Truth (I) (2015) User Reviews

Great Subject Matter. The story that ended Dan Rather's career. (from Redford's view)

[ChetXBuck · 5 February 2016]

Interesting, but this film is hard to take. We found ourselves rolling our eyes a few times. Our group found the story very interesting, but grossly flawed.

Acting: Good B+ (clearly, they representing a liberal perspective, but they don't go as far as a Michael Moore)

Filming is well done and the story is engaging. That said, having followed this story closely, they really push the "Dan Rather was a Hero" and "George Bush is Evil" storyline. With layers and layers of conspiracy from big business, media, finance and politics, it bends facts a bit too much.

The movie suggests that Dan Rather was only a talking head and did not really play any role in the journalistic decisions that were made (and made wrong). It was his 60 Minutes Team that dropped the ball. Hard to imagine. They spend the entire movie trying to keep Rather unblemished.

The focus of the story is Mary Mapes. Again, this film was written to suggest she's a hero and had no political motivation in her attacks on Bush. It's hard to imagine someone pursuing any story with this much personal passion and then suggest they really do not dislike Bush.

Redford feels that this story of Rather/Mapes is our generations Woodward and Bernstein. That's not just a stretch, it's painful to even make that connection. Clearly, these reporters had flaws, but they also did some great work over their career.

REMINDER: REDFORD WAS WOODWARD in the film All The Presidents Men. Another media film about taking down a Republican president. However, the All The President's Men Story was about journalism and anxiety to do what is right. In this case, Truth pushes some VERY big buttons to get you to consider what may have happened, even though the evidence is to the contrary.

Had this film been directed and written by a moderate and non-political person, it could have been great. It's an amazing story, but in this film, Truth is told from Redford's view, which is quite biased.

Best actress in a small role!

[rt-59493 · 15 January 2016]

Truth is packed with personalities, both in the story and the actors. Robert Redford! Cate Blancett!! Dennis Quaid! Dan Rather! However the very best acting in this movie, as well as the most powerful character, is the actor who is far down the list here on IMDb, and does not even have a photo.

Actor Noni Hazlehurst some may recognize as the tyrannical matriarch from the Australian TV series, A Place to Call Home. It took me a while to even recognize her. Noni's acting is superlative in every second of her role as the wife of Lt. Burkett, the ill, oxygen sniffing codger played by Stacey Keach. Noni delivers her blistering opinion of Mary Mapes' fake concern with just the right combination of bitterness and weariness. Her role may go unnoticed by many, but in my opinion, is the most important of the entire movie.

Basic newsroom drama, with no frills. 4/10

[leonblackwood · 4/10 · 1 October 2016]

Review: This is an average political, newsroom drama, about a group of journalist, head by Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett), who think they have uncovered the true story about President Bush's military history. Whilst working for 60 minutes, Mary risks her career to get all of the information to air the story on the show, in 2004 but it all turns sour once the important people in the political world, hear about the story, before it gets aired. With Dan Rather (Robert Redford) heading the broadcast, Mary's story is soon shut down, and her journalistic tactics are questioned by the head of 60 minutes. I must admit, I was expecting more from the movie and I was hoping for deeper intensity, due to the subject matter. All of the actors put in top performances, especially Cate Blanchett who never disappoints but the pace is pretty slow and it seemed quite basic. It does make you think how the whole election would have turned out if the story was released, without any controversial interruptions but it was obvious that a story that big, wasn't going to plain sailing. The outcome proves that there is corruption in journalism and it's sad to see that innocent people got punished, for no reason. Anyway, from an entertainment point of view it isn't bad but I doubt that people would give it a second watch. Average!

Round-Up: This is the first movie written and directed by James Vanderbilt but he did write Welcome to the Jungle, Basic, Zodiac, The Losers, The Amazing Spiderman 1 & 2, White House Down, Solace, and the new Independence Day, so he has had a lot of experience when it comes to large scale movies. As this movie was based on Mary Mapes, 2005 memoirs, Truth & Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege Of Power, he obviously wanted to stay close to her true story but it's always good to add a couple of twists to keep the audiences attention, which I didn't really feel. I never heard about this scandal when it happened in 2004, so it was good to see what was happening in the background during that period. Anyway, for his first movie, James didn't make a right mess of the project but he could have made the book more appealing for the big screen.

Budget: $9.6million Worldwide Gross: $5.4million

I recommend this movie to people who are into their biography/dramas, starring Cate Blanchett, Robert Redford, Topher Grace, Dennis Quaid, Elisabeth Moss, Bruce Greenwood, Stacy Keach, Dermot Mulroney, John Benjamin Hickey and David Lyons. 4/10

Go watch Michael Mann's 'The Insider' instead

[alex_with_a_P · 4/10 · 28 January 2022]

The story is unfortunately a bit by the numbers and too schmaltz-y (especially the soundtrack is laying it pretty thick). Lots of "tell" don't "show".

It's a shame because there are some interesting bits here and there. But the movie focuses much more on the character rather than the journalistic integrity that's being at stake. The movie is quite predictable, it hits all the beats and one can even guess when things are about to happen.

It doesn't help that a story about '60 Minutes' being compromised by powerful forces has already been done in a much more engaging way by Michael Mann. Not only is The Insider swinging for the fences but it has much better cinematography too, especially if you're dealing with a kind of dry topic like this one. Another thing that gets highlighted is how this is purely told from the pov of one character (again a very predictable trajectory too) while The Insider has two pov's (journalist & informant) and gives a better sense of how companies can get entangled with personal interests and how quickly journalistic integrity & values can be compromised.

Slick and pointless

[ArtVandelayImporterExporter · 5/10 · 17 January 2018]

In 2015 who could possible give a sh$$ whether a former (by 7 years already) president skipped out on his National Guard duty It's like Contarded-Americans blathering on about Obama's birth certificate after he's out of office. Nobody cares. They're in the history books So if some picayune detail about George II can't possible hold viewers' interest - I was bored to death by the time Topher Grace showed up 15 minutes in - are we supposed to care about the journalists? Nobody has ever heard of Mary Mapes or any of the other clowns in this drama not named Dan Rather. And Rather was a caricature of a self-satire of a self-important TV talking head years - maybe decades - before the events told in this story. On the other hand I did learn that Rather pounded A&W Root Beer-sized mugs of scotch. So I guess that's something.

The right message in the wrong story !

[elshikh4 · 5/10 · 29 September 2022]

I won't talk about the movie's different elements, because one element in it got my interest, and my anger as well; it's the script. Because the way how it choose its final goal annoyed me much, and ruined the viewing for me!

Here's a movie that defends media freedom in the age of big corporations, however through the story of a TV news producer who did such a criminal mistake under the name of media freedom. Ok, I can't accept a message like that, through a story like this!

It's based on the 2004 CBS 60 Minutes report, investigating then-President George W. Bush's military service, according to some documents which were sent to Mary Mapes, the program's prouder, that revealed how Bush had preferential treatment, and went absent without official leave for one year in 1972. However, the documents turned out to be fake, and airing them without verification cost Mapes her career!

The movie's lead character, played by Cate Blanchett, isn't a martyr; she's rather a fighter who missed her shot, that's why her climactic tirade, concerning disrupting the quest for truth, is weakened by the bitter truth of her act!

The same can be said about the phone call of the program's anchor Dan Rather, played by Robert Redford, in which he talks and talks about the end of honesty in the contemporary political media, rather the end of raising public awareness towards politics in the first place. But from where did all of that come?! This is, again, the right speech in the wrong place. The case in hand isn't Watergate scandal uncovered by media guys; it's a professional mistake, and a crime of defamation or disinformation, done by those media guys themselves!

The motive of Bill Burkett, played by Stacy Keach, to send the fake documents to the lead, was so poor. The thing is the script shrouded this point in mystery, and didn't even clear it up in the end, which hurt the whole thing!

Truth (2015) looks like a way less powerful version of JFK (1991). This time, the truth seekers got deeply confused, saw the white as black, and were proved wrong. It has a righteous message, no doubt about that, however it seemed eventually as if an attempt to absolve a TV producer who fell into the trap of promoting a lie, and that's the movie's worst.

It may have some good elements, but its script puts the balance in favor of muddle. We need more righteous messages in films, but without stories that may weaken them!

Horrible!

[larryswa-68136 · 1/10 · 7 November 2020]

What a terrible choice of Robert Redford to play Dan Rather. Not believable at all.

Factual, accurate? No matter, not riveting, .... boring.

[Ruxskull · 4/10 · 28 December 2016]

The intricate, the detail?

Important and accurate. Maybe.

But the story plods along without any pulling on the dramatic elements to be interesting and worthy.

Skip it.

To over-simplify: Is this an important point in 'truth'? yes. there are many more incidents much worse that this. Injustice, inaccuracies, mistakes. Most of which can and have been made into much better films.

this just does not click. Why? OK, the why is important, but the movie misses that. It's a boring step by step reason why smart people screwed up. But that's not entertainment, nor interesting. And not a good film.

A poor man's journalism film

[eddie_baggins · 4/10 · 18 July 2016]

While some were quick to label it a modern age All the Presidents Men (a film that shares its co-star in the form of Robert Redford), Truth doesn't contain any of the pedigree of Alan J. Pakula's outstanding 1976 film and while it's from the same staple of films as the journalistic masterpiece, James Vanderbilt's movie just never connects or envelops the audience in the way it needed to to end up as something more than sporadically insightful.

Telling the true life tale of producer/journalist Mary Mapes and her 60 Minutes crew investigation into George W. Bush's suspect service records from his time in the air force, Truth starts out in an engaging enough fashion only to spiral down a path that becomes increasingly ham-fisted and while Vanderbilt looks to make a statement on telling the truth no matter the cost there are never really enough hard answers to make us really care what went on with the headline making story and with a name cast on highly average form Truth was truthfully never going to succeed.

In what's become a worrying trend for Australian darling Cate Blanchett, Truth see's the Oscar winning actress once more choose an awards baiting role as the tough as nails Mapes but in what becomes a character that shows Blanchett's worst tendencies as an actress (overplaying, coldness) this was a wrong turn for the well regarded figure. After recent roles in such films as Carol, Knight of Cups and The Monuments Men it would be a nice change of scenery for Blanchett to take lead in a less bait like production.

Blanchett's co-stars including the sleepwalking Robert Redford as real life American news anchor Dan Rather and the underused supports like Topher Grace and Elisabeth Moss don't make much of a mark either and while the central investigation into Bush's history is undoubtedly quite intriguing, the characters here are anything but and once the thin veneer of the films initial promise washes away the audience is left with a bunch of people we don't really care for.

Truth is a drama that could've easily made some big waves during awards season and become something of a sleeper hit but as it stands this lacklustre and bland investigational procedural is highly forgettable, mostly dull and it'd be a lie to say you need to track it down.

2 packets of Lays chips out of 5

Some of the best actors in hollywood couldn't save this candy-coated cardboard pellet

[benjithegreat-64198 · 3/10 · 6 February 2020]

I don't know how accurate it was, but the movie itself was the epitome of glossy Hollywood garbage. Every shot looks like a commercial for soda and everyone is overly, nauseatingly beautiful and fake. It couldn't feel less realistic. Even the actors (and there are a number of really great ones here!) couldn't save this polished turd.

Soap-boxing at its best

[imdb-21226 · 3/10 · 7 April 2016]

This film is so transparent. At every turn the dialog is a setup so that a grand speech (with huge musical crescendos) can be made. I suspect most people that liked the film were mostly swayed with the politics of the film. I am not against the political statements.. its just that it would have been better as a documentary than a feature film.. Some of the situations setup in the film are laughable. The big dramatic music doesn't help. Robert Redford - whom I am a big fan - was really cheated. He has a strange unbelievable demeanor. The cast is good for the most part. The dialog is very poor at times. "why did you get into journalism?"... "curiosity... Why did you?".. "you!" (a big pause followed dramatic music follows).. Not exactly ground breaking dialog.

Daddy, please stop.

[gingerrdriley · 4/10 · 4 January 2017]

This film is bad.

This film feels a lot like that year's Spotlight, only with a much worse script and less competent direction. So far as the acting is concerned, where to place the blame is a bit difficult. It just feels awkward sometimes. That awkwardness, though often due to clunky delivery, is largely derived from the dialogue. Vanderbilt doesn't seem to know how to write it. A lot of the double speak Cate Blanchett's character uses to address both her abusive past and her journalistic struggles is heavy handed and obvious. Nothing is subtle. Certain lines are clichéd to the point of being cartoonish ("don't you understand?").

While the dialogue and direction I feel pretty well explains middling performances from competent actors like Blanchett and Redford, sometimes actors are just bad. There's even a bad child actor. Not all children are bad at acting. Some are very good. They are like any other actor and should be judged on more or less the same standard as their adult counterparts. With that in mind, the child actor in Truth is still bad. Like his adult peers it isn't all his fault, some of his lines are just terrible. The bad adult acting suffers the same, though the flat delivery really doesn't help. Flatness is not the only problem though.

Like I alluded to with Blanchett's character's heavy handed double speak, Vanderbilt is not good with subtly. At one point he seems to doubt so much that his audience gets the point that he dedicates a three minute speech to a character basically laying out his political opinion just so we don't miss the point of his two hour movie. It's honestly a little surprising that an experienced screenwriter feels he has to resort to it.

It's not surprising that this is Vanderbilt's directorial debut. While the direction of the actors is generally not the best, most other aspects of the film just go to show his inexperience. There is visually nothing interesting. The cinematography is generally flat and the only variation in shots is how centered or balanced they are, which, given the somewhat stale office setting much of the film takes place in, isn't really that impressive. The lighting, color, and set design are all serviceable, nothing more. There didn't seem to be any thought to having the visuals of the film play any real role in telling the story (There is one shot which does show a power imbalance purely through the way a large number of characters are situated across the protagonist, demonstrating the odds being stacked against her, but honestly I wouldn't be surprised if this was coincidental given the pattern for the rest of the film).

Given that Vanderbilt has a lot more experience with screen writing than he does directing, it's not surprising that he felt comfortable using spoken word alone to tell this story, but then what's the point in making it into a film? The only other way to really enhance the story through the medium would be with its music. It's too bad then that the score is totally bland and forgettable and is really more working in the background than enhancing or transforming the emotional weight of a given scene.

When this film is not mediocre it is bad. It does almost nothing to utilize the medium of film and makes me question why Vanderbilt didn't just keep to the writing and leave the direction to someone more competent. Maybe if you have strong feelings on Bush you'll find yourself ignoring how bad it is. I think though, if you look at this thing objectively, you'll realize it wasn't worth your time.

"Truth" is fascinating entertainment, but THE truth is in the eye of the beholder.

[dave-mcclain · 5/10 · 2 November 2015]

Journalism is a tough business. And I would be willing to bet that anyone who disagrees with that statement has never done the job. All most of us see is the finished product, but we don't see the hard work, long hours and, sometimes, danger that goes into bringing us the news. People often talk about the bias in some journalists or the mistakes a few of them make, but what we usually don't think or hear about is the large percentage of journalists who do their best to be objective and verify the facts that they report. However, like all of us, journalists are imperfect human beings and, as hard as they may try to avoid it, they are still susceptible to the power of their emotions, the influence of their prejudices and the human propensity to make mistakes. They will also fight as energetically as any of us when they believe they are right and are being unfairly attacked. We see all this in the docudrama "Truth" (R, 2:01).

By early 2004, Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchet) had been senior producer of the television news magazine "60 Minutes Wednesday" (also known as "60 Minutes II" and, simply "60 Minutes") for 15 years, as she worked closely with legendary CBS News reporter and anchorman Dan Rather (Robert Redford). In the spring of 2004, Mapes and Rather had worked together to break the story of U.S. military and intelligence personnel mistreating detainees at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison (later winning a Peabody Award for their reporting). In late summer, Mapes became aware of the existence of documents which might lend credence to a long-standing rumor that then-President George W. Bush (son of then-Congressman George H.W. Bush) received preferential treatment from the Texas Air National Guard and even failed to fulfill all of his service commitments. In pursuit of the story, Mapes worked with Rather and assembled a team of journalists which included associate producer Lucy Scott (Elisabeth Moss), freelance journalist Mike Smith (Topher Grace) and military expert, retired Marine Colonel Roger Charles (Dennis Quaid).

As Mapes and her team developed their story, former Texas Air Guard officer Bill Burkett (Stacy Keach) supplied photo copies of the documents and CBS attempted to authenticate them. Handwriting analysts and document experts vouched for their authenticity and former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes (Philip Quast) agreed to go on camera with his claim that he had gotten Bush in the Air Guard as a political favor. The deadline for the segment to air was tight, but Mapes and her team were satisfied with the content of their story. They ran it on September 8, 2004 and the criticism of the story and the journalists involved was immediate and vicious. Accusations arose online that the documents were forged and Mapes' superiors at CBS, including Executive Producer Josh Howard, Senior Broadcast Producer Mary Murphy, as well as Senior Vice President Betsy West and President of CBS News Andrew Heyward (Bruce Greenwood) started asking a lot more questions. CBS News doubled-down on their story, releasing more facts, more explanations and more interview clips to back up their claims, with the reputation of the organization and their individual careers hanging in the balance. Eventually, CBS hired a team of lawyers led by Lawrence Lanpher (Dermot Mulroney) to conduct an internal investigation.

"Truth" is based on Mapes' 2005 memoir "Truth and Duty: The Press, the President, and the Privilege of Power". As such, it is the story of what happened from her point of view and, as a journalist she makes it interesting. I like "Truth" in the same way I like Oliver Stone's 1991 Kennedy Assassination movie "JFK", as one version of a fascinating story, seen through the eyes of people who had their own interpretation of the incidents portrayed. Each film shows us a version of events which may or may not be 100% accurate and has drawn considerable criticism from those who hold to different interpretations of those events. Both films tell compelling stories, are well-scripted and very well acted by some of the biggest stars in Hollywood, but make little effort toward presenting a balanced representation of their stories or giving a strong voice to other points of view. When it comes right down to it, calling such a film "Truth" is pretty arrogant. However, in the search for verifiable historical truth, the film, whether the complete truth or not, is an entertaining step on a long and winding journey with many forks in the road. "B-"

This movie is liberal propaganda

[newjersian · 3/10 · 30 March 2016]

Truth tirelessly tries to picture Mary Mapes as a great journalist. Maybe she is, but on the specific report about G.W.Bush's service in National Guard she failed miserably. If true, that could have been a very important TV program. To make her point, Mary Mapes needed to prove the facts beyond reasonable doubt. Instead, she rushed to judgment without getting the proof of her facts. The CBS report came out just before the 2004 elections. Apparently the station's liberal clan wanted to influence the outcome of that campaign. They had the right to do that, but then they should have not claimed with straight face that this is just a fair reporting. CBS didn't came out with a report on well known Bill Clinton's draft dodging. They didn't come out with a report about the preferences Al Gore got in war time service due to his father's being a congressman. Al Gore served as journalist, but tried to misrepresent his level of service. That was a real scoop, but Mary Mapes passed on it. Both Clinton and Gore were draft dodgers, but they were HER draft dodgers. In general, this movie is well done with brilliant performance of Cate Blanchett. Even the wooden face of Robert Redford couldn't spoil Cate's part. However, when Hollywood brings a political agenda into the movie making, the film loses most of its artistic value.

Forgets the mouths behind the words

[thatpunkadam · 5/10 · 2 November 2015]

The collective retrospective of scenes results in a blur of newsrooms and paper-littered tables, with the only dab of color coming from the aforementioned cast working to the best of their abilities within the restrictive limits of Vanderbilt's script. Blanchett, however, exhibits an evolving rendering of Mapes, supplying a triadic distinguishing effect amidst the blur. The investigative reporter is bullheaded and slightly giddy in pursuit of the documents before mainstream media exposes her vulnerability in her husband's arms, to then finding her confidence in the grounded effect of her family and the average citizen. Redford embodies Rather with fatherly warmth opposite to Blanchett, drawing visual similarities in addition to the anchor's assuring but direct tone. The talented third-strings add a consistent authenticity to those newsroom debates, but an underused Elisabeth Moss and underwritten Dennis Quaid are hard to ignore. Fortunately, Grace is able to briefly transcend the trio in one venting of a scene that essentially screams the film's frustration with the filtering and mass skepticism of modern journalism—the actor's youthful vigor finally emitting a culmination of welcome plot relief and three dimensional character acknowledgement. It's just too bad its exclusive to that single, fleeting scene.

FULL REVIEW HERE: indieadam.com/2015/11/02/truth-2015-review-indie-adam/

Really Bad

[mariapappa08 · 2/10 · 25 May 2016]

In my opinion this is a bad movie. I am not familiar with the events as I do not live is the States. Therefore I do not have an opinion about the theme of the movie and its truthfulness. However as a movie this is really bad . First of all there is no excitement of any kind , the plot is rather boring. Then there is the whole father -daughter issue that is poorly developed in an attempt to sympathize with Mary. But really it is unconnected with the rest of the movie and does not work at all with me at least. Same goes in fact for every relationship pictured in the movie.. Is poorly developed or not developed at all. Then there is the real story that to my eyes -ie to the eyes of an objective watcher- makes no sense . I did not understand what really happened with this story . Was it real events, fiction , bad journalism ..Because as hard as the movie tries to show us that is was pure journalism it really fails..What I see is that the team messed up..Yes maybe there was a story there , but when you mess with the president of the United States you surely dig a little further and do not rush into things just to have solid grounds on what you present to the public.. Otherwise it is an enormous failure..like the movie itself. The acting is average good -not great .I have seen Cate better ..

Journalists no longer care about truth anyway.

[jewelfires · 5/10 · 20 May 2022]

A fairly well acted story (given all the star power) which unfortunately wasted an entire movie on personal details of the military service of G. W. Bush that would have had little to no effect on a Presidential election of 20 years ago. The audience is meant to feel sorry for the main character Mary, who along with Dan Rather from 60 minutes, get 'rail roaded' into being fired and forced to retire, respectively, for attempting to uncover dirt on Bush, pre-election.

The problem is, they never did conclusively prove their case, and even if they had, as one character in the movie said, it was a non-story anyway.

Basically, self important liberal Hollywood actors portrayed self important liberal journalists more upset that they helped allow Bush to be re-elected than whether or not they were reporting facts.

It's ok, today's journalists don't care about truth either - or else the country would have known about Hunter Biden's laptop, his and his father's deals with China and Ukraine and how Trump being connected to Russia was a hoax all BEFORE the last election too. But, we all know why THAT didn't happen. I'm looking forward to all the movies about Those things..... but I won't hold my breath. Lol.

All the hallmarks of liberal filmaking

[mattrochman · 3/10 · 9 April 2016]

This film demonstrates a clear political bias - which is fine.

However, when the political bias reworks history and throws in rather questionable assertions to conform to a typical (liberal) narrative, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it badly taints the film.

Most liberal hallmarks were covered:

1) The film bends the facts and jumps to highly questionable conclusions, yet the title includes (or is) the word "Truth."

2) The view that Republicans effectively manage the mainstream media and can force out journalists they don't like.

3) Liberal-bias in media is ignored, downplayed or regarded as sensible people simply giving the facts and truth.

4) Facts and scenarios significantly undermining their retelling of history are simply ignored or sidestepped - like the full history of the source of the documents.

5) Liberals who paid a price for their own sloppiness or wilfull blindness are touted as crusaders of truth (or martyrs as some have said).

Performances were reasonably good and that's where I gave it marks.

But the distortion of history goes way past any reasonable sense of 'poetic license' and while I'm not American, I recall the events covered in the film and it's clear that the makers of the film hoped out memories had faded significantly.

Paranoid delusions of dramatic irony

[alpha-73032 · 4/10 · 4 February 2016]

The title of this film should be either FEA or, more expressively, Them. It depicts both military officers and television reporters as aggressively paranoid delusional. Jeb Bush, if the delusional main characters of this film are correct, shall be the next President of the United States. And, if Hillary Clinton is the next President of the United States, such people would say that the reason is the affiliation between George Herbert Walker Bush and William Jefferson Clinton, saying it's all part of the "vast right wing conspiracy," ignoring that the Clintons coined that phrase. Whether or not 1968 typewriters had superscript "th" keys, they didn't have the ability to space characters proportionally as either Word Perfect did or Word does, and that fact alone should destroy the credibility of this film's main characters. The most truthful factor in this randomly weird film, whether or not its producers intended it, is its dramatic irony. And casting pseudointellectual Sundance Redford in it adds to the irony. HITRT

Satisfied

[januszkiewiczadrian · 9/10 · 27 December 2018]

Very addictive. History, based on facts, shows the difficulties of the journalistic world and its risks. I recommend especially to journalism students and adepts.

Truth Be Told

[Fredtimbo · 9/10 · 1 July 2017]

For the record, I am not affiliated with any political party. Being the hardcore moderate that I am, I watched Truth with an open mind and as objectively as possible. Based on a news story by Dan Rather and 60 Minutes, the movie appears to have gotten some inspiration from The Insider, even ripping off a scene from the Michael Mann classic (and one of my all-time favorite films). I can see how some Republicans may not like Truth, but I always appreciate a good story about people against insurmountable odds. The movie's very well-written and directed, backed by a superb all-star cast. And that's the truth.

Blanchett! Blanchett! Blanchett!

[SwollenThumb · 8/10 · 20 May 2018]

Blanchett! Blanchett! Blanchett! (Over-dramatisation of ending takes away from mostly measured, cerebral tone of the rest of the film. Maybe more affecting for American audiences where Dan Rather appears to be almost presidential. His final speech to camera was over-blown.) (viewed 1/17)

This movie tries to erase the truth -- Crappy journaism and lies have consequences

[rsvpdavid · 2/10 · 5 July 2016]

Boring movie. Typical Hollywood liberal-focused point of view. Rather was a liberal journalist and this untruth only makes him look like the folk hero of a 1970s Billy Jack movie. Redford's makeup makes him look like a corpse. Why does he still act in these A&E quality movies? It's not helping his acting legacy. In fact, his heavy-handed political views only get in the way of any entertainment value. I'm surprised Redford doesn't ask Chris Matthews to star with him in one of these low-budget political propaganda pieces. I was equally disappointed in Elizabeth Moss' performance. Contrived at best.

Stay away, event if its in the $0.99 cent discount bin at an auto-parts store. Save your money and watch c-rate garbage on Netflix -- is of the same quality as this movie.

Great Story

[marciamartinwater · 10/10 · 1 February 2021]

This movie is a great watch. Dan Rather was a staple on the evening news in our household.

Compares favorably to The Post

[bobzmcishl · 8/10 · 18 January 2018]

I saw The Post this week and decided to also watch Truth at home to compare two stories about journalism and the media. I found Truth to be just as compelling a story as The Post, with a steller cast and screenplay, with plenty of drama, even though I knew the general outlines of the story and the outcome for those at CBS News. I did not know a lot of the details about how CBS, Mary Makes, and Dan Rather were caught up in some unfortunate mistakes that had little bearing on the veracity of the claims about Lt. George W. Bush and his time in the Air National Guard. This story paints an even larger story about how corporations react to bad publicity and right wing pressures that if anything have gotten worse over time. The movie does a good job in presenting how much fact checking is involved in major news stories, and how easily it can all become unraveled through a series of small errors that add up to one large error. The movie makes a strong case for the truth of the story hence the title of the movie. Cate Blanchett is outstanding as Mary Mapes and Robert Redford is excellent as Dan Rather, and the supporting cast is uniformly excellent. This is a movie that contains top flight actors across the board. Do yourself a favor and watch this movie. It is a worthwhile two hour investment.