just say a few words

Amos 2022-04-22 07:01:42

The movie doesn't seem to get much attention.
Under normal circumstances, it is not easy to nibble on movies with political themes, especially those involving a lot of court scenes. But this movie made me watch it with great cheer, and gradually applauded as the plot progressed.
The protagonist's experience in prison is not detailed, nor does he cry and beg for a son all day. Abandoning all superfluous sensationalism should be a brilliant point of this movie.
The old lawyer was shocked when he said "I'm defending Rachel Armstrong, not a principle." He later said in court that the female reporter and the so-called principle itself had become one, and that those words were also very powerful.
The performance is also satisfactory. Kate Beckinsale's firmness and poise (probably one of my most impressive performances in 2008), Matt Dillon's jaw-dropping suaveness, and Vera Farmiga's performance is also commendable.
Regarding the ending with the "reversal" picture, after watching it, I immediately felt that I should give the movie extra points. Later, I saw the opposing opinions and thought about it for a while. There is indeed still room for people to argue.
The whole movie reminds me of [Gone Baby Gone] in 2007. The heavy and down-to-earth film itself is commendable, and it raises a moral or principled question for the audience, which is more realistic.
So even though the role of the female reporter is all-encompassing (similar to [in the name of the father] in a way), the film's greatest significance to me is not to create a "one-stringed" character.
Also want to mention something I noticed, maybe it doesn't make much sense. The conversation between Rachel and her son on the school bus at the beginning of the film is also repeated at the end. The child accuses the mother of the little girl by saying, "She's not supposed to tattle." The mother replies: "You're not supposed to put up with bullies, either." I think this may be a hint to Rachel's whole encounter, which is herself as the incident The prosecution, led by prosecutor Dubois, is a "bully".

View more about Nothing But the Truth reviews

Extended Reading
  • Karley 2022-03-25 09:01:15

    Politics, policy, rights and power, ethics and principles. Such a deep topic is actually so catchy. Kate finally got rid of the vase.

  • Alphonso 2022-03-19 09:01:06

    Before I saw the ending, I had the urge to give 5 stars. It not only involved the rights and obligations of the news media, but also saw the changes in everyone's life under the national security politics, without losing the realization of family and women's rights. I was very pleased to see this film on the 12th reporter's day. It's best to see the ending, and I want to give the movie 6 stars! The movie with a long ending gives a feeling of lingering sound. The world is complicated, it’s too difficult to hold on to anything

Nothing But the Truth quotes

  • 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.