IMDb > "60 Minutes" (1968) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
"60 Minutes"
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsmessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
"60 Minutes" More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]
Index 14 reviews in total 

11 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

There is no better!

Author: rbknibb from Irvine, CA
28 May 2003

I began watching 60 Minutes around 1979. I was in high school and I have never stopped. As someone mentioned before me, it is definitely formula, but the formula definitely works. 20/20 and the multitude of other news shows that have attempted to imitate it have never come close. Watch this show and you will definitely learn something!

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Golden News Journalism and Investigative Reporting

10/10
Author: lambiepie-2 from Los Angeles, CA
10 January 2006

60 Minutes seemed to be created in a time when America needed answers --in depth, hard hitting, guerrilla journalism about the inner dealings in Washington, Corporations, the Heart of America - the pulse of the world politic. The gold standard with many imitators, 60 Minutes could run as long as there is a need for finding the REAL truth in what effects us beyond the "evening news".

60 Minutes reporters asked the hard questions and KEPT asking the hard questions - many times revealing things publicly that we already suspected. It gave us facts, so that we could to draw our own conclusions and DO something about what we were presented.

60 Minutes was a public service. A place to go to to find out what corruption is occurring and what happens while we sleep. It was also a place to see the best interviews with heads of countries we knew nothing about.

Now in 2006, 60 Minutes is still around. A little bruised and battered for a younger generation who feels that news has to have a punch line like a variety show, and that there is no reason to care about what a corporation is doing beyond what Tina Fey jokes about on Saturday Night Live.

60 Minutes is reality programming. Reality journalism and to be honest -as a young person, I had no reason to sit and watch. Reality news journalism is frightening. It was my "parent's" show.

Now that I am older and look back, I was dead wrong and wished I had the sense I have now to pay more attention to 60 Minutes than I did.

The 60 Minutes Producers, Reporters and Researchers over the years put their lives and careers on the line many, many times - even against their own employer - CBS, CBS Corporate, etc, to try to bring us as straight of scoop as allowed - and break as much as they could - so we could all be informed and DO something about it. Bless them all.

And then there is Andy Rooney. Everyone's 'cantancerous' grand-dad. You may not agree with EVERYTHING he says, but when you do, it's time to do something about it.

Now 60 Minutes has reached a turning point, they are at a time when they need to introduce new VETERAN journalists that would have the same heart, drive and ambition as the ones before them - and I hope they do. And there in lies the tale of 60 Minutes. Journalist who are vets in their field, and not high priced entertainment fluff who can read a teleprompter and cry on cue.

I hope that I am wrong that Network Journalism is about the money and not about the story - the dirty, non-glamorous America and World news that lets us know that major corporations are dirt and will bowl over anyone for a buck, that American Farmers need help, that Presidents can't give a good interview and lie, that dictators need to be taken down before their ego gets any larger, that War is Hell, that regular food products can be dangerous, that addition occurs with additives that are secretly placed in places we wouldn't ave thought of, that Small Business is just as Bad as Corporations these days, that racism and sexism still exist, that one little person writing to Congress does not go unnoticed and that Congress and the Senate can abuse kids just like the guy down the street, etc. etc.

The World has NOT stopped turning -- and neither has 60 Minutes. As long as it is around, it keeps folks in check. And keeps other networks scrambling for competition. It's all good, for us.

There was a joke that went around the corporate community for many years. It went something like this:

"I know our company is doing okay because I don't see Mike Wallace or Ed Bradley coming into the building with a camera crew."

Exactly.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Still the Gold Standard

Author: Brian Washington (Sargebri@att.net) from Los Angeles, California
10 October 2005

"60 Minutes" is definitely the originator of all the great television news magazines. Every Sunday night for several years I have either watched the show or listened to it on the local CBS radio affiliate here in Los Angeles. To me "60 Minutes" works in two different ways. The first is as an investigative program that looks hard at very controversial issues that the public should be made aware of. The show also is great at doing wonderful celebrity profiles. It really allows the general public to look at the lives of various celebrities and show what they are like once the spotlight is off. Of course, the show has its detractors who say that it has become very self important, but this will always be to me one of the most influential shows in the history of television.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

The gold standard

Author: Daniel Crean from Austin, Texas
21 November 1999

With the explosion of news magazine shows on the prime-time airwaves, it is useful to remember the long-running program that producers are trying to emulate: 60 Minutes.

This show combines investigative journalism, celebrity profiles, and features about interesting organizations and events. When it's a serious subject, you feel like they have fairly and objectively reported the story. Even with lighter topics you get the impression 60 Minutes has captured the essence of the story.

Each segment is about 15 minutes long; we get three in every one-hour show. When the subject is something serious, the viewer has the option of following up in detail on other sources.

Sure, it's a formula, but the 60 Minutes people perfected the formula. No one else on commercial television does such good journalism.

Why has this show consistently placed near the top of the ratings for three decades? Because it's damn good. Why do people tune into 60 Minutes every week, despite the fact that during football season it is often delayed due to long-running games? Because they know that 60 Minutes will deliver.

Jack and Shana's debates in the 70s were a little much to take, and I can't stand Andy Rooney's musings, but the core of the show has remained solid.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following review useful:

Still on Top after Almost 40 years!

10/10
Author: (sylviastel@aol.com) from United States
13 May 2007

60 Minutes does something that the other shows like Primetime Live and Dateline try to capture. 60 Minutes is the top show if you're a serious journalist. If you're not, go elsewhere. On this show, ratings are always high and it was higher during the years before it led to Murder, She Wrote on Sunday nights. 60 Minutes has the best journalists around. They take their jobs seriously and treat every story as if it was the most important around. Some stories like Iraq, Afghanistan, Washington D.C., etc. deserve the attention and most of them do the best job around with research and they get the job done. They also do lighter stories like real estate, celebrity profiles, and other light-hearted stories like Netflix and Starbucks. Of course, you can't forget Andy Rooney who always gives us what he's thinking as it is. They don't talk down to the audience but they treat us with respect and intellect. They enlighten, inform, and educate us about certain issues. Lesley Stahl, the late Ed Bradley, Morley Safer, Peter Simon, and others are top notch journalists at the top of their peak. Don't forget the occasional story by Anderson Cooper, Katie Couric, and Christiane Amanpour. Once you made 60 Minutes as a journalist, you're on top of the world.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Um, where is the investigative news?

6/10
Author: Tim SF from san francisco
30 July 2008

60 Minutes has some occasional moments of juice, but it lost its edge. 60 Minutes years ago was a lot more interesting, had harder-hitting stories, more "raw" interviews, capturing priceless moments on camera of innocence, guilt, glory, fame, whatever.

However, the show today is tired and boring. There is no gusto. Is it a coincidence that once Lowell Bergman left, the show started to suck? Anyone who saw The Insider knows the story here. 60 Minutes "sold its soul" in the 1990's due to the tobacco scandal. Stock-owning executives from 60 Minutes falsified dangers that 60 Minutes would be the target of billion-dollar lawsuits from tobacco companies that would fell CBS if they aired a controversial public news piece from a former tobacco executive.

A partial result of the fallout was that Lowell Bergman, the main producer of the 60 Minutes tobacco segment, left the show and now works for Frontline, a brilliant PBS documentary news show. Frontline is FAR more interesting and hard-hitting than 60 Minutes has been in years.

Back to 60 Minutes...they seems to "go easy" these days and have one easy to medium news story. They mix that with some other "profile" type story, and throw in a non-threatening interview with some easygoing person. Something a teenager with a camcorder could do (follow around some singer and throw in some good writing).

All very boring for the most part. Too easy, no more edge.

60 Minutes used to the finest show around. Frontline years ago supplanted it as the best investigative journalism show around.

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

I wasn't planning to comment, but after I read that fellows slam I had no choice...

Author: Zac Cramer (icramer@ix.netcom.com) from Manhattan Beach
16 June 2002

60 Minutes is, most definatly, the gold standard. They find out things that no one else can find out, and they can break stories no one else has even heard of. They get interviews with the people who matter and bring the stories that matter to the public. It is truly the one and only REAL news show left. Not a 60 second sound clip that tells you nothing, but an in depth look. They ask the tough questions, to the tough people, and get it all right. Theres a reason it has been on the show for so many years, and is one of the most popular programs in history even today.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Beginning of an Historic News Magazine!

10/10
Author: ShelbyTMItchell from Seymour Tennessee
12 August 2013

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Think that this show started the news magazine. But there could had been more before then and even after it. But 60 Minutes is one of the best magazine shows that CBS has done.

It had hard hitting news and really they cut right to the chase over it. As we see some stories that have not been expose and also hear about the aftermath at times when it is re-ran.

Also they have great reporters like in the late Mike Wallace, Henry Reasoner, Lesley Stahl, Scott Pelley among them. Reporters come and go but not the hard hitting stories.

60 Minutes has always remain the always hard hitting show that it has always been and will!

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Merely THE BEST

10/10
Author: tometh from Ohio, USA
22 October 2010

Not only is this show the top shelf standard by which all other news shows measure themselves it is, and has been for 40 years, IMHO, the single best show on television. 60 minutes has been directly responsible for breaking some of the most important stories of the last 40 years. With little exception, the stories and the reporting of them have been absolutely first rate. Over the years I have watched incredibly informative and interesting episodes with the Ayatollah Khomeini, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Johnny Carson, Michael Jordan, and a multitude of really despicable con men and businesspeople. Anyone who is unfamiliar with the story of 60 minutes and Big Tobacco should research it and then see the movie The Insider. KUDOS all around for this show, I wish there a lot more like it telling the real story of so many other things that are going on!! And Andy Rooney is the best two minutes of TV you will ever see anywhere.

Was the above review useful to you?

Scott Pelley's Interview with Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich couldn't have been less professional

5/10
Author: wash-jones
18 March 2007

CBS's "60 Minutes" aired Scott Pelley's interview with Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich on March 18th, 2007 ("The Killings in Haditha"). Pelley's performance was a disgraceful failure. Instead of using the discussion as a platform to give the viewers information about Wuterich's experience and what happened in Haditha on November 19th, 2005 in a simple, straightforward fashion -- which is, or at least should be, the aim of such interviews -- Pelley spent far too much time moralizing about Wuterich's actions and endeavoring to make sure that everyone knew that he was making important, and importantly correct, judgments about what Wuterich had done. Everyone can agree that what happened that day in Haditha was tragic, like so much of what happens any in war. I'm not saying that what Wuterich did that day Haditha was legal, morally permissible, illegal or morally impermissible. But I'm certain that the way Scott Pelley conducted the interview was unacceptable. I might, after some thought, make a judgment about what I thought of Wuterich's actions, but only if I had enough facts about the incident to form such a judgment. And I would have gotten such information if Pelley had done a passable job in his discussion. His moralizing was counterproductive and irritating. Regardless of the moral or legal status of Wuterich's actions on November 19th, 2005, he did do a good job of handling Pelley's ham-fisted melodrama -- he didn't succumb to the pressure to show excessive, blathering emotion and didn't make an on-air entreaty for forgiveness, absolution and mercy. Shame on you "60 Minutes". And Shame on you, Scott Pelley, for such a cheap, manipulative charade of an interview. You could have provided us with information, but left us with only tawdry, highhanded sanctimony.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 2:[1] [2] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history