Sadly Over-hyped

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Based on Deborah Lipstadt's perspective of the trial where she, a Holocaust historian and professor, was sued for libel by Holocaust denier David Irving, "Denial" saves most of the melodramatic moments for outside the courtroom, as she argues with her lawyers over legal strategies and as Irving plays to the press and public and later has an egg thrown at him, while the trial itself is a rather dry presentation of evidence. It's an appropriate, if not necessarily entertaining, approach to a based-on-a-true-story defense of academia and facts. Released during the 2016 presidential campaign in the United States, the movie's portrayal of Irving invites easy parallels to be made with now-President Donald Trump's disregard for facts and dissemination of conspiracy theories and misinformation, whereby "Denial," thusly, becomes a kind of catharsis or wish fulfillment for the election's losing side.I don't think the comparison goes much further than that, though. Perhaps, even, Irving may be seen as a somewhat sympathetic, or at least pathetic, character, which seems unfortunate for a movie that visits Auschwitz and portrays a Holocaust survivor. He's an anti-Semitic buffoon with a fragile ego, but he's right, in a sense, that he's the David up against the Goliath in this dramatized contest. There's a reason that most courtroom dramas are from the perspective of the underdog. It's less compelling to root for the side with plenty of resources, a team of skilled lawyers and, to top it off, academia and facts in their favor. It lacks obstacles. Meanwhile, Irving has no one and represents himself at trial. If like me, you don't seek cinema merely to reflect your own judgments, "Denial," if not seen through the lenses of contemporary politics or an interest in racist conspiracy theories as controversy, has the unpleasant appearance of the flogging of a dead horse.

Neither the script nor Weisz convince in this disappointing superficial and artificial take on the David Irving libel case. Timothy Spall, however, is on fine form.

Denial didn't really keep my attention.It ended up being a court case about a difference in opinion. It was also very heavy-handed in what it wanted you to feel about the holocaust, as if you actually had to emphasise who's side you should be on during the movie.Round this off with a terrible performance/accent off Rachel Weisz in the lead role and the bland brown/grey of the whole movie and I'm not rushing back to watch this any time soon.

A British neo-Nazi sues an American Jewish writer for defamation, in a UK court, where such cases are easier to bring. The characters are stereotypes. Rachel Weisz' Queens accent is over the top. The Brits are typical movie Brits. Harriet Walter, whom I adore on stage (What a Duchess of Malfi she was!), is cringe-making as a character who pops up regularly to represent the voice of all the Holocaust survivors residing in London. Tom Wilkinson is pretty good as the barrister. Timothy Spall is creepily effective as a British neo-Nazi "historian." I rather liked Andrew Scott.David Hare has done good work, as a playwright and as a screenwriter. Denial is an exception. The screenplay, loosely based on a true story, deserved better treatment.