Watch Denial For Free

Thanks for the memories!

Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

One of my all time favorites.

Boring

The logic & dialogue of the script was Supurb. Acting & Casting were Perfect. The Story True & Realistict.

I recently submitted a review of this title. Being that it's a film about a Holocaust denier, I was shocked to see that you've allowed many negative reviews to be posted that are clearly Holocaust deniers. My review was not that. Quite the opposite. I did comment on all those reviews and the stupidity of such views. But I did ask the question why these are made, being that they don't do well and I believe water down the horrid events that took place.Very disappointed in IMDb's hypocrisy.

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

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.