User reviews

An extremely well executed drama, without a single pointless or wasted scene.

No part of this production drew attention away from the story - which was focused on with laser intensity - so although the cinematography was excellent and atmospheric, there was no flashy camerawork or eye-catching visuals; nor did the music ever overwhelm the dialogue or leave you humming a prominent leitmotif; and the editing was crisp, straightforward, and business-like.

The performances were uniformly exquisite, with each actor playing their role with subtlety, nuance, and verisimilitude. There were plenty of opportunities for hammy moments, but to their credit, and the credit of the director, each actor played their part with skilful restraint. In the more emotional scenes, their passions seethed mostly beneath the surface, which all added to the emotional investment of the viewer, forced on occasion to experience the enormity of events far more than if everything had been done for them by the actors. This is a sign of truly skilful and confident directing, as well as a rare example of a modern movie trusting its audience to think and feel what they are meant to, without leading them round by the nose.

Overall, this was a thoroughly satisfying viewing experience, that left just the right cocktail of aftertastes on the intellectual/emotional palate.

From the number of negative reviews of this film, and its low IMDB rating, I can only conclude that there are still a worrying number of anti-Semites and holocaust deniers out there, as there is very little in it to complain about technically or creatively.

There's something that feels packaged and glossy here, and maybe a little bit off with Rachel Weisz's character (not sure if it's the role or the performance), but the subject matter, the true story of a libel suit brought by Holocaust denier David Irving against historian Deborah Lipstadt is compelling, poignant, and raises important questions. How does one respond to someone whose views are so distorted, whose mind is filled with racist filth, and who spews outrageous lies which stir up rage in both those who believe him and those who are horrified by him? Someone who is so far outside the norm that to engage him is to help mainstream him, but to be silent is to let his views go unchallenged and uncorrected? Someone who will quickly drag you down into the gutter he's in if you're not very careful? These are the questions Lipstadt and her legal team wrestle with, and as they're complicated and universal, I found great depth in this part of the drama.

There is a parallel here to demagogues like Trump, and we see the most important thing we must hold on to - regardless of our political or religious viewpoints - is the truth. We must have truth, not "alternative facts", propaganda, or a re-writing of history which dishonors millions and is morally wrong. It's all the more important for monstrous events in history, the crimes against humanity such as the Holocaust. The voice of suffering must be heard, to paraphrase the film.

It's in the clear-eyed, sober pursuit of truth by the barrister played by Tom Wilkinson, and in the scenes at Auschwitz, that the film is at its strongest. And as Lipstadt/Weisz puts it, "Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can't do is lie and expect not to be held accountable for it." The film stirs up a proper amount of outrage, and for me had real tension. If you'd like a little extra helping of outrage and sadness, just read a selection of the low rating reviews out on IMDb, which seems to be a haven for the alt-right to attack films like this, or those starring or directed by African-Americans. I'm not saying if you didn't like the film you're in this group, but my god, reading some of those reviews is depressing.

All the reviews complaining about this film being one-sided and unfair and any other idiotic drivel that has to do solely with the subject matter and not the film itself are complete wastes of time. The Holocaust happened, there is no other POV except from anti-Semites, and that's that, so run along and let the intelligent adults read reviews about the film, not your personal racist beliefs.

Mick Jackson's 'Denial' is a powerful depiction of a very important subject that, somehow, lacks the emotional heft it should have. As far as courtroom dramas go, this one isn't the most thrilling or inventive, but it is both genuinely engaging and sincere. All of the actors provide excellent performances, especially Rachel Weisz, Timothy Spall, and Tom Wilkinson.

Greetings again from the darkness. Guilty until proved innocent. It's a concept that is inconceivable to Americans, yet it's the core of British Law in libel cases. When once respected British historian David Irving accused American scholar and educator Deborah Lipstadt of libel, based on her book that accused him of being a Holocaust denier, the burden fell to Lipstadt to prove not just that Irving's work was a purposeful lie, but that the Holocaust did in fact take place.

This is the first theatrical release in about 15 years for director Mick Jackson, who is best known for his 1991 L.A. Story and 1992 The Bodyguard, and for his Emmy-winning 2010 TV movie Temple Grandin. The script is adapted, from Deborah Lipstadt's book, by playwright David Hare (The Reader, 2008), and the courtroom dialogue is taken directly from trial records and transcripts. Like most courtroom dramas, the quality relies heavily on actors.

Rachel Weisz plays Ms. Lipstadt with a brazen and outspoken quality one would expect from a confident and knowledgeable Queens-raised scholar. Timothy Spall bravely takes on the role of David Irving, a pathetic figure blind to how his racism and anti-Semitism corrupted his writings and beliefs. Tom Wilkinson is the barrister Richard Rampton who advocates for Ms. Lipstadt and Penguin Books in the libel suit brought by Mr. Irving. Andrew Scott plays Andrew Julius, the noted solicitor who also handled Princess Diana's divorce from Prince Charles. Others include Caren Pistorius as an idealistic member of the legal team, and Alex Jennings as Sir Charles Gray – the sitting judge for the case.

Of course for any sane human being, it's beyond belief that a Holocaust denier could achieve even a modicum of attention or notoriety, much less have the audacity to bring suit against a scholar who simply published descriptions of that denier's own words. Rather than come down to fact vs opinion, a more fitting title would be opinion based on fact vs opinion based on a lie. If the words used against Irving in Lipstadt's books are true, she would win the case. In other words, she had to prove that he was a racist, an anti-Semite and knowingly misrepresented the facts in his works as a Holocaust denier.

Mr. Jackson's film begins with Ms. Lipstadt as a professor in 1994 at Emory University (where she remains employed to this day). In 1996, the lawsuit is filed, and in 1998, Lipstadt and Rampton visit Auschwitz. Though the courtroom drama and corresponding legal work takes up much of the film, it's this sequence filmed at Auschwitz that is the heart and soul of the film. Very little melodrama is added … the scenes and the setting speak for themselves.

The trial finally started in 2000, and as always, it's fascinating to compare the British court of law and process with that of the United States. The formality is on full display, but nuance and showmanship still play a role. The film and the trial ask the question … are you a racist/anti-Semite if you truly believe the despicable things you say/write? This is the question that the judge wrestles with (and of course, "Seinfeld" had a spin on this when George stated "It's not a lie, if you believe it").

It's been a rough movie week for me with the Holocaust and slavery (The Birth of a Nation), but it's also been a reminder of just what wicked things people are capable of, and how current society continues to struggle with such inexplicable thoughts. Kudos to Ms. Weisz, Mr. Wilkinson and Mr. Spall for excellent performances, and to Mr. Hale for the rare inclusion of a Chappaquiddick punchline.

I was very much looking forward for this one. Apart from my interest in philosophy, which I think this story touches a great deal on, the content about what the story is saying is by itself important and intriguing. We live in a world that is full of shades of truth and lie, but there are things that simply aren't up for debate. That's what we call facts, be them historical facts or empirical facts. So my expectation was high. And that may have just been too much. Deborah Lipstadt, as played in the movie by Rachel Weisz, is just too affected and dumb to make any sense of. Her lines don't make sense and she is constantly trying to appear just too much involved in the story, but highly unconvincingly. Her acting and scripts are very bad, and they ruin a great part of the movie. You have to constantly keep ignoring her and focus on the story at large to avoid losing interest in the movie completely. It's a shame, because the story has much potential that touches on a lot of important philosophical issues, such as truth, ethics, rights. Indeed, it's a lost opportunity.

In the 1980s Britain saw the rise of the right wing historians. Maybe the study of history has always been subjective, they say it is rewritten by the victors.

Now we had right wingers getting increased media airtime to push their agenda. A period where David Irving's reputation would initially flourish as he was the first to denounce the Stern magazine's publication of the Hitler Diaries as forgeries.

Denial based on true events is adapted by David Hare and directed by Mick Jackson, his return to the BBC after almost 30 years.

American historian Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) calls David Irving (Timothy Spall) out as a Holocaust denier in a publication. He sues her and her publisher for libel in the English courts. The reason being the burden of proof lies with the accused and the amount of damages were high in England.

Lipstadt had no problems raising funds in America to mount a defence and she employed top lawyers to defend her. Andrew Julius (Andrew Scott) the solicitor dealing with the day to day handling of the case and Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson) the barrister who would argue the case in court.

The film has to explain the English legal system and has a narrative of Lipstadt being passionate, wanting to bring survivors of the Holocaust to court to give evidence. She gets short shrift from her lawyers who wanted to prepare for the case dispassionately and methodically.

I think the film downplayed the smart move Julius pulled in getting Irving to agree to the case being tried by a Judge alone and not by a jury. The trial judge Charles Gray (Alex Jennings) had been a noted libel lawyer himself in real life.

The lawyers for Lipstadt had to prove that Irving was a racist, anti-Semitic and knowingly twisted the facts about the holocaust in his academic works.

Irving's reputation lay in ruins after the trial and rightly so. He still has his defenders but the man is a holocaust denier.

The narrative of the film did come across as too much of a 'movie of the week' to me. The film is not riveting enough and at times creaky. The highlight is Tom Wilkinson's masterly performance as the barrister.

For reasons unknown, I chose to take a chance on this one and was quite humbled. Let me be 100% clear here in saying that I most certainly was not in the demographic with which this film likely intended.

1. SCRIPT:

Don't be deceived fellow viewers; this movie is very much both drama and suspense. And nothing more. But that's OK!

A Holocaust Denier from the United Kingdom represents himself in court to disprove the tragedy ever took place. A young Jewish American activist willingly takes it upon herself to go to court for the sake of history as well as Jewish people everywhere.

2. CAST:

I enjoyed Rachel Weisz performance. Probably her most recent work in the 2015 Italian hit "Youth" comes to mind. Denial has shown Weisz is more than capable of carrying a motion picture on her own!

Timothy Spall plays the elder protagonist. With a healthy body of exemplary supporting performances, Denial has been no exception.

Tom Wilkinson is another strong addition to the cast, portraying a widely successful British lawyer named Richard Rampton, his performance quickly stole the show.

3. FINAL THOUGHT:

The material felt real and very tastefully done. Instead of hating Spall's character, I found myself feeling sorry for him. I sympathized as to the likelihood of just how truly awful a childhood some must have had to make such appalling claims.

The directors apparently have given a lot of thought into this film. This movie avoids the temptation to let the emotionally charged content dictate its direction. Smartly, they didn't get lost in the horrific details of what took place (because everyone knows just how awful it was AND many movies have done a great job covering this aspect).

It's always a good sign when the credits roll and your mind begins to reflect on what just took place over the last 109 minutes. I urge everyone to give it a chance. I enjoyed this one.

----- 7/10 STARS -------- Review by Searsino -----

I recommend this movie for people who, like me, make time for conspiracy theories despite loathing them. Outside of the interesting "intentionalist versus functionalist" debate, "revisionism" erroneously connotes academic legitimacy. The title is therefore apt.

All the dialogue pertaining to the defense's fascinating legal strategy went over very well with me. That and the much appreciated verbatim courtroom dialogue comprises most of the script. My positive impressions were reinforced by subsequent research into the trial. Denial delves into the sinister practice of Holocaust denialism at its best. I stretched my viewing over several hours and basked in the cerebral delight of it.

Rachel Weisz has been given flak for a performance that did not leave me in want of anything. Though I would not say it was an award-worthy performance, I chalk that up more to the formulaic production than any shortcoming of hers. Tom Wilkinson deserves mention as her character's barrister. Timothy Spall is terrific as David Irving!

This glowing review notwithstanding, Denial has the feel of excellent television, which is no way to compliment a feature film. The defense's true-to-life legal strategy necessarily undercut the film's emotive power. The scenes at Auschwitz itself are therefore especially vital to its success for me. Including London's Boadicea and Her Daughters was a nice touch.

Very well written and executed account of David Irving's unsuccessful libel action against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin books. All the more so for the fact that the court exchanges are acted out verbatim - as they actually happened.

Well presented, dramatic and thought-provoking. I could go on at length - as some reviewers, especially the more negative ones, have done - on detailed aspects of this film but would urge anyone reading this to just watch it and judge it for themselves.

This film tells the story of a American Jewish female author, who is sued for libel by a historian who believes that the Holocaust did not happen. She has to prove that the Holocaust happened, and that the historian lied with intention.

When I first heard from my friend about the story of this film, I let out a loud disbelief. I cannot quite believe that people have to prove that the Holocaust happened in the court. Hence, I was captivated by the story right from the start, hoping to see the ins and outs of the story. The courtroom drama is riveting and engaging, and culminates in an emotional climax. Thanks for bringing this ridiculous court case to the film screen, as I otherwise would not have known about it.

Another film based on a true events. I heard good things about the book but I can't say the same about the movie. I found this court-drama pretty dull with little suspense. My review here definitely isn't saying the movie is bad, but I didn't enjoy this one. It really lacked the suspense and drama that is almost a given in court dramas such as thing one. Perhaps, though, this one was just different - but it definitely wasn't your typical American court drama film. I didn't enjoy this one, but if someone wasn't aware on this specific topic I would certainly recommend them watch the movie.

Dull and boring movie (in my opinion), and given the topic I thougut it could have been a lot more suspensful and story-driven but it just wasn't the case. Perhaps I'll eventually give the book a try.

Denial meticulously recounts the real-life legal clash between historian Deborah Lipstadt and Holocaust denier David Irving.

Rachel Weisz commands the screen with her portrayal of Lipstadt, supported by a stellar ensemble cast. The film adeptly navigates the complexities of the trial, highlighting the importance of historical truth and the dangers of distortion.

However, while the narrative remains gripping, the emotional resonance occasionally feels muted, leaving some scenes wanting in intensity.

Nevertheless, Denial remains a thought-provoking and well-crafted exploration of a crucial moment in history.

Sadly this movie is more relevant today than it was when it was made :)

Historical and legal landmark value: 5 stars; Movie's entertainment value: 3 stars "Denial" (2016 release from the UK; 110 min.) is the story, "based on true events" we are reminded at the start of the movie, of how British Holocaust denier David Irving sues American author Deborah Lipstadt for libel after she publishes a book called "Denying the Holocaust". As the movie opens, we see Lipstadt delivering a lecture at Atlanta's Emory University in 1994, shortly after her book comes out. Irving sneak into the audience and interrupts her presentation. Next we are in "London, 1996", where Irving brings his claim against Lipstadt and her publisher Penguin Books that Lipstadt's book has ruined his reputation. Lipstadt and her legal team now must come up with a strategy for the pending court case. At this point we are 15 min. into the movie, but to tell you more of the events would spoil your viewing expertise, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: I was surprised to see that this movie was directed by none other than British director Mick Jackson, probably best known for the Whitney Houston-Kevin Costner movie "The Bodyguard" from the early 90s. Here he tackles an important historical (and landmark legal) event, namely how a racist liar turns the tables by filing a libel suit again a Jewish author in a British court. Indeed, as crazy as it sounds, under UK libel law, it is not the accuser who has the burden of proof, but somehow it is the accused. It would seem that this should provide fertile ground for a riveting historical and court drama, but alas, you might be wrong. For whatever reason, the movie from the get-go just feels wooden and oftentimes just boring. In particular the first half of the movie is just not that good, the sole exception being the scenes from when the legal team, accompanied by Lipstadt, decides to make a visit to Auschwitz, not as a pilgrimage, reminds the lead lawyer, but to study it as a crime scene. (I visited Auschwitz a few years ago, this is not a "fun' visit for obvious reasons, but it should be a requirement for all high school kids in Europe for its historical significance and lasting legacy.) The second half of the movie, which centers around the actual court case, is a little better, mostly because of the wonderful performance of Tom Wilkinson as the lead lawyer in the court room. Strangely, Lipstadt, the movie's lead character played by Rachel Weisz, is unlikeable for parts of the movie, and at times outright irritating. Does that make it a great performance by Weisz? I honestly can't tell you. I am a huge fan of her, and can't recall a single movie where I enjoyed her less than I did here. Let me also mention the sober, and touching, orchestral score in the movie, courtesy of veteran composer Howard Shore.

"Denial" opened this past weekend on a handful of screens here in Cincinnati (including not one, but two screens at our local art-house theater). The Tuesday evening screening where I was this at was attended poorly (only one other person beside myself). To be frank, I am torn about this film. It is an important topic but sadly the movie is only so-so. There are many other movies out there dealing with the Holocaust that are so much better than "Denial" (check, for example, the Hungarian film "Son of Saul" which just earlier this year won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film and which is a harrowing and haunting film that everyone should see).

Denial didn't really keep my attention.

It ended up being a court case about a difference in opinion. It was also very heavy-handed in what it wanted you to feel about the holocaust, as if you actually had to emphasise who's side you should be on during the movie.

Round this off with a terrible performance/accent off Rachel Weisz in the lead role and the bland brown/grey of the whole movie and I'm not rushing back to watch this any time soon.

"Is he anti-Semitic if he actually believes it?"

That's one of the scariest lines of the year, or many years, or ever. Especially in light of this election, that line carries a lot more weight, as does a lot of this movie in this "post-truth" world. Maybe if David Irving had come up around now, he'd be one of the high priests of the alt-right. I'm not even joking.

Excellent performances and script, kind of predictable in some moments, but I couldn't help but tear up when Deborah and the other guy sing quietly while at Auschwitz.

Other suggested titles: Judgment at Nuremburg (which this feels like the unofficial sequel to), and especially Errol Morris's Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (Leuchter gets mention in this more than once and for good reason)

I've been intrigued by this movie for many years but always forget to look it up. I found it on Hulu today and was impressed. My main morbid curiosity was watching a holocaust denier defend himself. As I expected, it was embarrassing, which is why he lost the case. He grasped at straws the whole time. I kept waiting to see how he'd crawl out of the hole he'd dig himself. The worst part was the footage of his speaking and people applauding his nonsense. The fact that multiple people like that exist is terrifying. I think people are being cruel to Weisz's performance. Her character was essentially silenced, and she owned every scene she was allowed to express emotion in. Another thing people aren't taking into account is this film was 1998ish. There's too much complaining about the dialogue (all taken verbatim by the way) the style, etc. it is true to the time. It does not take place in 2016. Maybe the most important lesson we learned about this movie is people need to pay better attention.

Denial is a wonderful movie adaption of a gripping true story. Though a couple of decades old now, in an era of officially sanctioned "alternative" facts and liberally pedalled untruths, its story resonates just as forcefully now, as it did at the outcome of the trial which is the central focus of the narrative.

The performances are uniformally excellent, especially those of the four leading characters. The very under-rated Rachel Weisz plays American author and historian Deborah Lipstadt upon whose part biographical book, the film is based. Her publishing company Penguin Books is sued for libel in the UK, by the self-styled and self-promoting David Irving, a so-called expert historian on Nazi German history. Timothy Spall plays the oily Irving, with just the right mix of reptilian fascination. Lipstadt, deciding to defend the case in London hires a legal team led by solicitor Anthony Julius and barrister Richard Rampton, which must prove that Irving had lied about the Holocaust to win the case. Tom Wilkinson is outstandingly good, as Rampton, reputed to be at the time, one of the best legal minds in Britain, an accolade we later learn he earned with good reason. Anthony Scott, whose work is mostly seen in the film's first half provides plenty of that quietly self-deprecating, understated humour for which the Brits are well-known and which adds just the right dash of comic relief to proceedings, which frequently cover exceedingly grim territory.

Besides unveiling the overarching true contest about what constitutes true history and what is false and confronting issues of racism and anti-Semitism, Denial fascinates, with its detailing of the defence's trial strategy, with which for much of the lead-up to and trial itself, Lipstadt didn't necessarily agree. Ultimately she puts her faith in her legal team and is rewarded in a genuinely moving climax.

Director Mick Jackson, whose cinema work I haven't seen for many a day, handles the production, like the defence team itself, in a smartly proficient, non-flashy manner. This is especially noticeable when the defence team tour the skeletal remains of the Auschwitz death camp in Poland, seeking to find weaknesses in Irving's historical accounts of Nazi actions. The temptation to recreate large-scale scenes of human horror are strongly controlled and only briefly hinted at.

Denial is that rare cinematic beast. It's about as close as you'll come to getting a dramatised true story, without it falling into the documentary genre. Indeed much of the dialogue during the compelling trial scenes of the second half is taken directly from the courtroom records. I have to admit to some surprise that Denial didn't have a greater impact at some of the high profile awards ceremonies.

Two neo-Nazis confront one another in a conversation midway through the 2001 film "The Believer": one denies the Holocaust happened, the other berates him and says '...of course it did - why else would there be a reason to idolise Hitler if he wasn't responsible for the deaths of all those Jews?' Well, why indeed? We know the Nazis hated Jews and Jewry, first through the words of Mein Kampf and then through the post-1933 actions of their government when the race was socially marginalised; taxed unfairly; boycotted and then eventually had synagogues and any real-estate either vandalised or confiscated. We know concentration camps existed, but that they were different places in 1944 compared to 1934. We know that Eastern Europe was once swimming with Jews, but that now the population of Israel alone is something like a mere eight million. Where did they all go?

None of the above is, in essence, 'deniable' - we are aware it physically happened and in a very particular order, but what does any of it necessarily say about the fact there were/were not gas chambers at Auschwitz? 'At Auschwitz...' Raul Hilberg once said '...history was destroyed at the same time history was made'. Indeed, and the whole thing is still rumbling on - still creating its own kind of history - in the twenty-first century.

If the Second World War was fought on the grounds that Europe, even the world, was to be saved from Fascism, a constituent part of which is the removing of one's right to an opinion, should it not therefore be acceptable to allow one to one's opinion that certain elements of Holocaust are spurious? "Denial" is the taut drama, more a legal thriller, about the true-to-life case of British historian David Irving (Timothy Spall) taking the Jewish-American academic Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) to court in 1996 on grounds of libel, a case which lasted for four years. It is something which eventually seems to spill out into a wider discussion on the holocaust's authenticity, when the matter is actually as to whether Lipstadt is right that Irving 'misinterprets evidence' and whether a gas fuelled genocide occurred at Auschwitz at all.

The film certainly presents itself early on as a piece depicting a battle of wits between the aforementioned two - deliberately introducing them doing the same thing, public speaking, with Irving cracking jokes to affluent elderly men somewhere after a dinner and Lipstadt giving a passionate talk on the issue of Holocaust Studies in her day job as a teacher. A few scenes later, the two of them clash within the confines of this very kind of venue as Lipstadt is giving a lecture; Irving interrupts and crisply rebuts her 'facts', even embarrassing her, but then resorts to shouting and is eventually escorted out looking like a bit of a crank. Determined not to let that be the end of it, Lipstadt is informed of the aforementioned libel case against her and battle appears to commence.

Despite this early pretext, what comes to transpire is Weisz's character essentially being depicted battling her male dominated legal team more than anything else, which occurs when they persistently advise her not to take the stand so as to allow the men to do the work. There is one woman in the team, however, but she's very young and it's her first time... Best to just let the men take care of it. I was struck, thus, by how strangely passive Lipstadt becomes in what seemed to be her own story as people do the work around her.

Despite being part-produced by the 'impartial' BBC (the basis for many of the film's incidental scenes often seem to lie in a 2000 interview with Irving on the BBC's "Hardtalk" programme), the film goes to some length to depict Irving as merely a bit strange: the way he feeds jelly babies to his daughter; the way he gazes out of a rain soaked window; his raft of hand-written journals that line his shelves, somewhat of a iconographical trope in the thriller genre of the mentally disturbed. But is it really so wise, despite the subject-matter, to suggest that the audience take sides?

One has to stress that there have existed instances of holocaust fabrication: memoirs written by people who actually spent the war in Switzerland; massacres in Polish towns attributed to the Nazis when, in actual fact, the USSR were responsible. Perhaps frustratingly, very little of this seems to infiltrate the film's universe. One must appreciate it is bound to depicting actual events and real people, but it struck me as an opportunity lost to be a little more daring. Irrespective, "Denial" offers much to get one's teeth into; knowing about as much as I did about the case, which was very little, going into the film no doubt enhanced the experience, a viewing experience I recommend.

For Denial, the most shocking thing about this film was that it was made in 2016. Everything about the camera work is so bland and uninspired at introducing Professor Deborah Lipstadt that if enough context was removed this film could literally be about any female professor that's liked by her students.

The initial barrage of Professor Lipstadt's routine is a series of extremely bland cuts from organically lit shot to organically lit shot, and in that barrage the blandness emerges. The trope of the beloved professor is so shoehorned in to create a character for Prof. Lipstadt that I feel completely alienated from the character at large. Denial's pacing alone is so bizarre at jumping to the lawsuit that I'm wondering why I should care about a story fighting Nazism. Jackson feels as though he's done enough to make me empathize with Prof. Lipstadt by showing me at the 14 minute mark how she'll be fighting an uphill legal battle. Around the 19 minute mark, Jackson choses to actively waste our time with an extremely unoriginal rainy London sequence to establish that she has arrived, and even though it's a minute long it's failure of purpose makes it stand out so belligerently. Rachel Weiss' acting as Lipstad feels so inorganic that I am completely skeptical and extremely bored by lines meant to be inspirational as "my mother always said there was gonna be an event. That I was picked out, I was chosen… well here it is." (16:01) That alone is one of many lines that seems to have been taken verbatim from a book. Denial at large is a very aggressively okay film, and at large it seems as though the only thing it's missing is commercial breaks. A quick look through Denial's director's past works shows that the vast majority of his experience prior to his 2016 film is in television. Denial's entire goal of presenting an uphill battle for truth against hate, with it's recurring shots of stairs among other grandiose imagery of rising above, fails so spectacularly entirely because of it's pacing and strange dipping in and out of Documentarian nature.

If a film tells me that it's "based on true events" then why on earth is it showing me meaningless dates and times? Saying your movie is "based on true events" is the most blatantly lazy form of opening a film beyond subtitles showing location and narration, which this film also does. Denial if anything seems in denial of the fact that it's not an HBO series, but a film.