That was an excellent one.

How sad is this?

good back-story, and good acting

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

It's obvious that the writers of the "documentary" actually know very little about the CTA case. It's an immensely bias piece. Dwyer was as guilty as they come. He used his "task-force" as a smokescreen to hide his true intentions. He handled all matters of the CTA contract for a period of time (and even sometimes told his aids they were not invited to meetings with him and Torquato/Smith). Smith was his old buddy, and Dwyer knew what Torquato was up to. Even before Smith's first trial he stated that Dwyer was in on the bribe. Dwyer was offered a deal by another company who would do the job better, and at half the price, than CTA. Yet he didn't even entertain the idea of awarding them the contract. There was no conspiracy. Dwyer was caught red-handed and blamed everyone except himself. Dwyer's family talk about how Dwyer would not "plea bargain with the truth" yet Dwyer urged his own lawyer to speak to the prosecutor (James West) asking him if he would drop all charges against Dwyer if Dwyer resigned as the treasurer! West did not accept it, and rightly so. So what do we have with this "documentary"? Nothing really except an uninformed love note to Dwyer. It's almost as if the writers are trying to justify a morbid interest in Dwyer's suicide by going on an uninformed, bias crusade saying he was an "innocent man". But the problem is that he wasn't innocent, and hence he will never receive any official exoneration. Two appeals after his death were dismissed. Dwyer, clearly guilty, does not deserve credit and attention for committing suicide in public (and traumatizing many many people in the process). This "documentary" may fool a few people, but for those who know the facts of the case, it is mere propaganda.

Were it not for the infamous news footage of R. Budd Dwyer's public suicide, this man would certainly never have crossed my radar. That footage is all over the internet, and its enduring popularity is due mostly to shock at what our media will dare to show (a man blowing his brains out was actually televised in 1987). But it gives no indication or insight into the man at the center of the controversy. So from that standpoint, "Honest Man" is a welcome examination of the man, himself. And it is a surprisingly touching, discreet and (most importantly) informative documentary. To hear the interviewees tell it, Dwyer was a real man of the people, religiously devoted to his family and honest to a fault (perhaps naively). He really seems like a good guy, politician or not, and maintained his own brand of likability. I guess you could call this one-sided, or just a tribute ... but in the end, it's still far more than this country ever did know about him. But discretion only lasts so long here, and I was pretty disappointed that the movie included the incident. They did such a good job of portending what was coming, that they could've cut as soon as he raised the gun. The implication was all that was needed. But they decided to let us see the gunshot, and linger on his slumped (and bloodied) corpse. It's not graphic footage, so much as surprising, but in this case it is gratuitous. I wish they didn't show it. And hearing the TV producer's specious justification for airing the footage (equating it with our current sensationalist cable news) truly made me feel dirty for having sought out this footage on YouTube years ago, because there was a real human being who let the incident do the talking for his legacy. Dwyer mentions in the press conference that he hopes to be remembered for something else, other than the CTA scandal - and dark though this is, he got his wish. But I do feel that I've gotten a clearer picture about who R. Budd Dwyer was, and for that this documentary is a winner.7/10

Personally, I liked the documentary. It's not hard-hitting. It's mainly a favorable view of Dwyer's life. However, while I certainly don't think he was without his flaws, I think the film makes a compelling case for Dwyer's innocence.Ultimately, it accomplishes this through one thing: William Smith's admission that he lied under oath about Dwyer's involvement. For some reason, ShoeBuckle tries to claim "the film TRIES to show he lied at Dwyer's trial". Either ShoeBuckle is not very bright or he has a reason to come back at Dwyer, because there is no trying involved. Smith himself admits it on camera. He repeatedly expresses his regret for this. It's an objective matter.I also don't know why ShoeBuckle feels the need to attack Dwyer's son's character, but he does. The son is a normal guy, understandably somewhat embittered talking about this whole mess.I highly recommend you watch the documentary, and also recommend you treat ShoeBuckle's review as the trash that it is.

Honest Man is by far one of the most compelling films I've watched in many years. You do not need to be a political person to become enthralled with this very human movie. From the very beginning to the end you will be engulfed in a story of a man who's life was turned upside down in a moment. Life accounts from his family as well as from his colleagues and video clips draw a picture of man who within 75 minutes becomes your friend or a close relative. You will feel his despair as his trial nears and watching this family man succumb to such a desperate end is a true tragedy. What remains is sadness when the movie is over but with it the hope that the lesson here for us is that while we inhabit this earth together, let us remember to treat each other with respect, kindness and honesty.