-
Ellen 2023-03-22 07:13:53
The ending is obviously an artistic treatment, why do so many people really think it is the truth and think the world is too...
-
Idella 2023-02-12 01:08:02
When you gradually tend to believe that the truth she adheres to is dehumanizing, you finally find that her adherence is the real human nature. Is this the so-called "for the great man there is no difference between the individual and the...
-
Cindy 2023-02-05 00:16:15
In terms of entertainment, it is not an excellent film, but in terms of the concepts it explores, this film is quite good. The entire film slowly shows the conflict and struggle between personal norms and the will of the country, without sensationalism, Cold and clean lens...
-
Shaylee 2023-01-27 22:19:02
It's a pretty good ethical film. The hierarchical relationship is clear and progressive, and the problem is explained and expressed in place. The black angel Kate Beckinsale perfectly interprets the charisma of a determined reporter in the face of a powerful state apparatus and spiritual and moral torture. Many of the lines are quoted from the classics, which is very...
-
Britney 2023-01-12 22:56:10
Dilemma, there is a sense of good fortune, moved by her insistence on commitment and principles, and even more moved by her protection from a mother to a little...
-
Evie 2023-01-03 00:10:07
If you don't know much about American politics, it may seem confusing and boring, which is exactly the case with many of the politicized lines in the film. The film also created a "one-strand" image of fighting for principles to the end. Sometimes society needs to...
-
Karina 2022-12-22 15:07:38
When I saw half of it, I guessed that 80% of the time it was said by the child, so the revealing of the ending mystery was nothing new to...
-
Kamryn 2022-12-03 01:35:20
"Journalists imprisoned? That's a matter of other nations, nations that fear their people, not nations that cherish and protect them." -...
-
Lesley 2022-11-18 01:58:02
The main storyline is a bit absurd. In the end, it was revealed that it was obtained through legitimate channels. It has nothing to do with the political protection of the source and the freedom of the press, and it does not cause harm to minors. If there is such a thing in reality, it can only be said that this reporter is paranoid or likes to molest the government in a self-abuse...
-
Jennifer 2022-10-20 17:28:23
Hollywood-style narcissism and arrogance, but stupidly no way out of the 9/11 conspiracy...
Nothing But the Truth Comments
-
Jerel 2022-01-09 08:02:04
In the Real World
The story about ideals, beliefs, and bottom lines should end here.
I used to think that the Pentagon Documents case was the end of such a ridiculous case. After all, Ellsberg, the main character who leaked government secrets in that case, has been active in various university forums to tell his... -
Golda 2022-04-23 07:03:33
Is it the movie that wants to say too much, or is it that I think too much
I like this film better.
This is a typical incident about a fierce conflict between professional ethics and other interests.
I don’t think it is necessary to criticize the government’s actions in the film.
This is a choice that both parties have to make from their own perspectives. The
government...
-
Ray Armstrong: [staring at his wife's new story] You made the top page!
-
Alan Burnside: [In front of the Supreme Court] In 1972 in Branzburg v. Hayes this Court ruled against the right of reporters to withhold the names of their sources before a grand jury, and it gave the power to the Government to imprison those reporters who did. It was a 5-4 decision, close. In his dissent in Branzburg, Justice Stewart said, 'As the years pass, power of Government becomes more and more pervasive. Those in power,' he said, 'whatever their politics, want only to perpetuate it, and the people are the victims.' Well, the years have passed, and that power is pervasive. Mrs. Armstrong could have buckled to the demands of the Government; she could've abandoned her promise of confidentiality; she could've simply gone home to her family. But to do so, would mean that no source would ever speak to her again, and no source would ever speak to her newspaper again. And then tomorrow when we lock up journalists from other newspapers we'll make those publications irrelevant as well, and thus we'll make the First Amendment irrelevant. And then how will we know if a President has covered up crimes or if an army officer has condoned torture? We as a nation will no longer be able to hold those in power accountable to those whom they have power over. And what then is the nature of Government when it has no fear of accountability? We should shudder at the thought. Imprisoning journalists? That's for other countries; that's for countries who fear their citizens - not countries that cherish and protect them. Some time ago, I began to feel the personal, human pressure on Rachel Armstrong and I told her that I was there to represent her and not her principle. And it was not until I met her that I realized that with great people there's no difference between principle and the person.
