Customer Reviews

Nothing But The Truth

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(11)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

"Nothing But the Truth" is based on the events surrounding the prison sentence of "New York Times" reporter Judith Miller after she refused to reveal the source who identified undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame.
Prompted by a failed assassination attempt on the President of the United States, investigative reporter Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsale) discovers that a neighborhood woman is a CIA operative. Rachel believes she has happened upon the Big Story, and is backed by her editor (Angela Bassett), the newspaper's legal counsel (Noah Wyle), and her First Amendment lawyer (Alan Alda). Federal prosecutor Patton Dubois (Matt Dillon) wants her to name her sources. She refuses and is thrown in jail for contempt of court. She thinks she will soon be released, but as her incarceration lengthens, her relationship with husband (David Schwimmer) and son (Preston Bailey) starts to deteriorate.
Performances are first-rate in this tense political thriller. Beckinsale is sympathetic as the idealistic yet frightened reporter, but Dillon dazzles as the Javert-like Fed who will use anything and everything within his power to break the reporter's will. The changing relationship between Rachel and her family gives the film humanity and elevates it from a mere "ripped from the headlines" flick to one of depth.
Bonus extras include deleted scenes, a making-of featurette, and filmmakers' commentary.

The smart, engrossing political thriller in the tradition of All the President's Men has a welcome female twist: two working mommies -- one a DC journalist (Kate Beckinsale), one a CIA agent (Vera Farmiga) -- cross paths on their kids' soccer field with disastrous results. Beckinsale clearly doesn't need a rubber catsuit to be terrific; she's focused, genuine, and sympathetic as the investigative reporter whose first big scoop crumples the career and family of her spook subject, with plenty of collateral damage in her own life when she goes to prison for withholding her source's name. And The Departed's Farmiga balances between dangerous adversary and wounded mother in a volatile supporting role.

**This entire comment is a SPOILER and best not to be read if you have not seen the movie or if you intend to see it.**

Throughout the movie, controversy is raised by lines being drawn between duty, occupation, integrity, and simple human decency. Sometimes these lines are crossed, depending on your point of view. Nonetheless, the viewer is looking for a strong protagonist and antagonist, which is not revealed and this is frustrating.

Most of the reviews I've read have completely misinterpreted the ending. They think it was based on the integrity of journalist confidentiality, the 1st amendment, etc. This may be because the entire movie, indeed, seemed to be about these things. All the way up to a very moving supreme court speech. So stirring that it might even persuade some viewers who were against the jailed reporter to turn to her side. It is, however, the misunderstanding of the astonishing ending which leaves viewers with a feeling of absurdity and a incorrect overall conclusion upon which many commentaries are based.

In fact, the ending made it quite clear what was going on the entire time. It also brought out who the antagonist was hands down. The movie portrays what happens when an irresponsible opportunistic journalist, in a highly responsible position, stumbles into two sources (the main source is an elementary school girl, who is the daughter of the woman she is going to expose; and a drunken high official semi-corroborator who agrees to go on record). This hand dealt to her tempts her to write a story of Pulitzer caliber.

The journalist arrogantly believes that she is untouchable if her story goes to press and sloughs off the warnings of the in-house advisor. Her INITIAL resolve to protect her little girl source is boosted by a highly-reputable lawyer who assures her things won't get that bad; and, a sense of glory-seeking attitude. When things don't work out that way, a mother/CIA operative is murdered, families are broken up, national spotlights are in place, and Pulitzer nominations are given. (And, here is where other commentaries have missed it). Her FINAL resolve to protect her source, however, is quite different. At this point, revealing her true source would actually bring great ridicule and humiliation to this journalist. She even lies about the life-long consequences to her source (a child) should she be exposed.

In the end, things have gotten so bad for the, now criminalized, journalist that the consequences of revealing her young naïve source, who would never have been prosecuted in the first place, pales by comparison to the alternative of years of imprisonment. She buckles and gives in. The resulting national ridicule on this person is left to your imagination.

The ending of the movie is someone analogous to the feelings that the students, parents, and teachers end up with in the movie, "The World's Greatest Dad", starring Robin Williams. This is not a spoiler because I am referring to the fictitious players in the movie. The viewers already know the real story. Nevertheless, both movies leave you with a huge pointless feeling.

This really was a great movie and well played, especially by Matt Damon and the Antagonist, who really come across a bit callous. But, I am only giving it 2 stars because, like "Groundhog Day," another all-time great movie, it was not written well enough for most people to "get it."

Having been involved in Intelligence (Army CIC) for several years many years ago I had a certain amount of interest in viewing this film. At the outset I will say that it appears to me this film was made by confused people - confused about the situation they were dealing with in the movie. Perhaps they viewed the journalist & those with her as "good guys" & the government prosecutor & those with him as "bad guys" but I have some questions. Why did the journalist consider it proper to write a story uncovering a CIA operative? Why did the newspaper consider it proper to publish it? Why did the paper's lawyers not see the possible ramifications of the story being published? Why was such a story considered worthy of Pulitzer prize consideration? And when the journalist brought up the issue of her "integrity" in this matter, I was incredulous. What integrity could poaaibly be involved in compromising the security of the US - which is what was involved in her story. What would be the difference between her having her story published by a US newspaper or selling her information to a foreign government considered an enemy of the US? Or to one of that nation's newspapers? Perhaps the most valid point raised by the movie was the question of whether any person or profession is above the nation's laws. The CIA is as valid & necessary a part of our nation as any other organization, business or whatever that can be named & any citizen who compromises its operation should be held legally accountable. The person who fingered the CIA operative, the journalist who wrote the story, & the paper which published it were all culpable & the imprisonment of the journalist & fining of the newspapaer were justified.

******** SPOILER ALERT ********
I have empathy for the woman who must abandon her husband and son for an ideal. I get that. Here is what I don't get: I actually disagree with the ideal. If someone releases top secret information to a reporter, the reporter SHOULD have to reveal her source. Also, as we see in the end, the source would not have gotten into trouble anyway. I liked the movie until I got to that part. It was all in vain. But great performances by Kate Beckinsale, Matt Dillon, and Alan Alda.

The freedom of the press, issues of national security, and the consequences of standing by one's personal principles are all on trial in "Nothing But the Truth." I'm not sure why the reviews here tend to be so negative, save the ranting of those who fail to see that this film represents two sides.

Kate Beckinsale plays the role of a journalist who writes a story implicating the government's top echelons in declaring an act of war with trumped-up evidence. Matt Dillon plays the prosecutor who pressures her to reveal her source--since that source has violated the law by naming a covert CIA agent, played to great effect by Vera Farmiga. Yes, the plot has some obvious correlations to events of the past few years, which seems to be the thorn in the side of some reviewers, but it gives both sides important things to say. While the film does center around Beckinsale, building sympathy for her, it also gives Dillon's character a chance to stand by his own moral codes to protect his country. The issues of the First and Fifth Amendment are considered here.

"Nothing But the Truth" keeps us hooked by the secret identify of the source that Beckinsale protects with such ferocity. Alan Alda plays her lawyer, while Angela Bassett plays her editor. Though both add layers, it's Beckinsale, Farmiga, and Dillon who drive the story. Beckinsale and Farmiga are strong female characters, both threatened with the losses of marriage and family ties, both feeling persecuted for doing their jobs.

I hold dear the power of the written word and the right to speak the truth. I also believe national security is of vital importance, and I like the fact this film honors that as well. However, a government that cannot be held accountable to faulty actions is in a position to abuse its powers--take recent events in Iran, as an example. As a proud American, I want our President to be able to make decisions, in secret, that protect our country. I also want our leaders to be called to account if they violate the law--as in the Watergate case.

"Nothing But the Truth" forces us to consider principles and integrity from the highest levels down to our personal lives. The film does move a bit slowly at times, mainly because Beckinsale's obvious refusal to budge leaves few questions left to be answered, but the twist at the end helps us understand her bullheadedness.

The truth here hurts. Beckinsale and Farmiga have a lot to lose, and even Dillon must risk accusations of coldheartedness for standing by his own beliefs. Superb acting all around lifts this movie above many others that have tackled this subject. Those who refuse to weigh both sides of this debate fail to understand the tough decisions that faced America's forefathers. I, for one, loved this film.

I did enjoy the movie and all characters, including Matt Dillon and Noah Wyle. Though the twist at the end what what "made" the movie it also defined for me what type of character Kate Beckinsale was really playing. I thought she did a great job portraying her part, but the actors reviews of the movie praised how great it was that she was unwilling to expose her source. The problem I had was wondering how anyone could take advantage of an incident such as she and be okay with destroying everyone around her including the lives of those involved in the story. Had her source been revealed, she would never had been allowed to print the story and would have been laughed out of the pressroom. Not to mention all the wasted time and energy spent by the government,the paper, etc. in trying to determine/protect whoever was responsible for commiting treason.

A Washington, D.C. reporter who is targeted by the government after refusing to reveal her source for a story that identified an undercover CIA operative. Rachel Armstrong is an ambitious young reporter working at the Capitol Sun-Times, one of Washington, D.C.'s biggest newspapers. When the paper published Rachel's incendiary story revealing the identity of covert CIA agent Erica Van Doren, charismatic special prosecutor Patton Dubois demands that she reveal her source for the story. With the support of her husband, Ray her editor, Bonnie and the paper's in-house attorney, Avril, Rachel defies Patton's request. Kate Beckinsale (the reporter) and Vera Farmiga (as the CIA operative) are outstanding. Matt Dillon also gives a great performance as the smarmy, ambitious and self-righteous prosecuting attorney. It was a real enjoyment seeing this move. Watch it.

What if there was a story which featured a Washington political journalist in the lead. What if this journalist discovered that the White House had taken intelligence from a CIA operative and falsified it as an excuse to justify a war with an enemy country that the White House wanted to invade? What if the journalist discovered this information in a way that meant that the person who supplied the information had committed treason? Would the journalist's first obligation be to keep secret the information, or at least to protect the identify of the person who supplied the information, or would the journalist's first obligation be to let the world know that the White House had started a war on false grounds?

Oh wait - there IS such a story. Actually, there are two such stories. The real Valerie Plame story, covered by New York Times reporter Judith Miller, is the one that SHOULD make Americans quake in their bones. Rod Lurie's "Nothing But The Truth" provides instead a thinly fictionalized version of the story. Would the real story have made a better film? Roger Ebert wrote: "In real life, Miller's reporting, accuracy and objectivity were sharply questioned, and Lurie wisely sidesteps history to focus on the underlying question: Which is more important, the principle of confidentiality, or national security?"

I'm frankly amazed by people who think that their President deserves absolutely unquestionable devotion - as long as the President is from their party. The Founding Father's clearly intended, and great leaders from Abraham Lincoln to Eisenhower have known, that the U.S. Government was specifically designed and set up to have checks and balances.

If my President uses fabricated intelligence as an excuse to send hundreds of thousands of Americans to war, resulting in the deaths of thousands of my brothers and sisters, I want to know about that, and I want that act to be accountable.

Now to the film: Kate Beckinsale stars as Rachel Armstrong, the reporter who smells a Pulitzer and frankly doesn't completely think through the repercussions of her story. Matt Dillon is cast as special prosecutor Patton Dubois, and although the story has him in direct opposition to Rachel, he is portrayed as a man who wants to do his job and protect national interests. Angela Bassett plays Rachel's editor, who knows that she has a bombshell of a story, and knows better than Rachel the fall-out that will come because of it. Alan Alda plays a hotshot DC lawyer who the lesser lawyers studied in law school and is brought in to fight to keep Rachel out of prison and for her right to protect her sources. Vera Farmiga (the psychiatrist girlfriend from The Departed) is excellent as the outed CIA agent, Erica Van Doren. In a very real way she pays the highest toll for the story, and this "leftist" movie doesn't sugar-coat that. Valerie Plame lost her CIA job, but got a big-bucks book deal for "Fair Game: My Life as a Spy, My Betrayal by the White House." The fictional Van Doren doesn't fare as well. Miller's real-life lawyer, Floyd Abrams, plays the judge who doesn't hesitate to send Rachel to prison.

Watching the film progress, watching day after day add up on Rachel's prison time, the viewer can't help but wonder, especially when several loopholes are offered, why Rachel doesn't just go ahead and name her source, especially when the Vice President's Chief of Staff comes forward and admits that he was her corroborating source.

The final scene of the movie explains why Rachel so doggedly protects her source. It is not a cop-out, and it is believable, and it provides an appropriate ending to this believable and well-made movie.

This film is much better than I ever imagined. I'm surprised it hasn't gotten a bit more buzz or positive looks. The story is compelling, based on true events but is a work of fiction. The acting is surprisingly good, that's expected from Kate Beckinsale; but Matt Dillon turns in one of his better performances. David Schwimmer has finally lost the whole Friends aura. Alan Alda is sadly still playing Alan Alda. Vera Farmiga is one of the surprises.

There's no need to understand or even have heard about the case this film is based on. The director did a perfectly wonderful job at making the story line compelling and easy to follow without prior knowledge (and I have none). This is a decent thriller / mystery in the not as convluted Burn After Reading, or West Wing molds.

The story is simple and fairly linear. The film opens with the president being shot and the US government blaming Venezula for the attempted assaniation. Rachel Armstrong (Kate Beckinsale) publishes a story that exposes a CIA agent, Erica Van Doren (Vera Farmiga). A special prosecutor is appointed, (Matt Dillon), to find her source. Rachel refuses and is put in jail. The meat and potatoes of the story is how she ends up in jail, her time there and then the resolution of the story. Many things happen along the way, and none should be revealed. There is a wonderful surprise ending to the film.

Production wise this is fairly well done. In fact film values is what drags this film down a star. That darn annoying roving random no reason camera motion nonsense is heavy duty here. Editing was fairly well done, pacing was about right. The film is right length at almost 2 hours. Shots are reasonably in focus. Sound was well recorded, dialog is perfectly clear.

The film is rated R for one reason only, strong language (about 50 f bombs that weren't really necessary). In fact this is such a good morality tale, I really wish this had gotten a PG-13. There was a congugal visit between Rachel and her husband Ray. It's clear what they are doing, but there is absolutely no nudity. The MPAA is totally beyond me with how they determine film ratings.

The part that is wonderful with this film, the message. Rachel stands up for what is right. She sticks by her convictions. This is the story of an incredibly strong woman, one to be honored. It was much better than I ever expected.