Nelson Strang Sorry, but it's a no from us. Undeniably a worthy subject, but so amateurishly handled in this clunky, one-note script. If you want to see a properly executed Holocaust legal drama, check out 'The Reader', not this. Tom Wilkinson is always excellent and watchable, but he's pretty much the only thing of value in this poor production. Not sure whether Rachel Weisz's Queens accent was authentic or not, but it was grating and annoying to listen to, which made her character very difficult to side with. Best to avoid.

glynrh I thought the film was extremely well written and acted brilliantly by all of the five main players. In fact Spall was outstanding. In the hands of another director or producer, the film could have easily significantly longer. More time telling the story of the Holocaust, a longer build up before the trial and so on. However, it cut to the chase, made a point and moved on. Each character was developed sufficiently to understand their individual role in the piece. The law including the burden of proof, was made easily digestible for non lawyers. Over all the film was lean and got on with telling this particle story and I like that. I own this film on DVD and will watch it again. I do not understand some of the negative reviews posted here. This film deserved to have done far better at the box office. Quite what the problem was I am uncertain, perhaps the absence of any really big names (no offence Rachel, you played the role wonderfully, to a tee) or whether the cinema going public just does not want to see any more Holocaust related productions. If the latter, that would be sad because this film is blessed with layers and is about so much more than the Holocaust. Oh well, Blade Runner bombed on it's first run in the cinemas 35 years ago, so maybe all is not lost!

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.