Most of the administration’s case for that war made absolutely no sense, specifically the notion that Saddam Hussein was allied with Osama bin Laden. That one from the get-go rang all the bells—a secular Arab dictator allied with a radical Islamist whose goal was to overthrow secular dictators and reestablish his Caliphate? The more we examined it, the more it stank. The second thing was rather than relying entirely on people of high rank with household names as sources, we had sources who were not political appointees. One of the things that has gone very wrong in Washington journalism is 'source addiction,' 'access addiction,' and the idea that in order to maintain access to people in the White House or vice president’s office or high up in a department, you have to dance to their tune. That's not what journalism is about. We had better sources than she (Judith Miller) did and we knew who her sources were. They were political appointees who were making a political case. I first met him (Ahmed Chalabi) in '95 or '96. I wouldn’t get dressed in the morning based on what he told me the weather was, let alone go to war. —John Walcott, Knight Ridder Washington bureau chief[10][11]
Knight Ridder Washington reporters Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay received the Raymond Clapper Memorial Award from the Senate Press Gallery on February 5, 2004, for their coverage of the questionable intelligence used to justify war with Iraq.[12][13][14]
On July 12, 2016, Woody Harrelson was set as one of the leads of the film, reteaming with Reiner after LBJ.[27] On July 13, 2016, James Marsden was added as well.[28] The film features an interview with Dick Cheney on Meet the Press.
Walcott has said he believed the film to be essentially "word-for-word" accurate. At one point in the film, Walcott gives an inspiring speech to the newsroom, but the original script had a screenwriter's version. On the day of shooting, Strobel said to Reiner that he should use Walcott's original words; Reiner had Walcott write down his exact speech, and Reiner then performed and filmed the scene.[32][33]
Shock and Awe was a box office bomb, grossing just $77,980 in the United States and Canada and $104,435 in other territories, for a worldwide total of $182,415,[5] plus $2.6 million with home video sales.[38] against a $16 million budget. [39]
Critical response
On review aggregatorRotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 30% based on 47 reviews, with an average rating of 4.70/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "Shock and Awe has a worthy story to tell and some fine actors trying to bring it to life; unfortunately, the end results are still as derivative as they are dramatically inert."[40] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 47 out of 100, based on 18 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews".[41]
Writing for Rolling Stone, David Fear gave the film 2/5 stars, saying, "It's an important story to remember right now, assuming you can remember anything after being beaten over the head with talking points for 90 minutes. But at its best, Shock and Awe still feels like it strains to be Spotlight-lite and comes up lacking. The title is a misnomer."[42] Kerry Lengel of The Arizona Republic gave the film 1.5 out of 5 stars, writing, "It's trite and mechanistic in its attempts to build pathos while also making its arguments, from the opening scene featuring a soldier paralyzed by an IED to the absolute low point, a date between Marsden's reporter and his pretty next-door neighbor, played by Jessica Biel."[43]
Deborah Young of The Hollywood Reporter wrote, "The reporting team at Knight Ridder Newspapers has been called 'the only ones who got it right' about Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction that sparked the 2003 Iraq war. Based on a true story, Rob Reiner's Shock and Awe gives much-deserved credit to their far-sighted (if generally unheeded) news coverage, but the message tends to melt into a paint-by-numbers screenplay that pushes too many genre buttons to be thoroughly exciting."[44]
