halfway through, then get up and turn it off. The first half was excellent; the second half stinks.

40 of 66 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for: