Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Load of rubbish!!

Absolutely Brilliant!

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

I felt such an idiot in the end! The idea of the story was good, the reason for not revealing the source... I can understand that.. but...That's not a source! All these bad things happened to her family, for what? For something a kid said? A kid? Really? I think she could avoid all that if she would say"OK I heard that from your kid". The end. No court, no death, no revealing the source "matter".. no nothing. The whole movie happened for nothing. Is there something I miss and don't understand?

This review does contain spoilers, and that is in order to discuss the much debated ending of this movie. This is surely among the better Crime thriller movies out there, featuring some well executed performances from Kate Beckinsale and Matt Dillon, as well as good, strong dialogue, and most importantly, a question on the nature and morality of the relationship shared by the governments and the press, and the conflicts that arise out of them. So with fine acting, dialogue and a good story, this is film well worth the price of entry. Now, onto the ending. Spoiler ahead. So, in the end, after keeping the identity of the source a secret from us throughout, without having given away any hints, we are finally shown that Rachel first learned of Erica's true identity from Erica's daughter. I was quite honestly blown away by that revelation, and found it a very hair-rising ending. Some people claim this ending ruined an otherwise good movie, but in fact I think it raised it from being generic Hollywood fare. Up until that point it was clearly and firmly portrayed that Rachel very strongly stood by her principles and was determined to keep the identity of her source a secret in order to protect and safeguard her own integrity as well as the very profession of journalism. She, and her 'principle' were wonderfully glorified by the speech that Burnside allays at the Supreme Court. All this build up to glorify Rachel and her actions to stand by her principle are brought crashing down, with that revelation that she blatantly took advantage of the little girls naivety for personal gain and fame. She launched an attack on a matter of national security based merely on the honest, unwitting words of a toddler. The ending in fact reveals that Rachel isn't so much a woman of principle but instead a vile and repulsive human being who will go to any lengths to ensure her own professional gain. The reason she would never reveal the source of her information is simply because it was OUTRAGEOUS. It would definitely have tarnished her reputation as a now Pulitzer-nominated journalist and all the integrity and 'righteousness' that she had seemed to stand for would be for nothing. It all comes down to her belief that she'd rather have her life fall apart without anyone knowing that she had based something of such gargantuan national and international impact, on the meandering thoughts of an innocent toddler than have her life restored at the expense of revealing hher sick secret to the world. It is important to remember that she isn't weighing her political or legal options while deciding to keep her source a secret, but instead is herself so appalled at her methods of having procured the information that she'd rather go to jail and have people register her 'professionalism'. If she wouldn't reveal her source public perception of her while disputed, will undoubtedly oscillate from respect for her sacrifice in the name of upholding her integrity to confused apathy for ruining so many lives including her own at the cost of not disclosing one individual's name , but if she did disclose it there wouldn't even be a debate, her actions would be unanimously desecrated and her ethics and morals will be ridiculed. That is her line of thought, I believe. She is misguided in her thinking that she can still get back to living as close to a life as she used to lead, after completing her 2 year term. I see the ending in this light, and this makes the movie potent. But then again, I do agree that some questions can yet be raised about Rachel's actions, but I believe this is the what the ending was meant to convey. Overall, a good movie; entertaining and well executed.

I will start this review by saying that I do enjoy law/crime related movies and that I believe that the acting and the directing of this movie was well done, but...The story although it started strong, with the right amounts of drama and mystery, it quickly lost my appreciation mainly because the values that Rachel Armstrong was trying to defend when she reported the story, although they were admirable to a point, they led me to believe that it was nothing but for her own professional gain rather than having an informative value to news readers. Honestly, throughout the movie I found myself wanting to know what was the point of releasing information regarding the ID of a CIA covert operative in the newspaper but the movie failed to deliver that important piece of information, leaving me confused and disappointed...Then the great ridiculous finale just strengthened my overall dislike for news reporters in general. The agenda of reporting the news at any cost, regardless to what damage they might cause to family members, friends and other innocent bystanders always comes first and this movie clearly stands by it.I give it a 4/10 just because the acting was solid. And because Kate Beckinsale is very hot :)

Most – supposed – 'thrillers' tend to rely on high-octane stuff to try and keep their audiences on the edge of their seats. However, 'Nothing But the Truth' tends to shy away from this, choosing instead to just tell quite tense story – without anyone ever really being in much of a tense/life-threatening situation.It tells the (almost true) story of a journalist (Kate Beckinsale) who 'outs' a CIA operative in her newspaper. Naturally, the government isn't too happy about this and demands that she reveals her 'source.' She refuses and must suffer the consequences, or buckle.The other thing that's worth noting is that Kate Beckinsale probably gives her best performance to date. I've seen more than a few scathing comments online about how she 'can't act.' Hopefully, if people watch her in this, they may just choose to reconsider and see her as more than just a vampire-huntress in leather.Like I say, there's no real 'action' or thrills, i.e. people being stalked through creepy locations. However, it is pretty tense. You will care about the characters and what happens to them. Plus it isn't a short film. If you want to watch this, you'll need nearly two hours of talking/tension to sit through. But, if you're in the mood for that, you'll find yourself rewarded with a rae thriller of the type that Hollywood doesn't make many of these days.http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/