Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

mraculeated The biggest problem with this movie is it’s a little better than you think it might be, which somehow makes it worse. As in, it takes itself a bit too seriously, which makes most of the movie feel kind of dull.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Gareth Crook This is not an easy watch by any means. Timothy Spall is fantastic and plays the denial character well. So well in fact, despite that I love him as an actor, I hate him in this. Truth is of course my feelings are really directed at the real life character he portrays, David Irving and any other holocaust denier for that matter. That this is a true story is most detestable of all. There's an undercurrent to this story though, away from the matter of the holocaust. It's that of the law, the way it works and the way people can work within it. How it can be used to protect racist, antisemitic people. How the simple right and wrong of the court is hard to equate in the real world and how the those wishing to justify their crimes use it, bend it and twist it for their defence. That the law protects everyone, even evil and unapologetically stupid people like David Irving and people like him. Freedom of speech is not freedom to lie. As a film, this is good, solidly acted, Tom Wilkinson being the stand out for me, but it could've been a little better, less glossy perhaps with such an important subject. Still, I'm very pleased that this story was brought to the screen. Holocaust denial is crap and every opportunity to call it so should be encouraged.

zuta-63046 Unfortunately, some of the highlighted reviews in this page were obviously made by Nazi sympathizers. Do not take their low rated reviews seriously and watch this important movie. And Imdb should use more scrutiny when they allow a horrid and insulting review to be a top review.

writewheelpub I thought that any film with Weisz, Wilkinson, Spall and Scott in it would be worth the maximum score or thereabouts for me but somehow Denial, despite its subject matter being something I view as important, missed the target.The acting was superb. Andrew Scott especially so. I've met a few lawyers in my time and of a type, Scott's Julius rang so very true. So many of the occupants of the Inns of Court are admirable but weird that all Scott had to do for the characterisation was to walk around one for a while.In the same manner Wilkinson hit the self confident and rather superior barrister spot on. There was a certain conceit that was delightfully communicated. Spall all but turned Irvine into a grotesque and in real life the opposite is true, and part of Irvine's weaponry. He's not hesitant but personable, believable and convincing, that is if you don't know the facts. To paint him as an unattractive failure gives the wrong message. There were glimpses of Irvine's way with words, but not enough. He ended up as someone almost pitiable when in fact he's dangerous. Weisz is such a good actress that one must consider that she was obliged to turn Lipstadt into such an unattractive character. I ended up not liking her. (Sorry to the real Lipstadt, I'm sure you are a lovely person who is sympathetic to the needs and desires of others.) I know that feminism rules, but lawyering is complex and the suggestion that the team listened to her for tactics seemed rather unbelievable. I'm not sure that holocaust denial should be an offence. All aspects of history have their contrarians, not to mention those who twist facts to suit their political prejudices, so making a special case, albeit out of something that is rather special, out of holocaust denial is questionable. Perhaps not in Germany as I can see why they feel the option is the better one.The libel laws in the UK seem to be merely a method of enriching the lawyers, but then the systems in the USA have the same emphasis so why make it into a big thing?Using dialogue from the court records is a cop out. It is normally boring, repetitive and vague. Did anyone believe that A Few Good Men showed how a court ran?We should not forget the horrors of the extermination camps but, unfortunately, we will. It will be a footnote in history in a few years. There was a better film to make on the subject, and with such a front row perhaps should have been made.So much for the negatives: the film is still well worth watching, if only for Scott, and is worth the cost of the DVD, but one can't help but regret the much better film that was missed. The Auschwitz scenes were well done although it would be hard not to make them heartrending and emotional. There were certain aspects that were important for the plot and these were rather laboriously covered, but then, I suppose, we'd moan if they had not been mentioned. All in all 7 is a little harsh, but 8 is beyond reach.

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.