Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Truth (2015)

8

BHBarryOct 18, 2015

"Truth" is a film detailing the events that led up to and succeeded the September 8, 2004 episode of 60 Minutes II hosted by Dan Rather (played by Robert Redford) and which was produced by Mary Mapes (played by Kate Blanchett). The film was"Truth" is a film detailing the events that led up to and succeeded the September 8, 2004 episode of 60 Minutes II hosted by Dan Rather (played by Robert Redford) and which was produced by Mary Mapes (played by Kate Blanchett). The film was written and directed by James Vanderbilt and also stars Topher Grace, Elizabeth Moss, Bruce Greenwood and Dennis Quaid.
Based upon the book written by Ms. Mapes (i.e. "Truth and Duty…." ) it paints a picture of news journalism at one of the nations leading networks (CBS) and the inner conflicts that can arise when stories which may or may not be true are aired based on the best information available to the network, its newscaster and its staff. Although the movie takes no definitive position as to the veracity of the charges made in the infamous episode, it obviously gives a kind nod to those who produced the segment, especially since the screenplay relies for the most part on the memoirs of Ms. Mapes and her book. Regardless of the substance of the allegations, the airing of the episode led to the termination of Mr. Rather as CBS News Anchor (after 24 years in that role), the firing of his producer, Ms. Mapes, and the forced resignations of her staff. The quest for determining the authenticity of the sources and documents relied on by Ms. Mapes and her staff give us not only an insight into the inner workings of the newsroom but, more than that, an intereesting detective mystery with many unanswered questions. Add to that the subdued but powerful performance of Mr. Redford and the extraordinary acting of Ms. Blanchett and you have a worthwhle and informative viewing experience. I give the film an 8.0 rating with a recommendation that tt be seen by all who can remember the Dan Rather of old and, also, by anyone who is interested in the place broadcast news has in our society today.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

6

Brent_MarchantOct 31, 2015

A mostly engaging, though occasionally confusing and slightly overwrought autopsy on one of the most controversial news stories of the 2004 presidential election campaign. The film is as much a eulogy for journalism in general as it is forA mostly engaging, though occasionally confusing and slightly overwrought autopsy on one of the most controversial news stories of the 2004 presidential election campaign. The film is as much a eulogy for journalism in general as it is for the story in question, with a script that ultimately might have fared better with a less heavy-handed approach. Despite these shortcomings, Cate Blanchett proves once again that she can do virtually whatever she wants on screen and succeed brilliantly, stealing the show from all of her very capable counterparts.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

10

RichardGonciJan 17, 2016

Do not fail to see the movie "Truth." In its way it is more important than the movie that eclipsed it, "Spotlight." I have not always loved Cate Blanchett's work, but she is luminous in this one as Mary Mapes. And, Redford is a very credibleDo not fail to see the movie "Truth." In its way it is more important than the movie that eclipsed it, "Spotlight." I have not always loved Cate Blanchett's work, but she is luminous in this one as Mary Mapes. And, Redford is a very credible Dan Rather. Breaks your heart, because there was no happy ending to this tale. Nor, has there been a good coda to the stories of either of these films. This film is not about George W. Bush's service (or lack thereof) in the Texas Air National Guard. It is about the ongoing failure of American "journalism" to support its troops.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

AxeTNov 19, 2015

Well made involving account of bloated headlines story involving a subject that should be under heavy scrutiny: network news. Redford is particularly suited to play Rather and does a good job though the character never goes beyond theWell made involving account of bloated headlines story involving a subject that should be under heavy scrutiny: network news. Redford is particularly suited to play Rather and does a good job though the character never goes beyond the surface, while Blanchett is excellent as always playing the lead whose book in real life the film is based on. No real surprises but also no nonsense.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

9

moviecritic68Nov 11, 2015

Wow !!! Sometimes I'm dumbfounded by some of the ratings on here. This movie was a terrific rendition of the true story. Robert Redford portrayed Dan Rather excellently & Kate Blanchett could be on the Oscar's role with her performance.Wow !!! Sometimes I'm dumbfounded by some of the ratings on here. This movie was a terrific rendition of the true story. Robert Redford portrayed Dan Rather excellently & Kate Blanchett could be on the Oscar's role with her performance. Ignore this 6.5 rating people and go see this film. In my top 5 of the year category. Not quite a 10 but well over a flat 9.0.… Expand

4 of 6 users found this helpful42

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryNov 2, 2015

Although Dan Rather (Robert Redford) is the famous character in this film, the focus is on his "60 Minutes" producer, Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett). She got the scoop that George Bush may have been AWOL during his National Guard service. TheAlthough Dan Rather (Robert Redford) is the famous character in this film, the focus is on his "60 Minutes" producer, Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett). She got the scoop that George Bush may have been AWOL during his National Guard service. The movie tracks her team as they researched and prepped the story for airing. Her close relationship with Rather provides a crucial angle, but it's her team's professional and political struggles that capture the heart of the controversy. Blanchett is wonderful, as always, and the story unfolds in a mostly rational, analytical process. This makes for an interesting journalistic procedural, but lacks emotional power or a sense of outrage that would have made it compelling cinema.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

0

Costs1129Oct 20, 2015

For a while I thought I was was watching a humorless comedy. The over the top dramatization and glorification made the entire thing feel like a mockumentry. I have see better quality from North Korean puff films. The acting is fine. It's theFor a while I thought I was was watching a humorless comedy. The over the top dramatization and glorification made the entire thing feel like a mockumentry. I have see better quality from North Korean puff films. The acting is fine. It's the script that makes you cringe. Heads up to the director; you're trying too hard to make a point from where none exists.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

10

blakelybDec 1, 2015

I suppose in this day and age one shouldn't be surprised at the number of people who completely miss the point and importance of this film.

Dan Rather, successor to Walter Cronkite as the most trusted man in America, courageously andI suppose in this day and age one shouldn't be surprised at the number of people who completely miss the point and importance of this film.

Dan Rather, successor to Walter Cronkite as the most trusted man in America, courageously and truthfully reports (along with producer Mary Mapes), on the scurrilous, cowardly and hypocritical character and conduct of George W. Bush in avoiding combat in Viet Nam using the influence of his family to get into the National Guard and who then deserted even those light duties. But, behind the scenes the same network of interests that let George Bush escape the war, are able to manipulate and distract the "main stream media" from the real story into a thicket of minutiae that focuses not only on the trees rather than the forest, but on the twigs and branches. Were the documents authentic? Was the informant truthful (let's not look at the pressures that may have been brought upon him to make him equivocate).

And so, for the average American, the truth of the story is no longer important--what the corporate media tells them is important is to put Dan Rather and Mary Mapes on trial. In the process, the last vestiges of an independent press are brought to heel by the corporate press. Accordingly, a double standard whereby some consistently get a pass and others are cast in the worst light by the mainstream (now corporate) press becomes the norm. Too many Americans swallow the myth of "the liberal media" that has just been destroyed.

Dan Rather (who famously signed off his broadcasts with one word "Courage") is brought down, Mary Mapes is destroyed and the Fourth Estate becomes the tool of the profit-seeking corporatocracy. This film brings us the "Truth" about why this country and its citizenry has become so ignorant and ill-informed. Robert Redford, as Dan Rather, chillingly conveys the fundamental truth in his soliloquy describing how he has seen the news business change from truth seeking to profit seeking. Yes, the Truth is there to see for those who have the courage to open their eyes--the film is brilliantly acted and written and is as important as any movie of the last 50 years--but too few of us will notice.… Expand

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

All this user's reviews

8

emkadvNov 5, 2015

Truth tells the story of the 60 Minutes article about George W. Bush's time in the Air Force Reserves from the point of view of the article's producer, Mary Mapes. Although the film is generally sympathetic to Mapes, it is not a hagiography.Truth tells the story of the 60 Minutes article about George W. Bush's time in the Air Force Reserves from the point of view of the article's producer, Mary Mapes. Although the film is generally sympathetic to Mapes, it is not a hagiography. She and the other 60 Minutes staff are shown as imperfect people, with loves and hates, just like the rest of us. The acting is outstanding, especially Cate Blanchett as Mapes. Robert Redford does a credible job as Dan Rather, capturing many of his mannerisms. Whatever your feelings about Bush and the 60 Minutes article, you should find this film interesting.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

6

smiyamotApr 9, 2016

How interesting to see the behind the screen story. But the whole calamity resulted from the rush (5 days) to put the story on the air. Why the rush? In "Spotlight", they told you they were afraid the rival newspaper would beat them toHow interesting to see the behind the screen story. But the whole calamity resulted from the rush (5 days) to put the story on the air. Why the rush? In "Spotlight", they told you they were afraid the rival newspaper would beat them to print the story, but no explanation given here. I remember at the time it was the Internet 24/7 news releases on sites like Yahoo that pushed them. No mention in the movie. Why not? If they had had more time, they might have done more research and avoided this mess. Dan Rather had dark hair, was Robert Redford too proud to dye his hair to match his character? Just a few problems I had with the movie that knocked my rating down.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

7

RatedRexMay 19, 2016

.
Cate Blanchett performance in "Truth" is the best performance of 2015. But the Academy preferred to nominate Blanchett for "Carol", rather than "Truth". I guess it really doesn't matter, she is good in everything. Blanchett is the best.
Cate Blanchett performance in "Truth" is the best performance of 2015. But the Academy preferred to nominate Blanchett for "Carol", rather than "Truth". I guess it really doesn't matter, she is good in everything. Blanchett is the best actress of our time, and maybe the best actress in cinematic history. She is better than Meryl Streep, who tends to pull out the same, tired quirks in ALL of her performances. She shows more range that Katherine Hepburn, or Ingrid Bergman; more versatility than Kate Winslett, or Audrey Hepburn. She is more vulnerable than Betty Davis. She is simply a joy to watch. Robert Redford is surprisingly good, too. The problem with "Truth" is that it lacks strong direction. Everything seems a bit too staged. Too bad, because this could have been a great movie. "Truth" is still worth watching, if only for Blanchett's great performance.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

SpangleOct 8, 2017

Following the release of Truth in 2015, Dan Rather - who is portrayed by Robert Redford in the film - was asked what he thought about the film and its accuracy. In his response, he stated that, "I think it's the best thing that's ever been upFollowing the release of Truth in 2015, Dan Rather - who is portrayed by Robert Redford in the film - was asked what he thought about the film and its accuracy. In his response, he stated that, "I think it's the best thing that's ever been up on the big screen about how television news really works." Considering the film pauses every few minutes to wax nostalgic about Rather, his ability as a reporter starting way back in the 1960s, the glory days of journalism, and how Rather was a beacon of light in the changing times for journalism, it is not hard to believe that Rather himself would like the film. Of course, this quote and given the context of the film itself actually manages to touch on what makes Truth go so awry. Based on a non-fiction book written by Mary Mapes - who is portrayed by Cate Blanchett - the film explores CBS News and 60 Minutes' reporting on the Killian documents that seemed to discredit George W. Bush's service in the National Guard. As the book is by Mapes and the story is about Mapes and how she and her team were misled on a story, it is not hard to imagine this film as bein unwilling to criticize either her or her team. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens and the film suffers for this "kid gloves" approach to its protagonists and their takes on the direction of journalism. A mixed bag, Truth is a film that has all of the makings of a great journalism film, but one of the follow through.

As a result, it is hard to not see Truth's greatest issue as being its source material. As it is written by Mapes who idolized Rather and, obviously, stands by her reporting, the film approaches both with no venom whatsoever. Instead, let's both of the hook - especially Mapes and her team - for accepting obvious copies as the real documents and forcing out a story that had some good reporting behind it, but was probably a few confirmations away from being good to go. Even then, once it was discredited and retracted, it is hard to stand by that reporting as being done in furtherance of a truly accurate story. Yet, the film seems to not understand that Mapes and her team got it wrong. Defiant in its denial, Truth seems unaware of the fact the memos were forgeries or that the team was entirely misled by their sources. While the story the film tells about the reporting behind the Killian documents story is compelling, it is hard to see this as a definitive telling of that story. Rather, it feels like Mapes making her case that she was actually in the right due to some perceived journalistic duty to report the story. Unfortunately, this ultimately gives way to conspiracy theories. Though her closing speech about the current state of journalism review by the public being that of nit-picking, yelling, and smear tactics, may make some strong - though heavy-handed - points, it nonetheless screams of hypocrisy. Arguing that people base their opinions on a select few facts that only serve to further their own point - which she is right about - Truth falls into the same trap. In a monologue for reporter Mike Smith (Topher Grace), he argues that CBS News is only pulling the story due to pressure from the White House, who had previously done Viacom a deal to ensure they could keep all of their current affiliates. Citing this apparent relationship as the reason why the story gets squashed, the film also focuses in on the political leanings of the men tasked with investigating Mapes and her reporting, naming one individual as a former Attorney under Bush Sr. and a friend of the Bush family. While certainly biased, the film seems to be lining up its cards to position this as a Conservative conspiracy to discredit Mary Mapes and her work when, in reality, SHE GOT THE STORY WRONG. It was wrong. Bottom line. At best, the film comes off as delusional for seemingly not understanding that the story reported by 60 Minutes was wrong. Though it accuses people of shouting to obfuscate points made by those they disagree with or focusing on conspiracy theories about the opposing side, the film falls into the same traps and points the finger at some shady dealings between Viacom and the government. Whether or not they are right that Bush and Viacom were close friends, it does nothing to change the point that the document that is used to base the entire story around is hardly the most trustworthy document in written history. There may be ulterior motives, who knows, but the film does nothing but point fingers and yell about it, while failing to actually offer any evidence that it is true.… Expand