Thinking Pulitzer Prize and hoping to bring down a President, D.C. political columnist Rachel Armstrong writes that the President ignored the findings of a covert CIA operative when ordering air strikes against Venezuela. Rachel names the agent, Erica Van Doren, a woman whose young daughter is in Rachel's son's class at school. The government moves quickly to force Rachel to name her source. She's jailed for contempt when she refuses. She won't change her mind, and the days add up. Chaos descends on Van Doren's life as well. First Amendment versus national security, marriage and motherhood versus separation. What's the value of a principle? Written by
Rod Lurie's previous film Resurrecting the Champ (2007) also dealt with a journalist seeking a big story and trying to get the Pulitzer Prize. Both films were also influenced by true events. See more »
When Rachel is beaten up in jail, she gets serious scars on her lower lip and her right eye. In a later scene, the scars are completely gone. In later subsequent scenes, the scars are back, and seen to be gradually healing. See more »
Look Ray, if you can sleep at night, you can sleep at night.
She made a choice. Choices have consequences!
If you think your wife felt like she had a choice in this, then maybe you two shouldn't be together.
Well, you can tell her or not. That's up to you. Keep up the good work!
See more »
should have been called 'woman without principle' - contains spoiler
The acting is excellent, but to associate the leading character with the notion of 'principle' or 'integrity' is so wrong in every way. There is no principle at all in using the words of an innocent child for the benefit of one's career, nor in naming the child's mother publicly so that it causes irreparable damage to her family. If she had named her source, she would have just looked like a pathetic and desperate woman who exploited a child, which is exactly who she is. I have sympathy for every other character who suffered the consequences of her stupid and selfish actions, but have none for her. Even her husband had more principle - he continued to say nothing but good things about her to her son even though she did not deserve it. She is a thoroughly repugnant individual and I really have to wonder if some people missed the point because of Kate? Had the actions been taken by a man, the words 'sleazy' and 'despicable' would probably have sprung to mind much more readily.
15 of 27 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?