kitellis-98121 This was a gripping and thoroughly enjoyable thriller/drama that was equally intelligent, thought provoking, and satisfying. Well written and directed, with excellent performances from the entire cast, it avoided many potential pitfalls of the genre, and managed to draw me in with sufficient emotional investment in the characters that I was experiencing surges of adrenaline throughout, while not tipping me so far over the edge that I hated any of the "bad" guys so much that I couldn't bear watching any more, or lost faith in a "good" outcome (by my own moral standards).The film poses a deliberately snarly dilemma, of whether the interests of free speech trump those of national security. As a person who is both extremely conservative AND extremely liberal (with all the accompanying internal conflicts) I could have come down in either direction while watching this, and there was the potential for my conflicting views to cause it to be too stressful to watch.As it happened, I came down heavily on the side of national security. I don't know whether it was the intention of the filmmakers for me to go that way. I feel that it was not, since the central character, for whom I assume the majority of the audience are expected to feel sympathy, was the reporter who broke a story that potentially threatened national security. However, as much as I despise and distrust politicians (of all stamps) I am equally loathing of reporters so it could have gone either way for me. I don't know what made me take the side of the government in this movie. They were certainly not blameless, although the "outed" CIA operative was clearly innocent and had her life ruined by a journalist not thinking beyond the chance at a Pulitzer. But I spent the entire movie HATING the reporter and wanting her to be punished as much as possible. I was delighted at all the "bad" things that happened to her, and wanted lots more "bad" things to happen. My only frustration throughout the whole film was that she never seemed to "get" how irresponsible and despicable her "outing" of a CIA agent was, and how potentially dangerous it was, both to the agent personally (both in terms of physical safety, as well as career) and also potentially to all her overseas "assets". I really wanted the reporter to realise and acknowledge that her zealous belief in some arbitrary "right" to the truth, and consequential "right" to protect her "source" was not necessarily in the best interests of the "people". Her narrow vision, shared by all Pulitzer prize chasing journalists, and suborn refusal to see the bigger picture is one of the things that makes it so hard for me to support her actions.There is a very good argument, presented eloquently in the film by Alan Alder's character, that without freedom of the press there is no one to keep the government "honest", and that without the fear of being "caught-out" and publicly "exposed" the government could run rampant. My problem with that argument is that history continues to prove that successive governments continue to be dishonest, corrupt, and criminal, regardless of press scrutiny, and the ultimate perpetrators of evil are rarely (if ever) punished for their crimes aside from getting a bit of "bad press" that is soon forgotten in the next news cycle. The media, at least the modern version of it, is more about "entertainment" and "gossip" anyway, rather than hard news. And they wrap themselves in the 1st amendment in order to report on which celebrity is sleeping with which, rather than which politician is profiting from (insert dodgy deal here). So I spent the majority of the movie rooting for the prosecution, as it were, and hoping that the journalist would get thoroughly annihilated. And mostly things went my way - so I didn't have to endure the sort of seething frustration that often goes with a movie like this. After all, her irresponsible reporting and refusal to divulge her "source" left a potentially dangerous mole deep inside the government or security services.So when the "source" was finally revealed at the end, and it turned out that there was never any danger of a "mole" or other threat to national security, I'm sure I was supposed to feel sympathy and respect towards the reporter, and accept that she had been right in protecting her source.However, I still hated her and here's why: The whole thing could have been prevented. If she had simply come clean about the source, privately and off the record, the CIA agent wouldn't have been forced to resign (due to suspicions about her integrity) so she wouldn't have been without her security detail and would not have died. The government wouldn't have wasted time and money on a massive legal battle and mole hunt. The reporter wouldn't have gone to jail, so her kid wouldn't have been traumatised and her husband wouldn't have cheated. The "story" would still have been out there, and she would still have still got her Pulitzer nomination. And the government's crimes could still have been investigated and punished appropriately. EVERYONE would have been a winner, except perhaps the government (if it turned out they'd lied). And the "source", based on who the "source" was, would have suffered a whole lot less than they ended up suffering as a result of being "protected" by a misguided and foolish woman. Because, as it turned out in this case, the "source" wasn't actually a "source" at all, so no journalistic "integrity" was ever even at risk!In summary, this was a great film that got me just hot enough under the collar to be entertained, but not enough to have a coronary! So it's all good.

nadinesalakovv Kate Beckinsale plays the character Rachel Armstrong, a reporter who outs a CIA Agent. The government want to know who her source is, she refuses to name her source which results in her being thrown in jail.This is a well-acted motion picture that is inspired by real events. This movie does a good job of making sure it is in no way glamorous. This is a down-to-earth flick in many aspects even down to the point of the cinematic colour theme which doesn't feature loud colours.Rachel Armstrong is a strong character that as another character mentions "Has the keys to her own cell", she could easily use the get out of jail free card by naming her source, but she refuses due to how much she believes in reporting as well as bigger things that are happening outside of that with the government.This is a must-watch, however there are some scenes that could've been edited out and some dialogue could've been changed.Like many independent films "Nothing But The Truth" is underrated and overlooked, the fact that it never got a theatrical release could have contributed to that fact.Sex: One sex scene. Strong Language: Yes, throughout. Violence: Off-screen murder scene, and a brutal physical assault/women fighting in jail.

NateWatchesCoolMovies Nothing But The Truth is a thriller with certain elements of greatness, but one that can't quite be called a complete success. It lags and lingers in scenes that should be fired up, and it's pacing isn't always consistent. It's still a well told story that cares, impassioned about its subject matter an focused on getting you close with its protagonist, played excellently by Kate Beckinsale. She portrays Washington reporter Rachel Armstrong, who exposes a CIA agent (a nasty Vera Farmiga) regarding some shady activities in South America. She won't reveal her source though, even if it means her arrest and public ostracization which eventually it does. She's bullied, imprisoned and harried no end to reveal the source, yet she remains steadfast. Beckinsale is pure brilliance, careful not to reveal traces of her reasoning, yet skilled enough to ignite sympathy for her from us, and a kindly defense attorney (Alan Alda) as well. Her squirrelly husband (David Schwimmer) jumps ship and turns her own son against her. A detached, unsympathetic investigator (a laid back yet stern Matt Dillon) puts further pressure on her. And still.. she doesn't break. If it feels slow at times, press on, for there are scenes worth attention, hidden like easter eggs amongst the dull stuff. And the very last scene you will definitely want to see. Welcome supporting turns come from Jamey Sheridan, Angela Bassett, Courtney B. Vance and a flippant Noah Whyle. Beckinsale holds it together though, in one of her best turns.

mkrems Definitely Kate Beckinsales best role. I've seen her in Underworld, Pearl Harbour and much more, but this is her best one. Vera Farmiga also plays wonderful, except Matt Dillon. He looks kind of bored in the whole movie.Good Story, good acting and an ending which is OK. There are just some little things, where I can say, that they were bad. The acting of Matt Dillon, which I have mentioned before. The ending, which isn't lame, but it is really predictable. And the boring David Schwimmer, which is as boring as hell. Nothing special, but more than good.7 out of 10 for Nothing but the Truth