Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

GetPapa Far from Perfect, Far from Terrible

Micah Lloyd Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

Freeman This film is so real. It treats its characters with so much care and sensitivity.

krocheav Denial is professional to the eye with strong performances and some good dialog but, why is it shows on this topic can too often leave me feeling I'm being unnecessarily manipulated? I.E.; the casting of suss looking actors for the 'bad' guys - with too many snide characteristics to make sure we get that this is a 'bad' guy - then at times, with too many 'there, I told you so' situations on the side of the 'good' guys. This can be undermining and should not be necessary as a device to influence us regarding the already terrible incidents most of us are already on-side with. Shocking crimes were committed by Nazi Germany and these cannot be denied but, these were also administered to numerous victims of all races - not just those being examined in many movies with this theme. Make no mistake, Denial is a fine movie and apart from the odd single-sided issues, it's a story that deserves to be told. Perhaps one problem could be that some original issues are being dealt with too long after the fact and, often by countries that did not do enough when these atrocities were being committed. France (among others!) has much to atone for by betraying many innocent bystanders. Any justice is good but late justice is not always good enough. As for the doubters, Eisenhower's prolific camp liberation footage is enough to confirm what was happening at these sites. If in any doubt, take a look! Visually, this particular movie is a strong production dealing with a contemporary, factual court case and should please viewers with an interest in justice and history.

natalyanormandy The actors are obviously outstanding, the script staggers at some parts, and yes , is artificial at others, but the movie raises an extremely important question, particularly poignant at our troubled times - what is the truth? can history be manipulated? is it OK to express your racist views, because of the freedom of speech? and what is the current duty of historians if not to prevent the abuse and intentional juggling of History? Or should the conspiracy partisans be ignored? Hard questions, extremely difficult to answer. No, the movie is not brilliant answering them, but is it brilliant because it raises the point and shows at least some complexity and seriousness of the questions of truth...

Andres-Camara It's a movie you see, because these types of movies always like to watch them, but it does not come at any time to be a good movie, even if it's not bad.The first problem I encounter is that Timothy Spall did not believe me, it's like a caricature and that leaves him credible. Otherwise, the rest of the actors are fine.It is not a good movie of judgments and there are times when it is thick. There are times when you do not know where you are going.I think the visit to the concentration camp is just to create sentimentality.The photograph has good moments, has moments in which it is very beautiful and transmits, but then when it illuminates through a window, it puts too much light and it spoils it.the director is normal, does not make nice plans or narrates but at least not bored.It is a movie that if it did not have these actors, would go unnoticed

rogerdarlington When British history writer David Irving sued for libel the American historian and academic Deborah Lipstadt, because she had accused him of being a Holocaust denier, I assumed that he had no chance of winning and that, having been defeated in a court of law, the cause of Holocaust denial would be irredeemably damaged. I was wrong on both scores which is why, 17 years after the trial, it is so important that this big name film about the case has been made.As the film makes clear, Irving's defeat was far from certain because, in an English libel case, the defendant has to prove the veracity of the offending material and an important part of the price paid by the defence was that neither Lipstadt nor Holocaust survivors were called to testify so that Irving, who conducted his own case, could not exploit them. The film is released at a time when social media online and Trump in the White House are giving extraordinary prominence to falsehoods in an era which has been dubbed "post-truth".The Holocaust happened and, if this film helps to remind people of this incontrovertible fact, it will make a valuable contribution to evidence-based discourse. The main problem for such a cinematic work of less than two hours is that the case was so prolonged and complex. It ran for five years (2000-2005) and, when it came to trial, it went on for 32 days and ended with a judgement of 355 pages. A further problem is that the viewer always knows the outcome, which inevitably diminishes the tension of the narrative, although director Mick Jackson and writer David Hare do their best to build up a sense of uncertainty. So, as a film, this is never going to be a crowd-pleaser.But it tells an important story about an issue of huge historical significance and it does it with a roster of fine British actors. Rachel Weisz (herself Jewish) is the feisty Lipstadt and Timothy Spalling is convincing in the unsympathetic role of Irving, while Tom Wilkinson is formidable barrister Richard Rampton and Andrew Scott is cerebral solicitor Anthony Julius. Some of my Jewish friends feel that the film is unfair to the British Jewish community, but a good deal of research went into this work and every word that Irving utters during the screen version of the trial is taken verbatim from the court records.