Denial (2016)

Sexton finds Denial an efficient, compelling courtroom drama with a somber edge. He especially praises Tom Wilkinson’s commanding performance as barrister Richard Rampton.

Johnston finds the film well-meaning but ungainly, though its courtroom finale gives it a strong final-reel rally. He praises the taut courtroom performances and the force of its insistence on documented truth.

The critic finds the courtroom drama compelling and forceful, with few missteps. They single out Rachel Weisz’s riveting performance and the film’s balance of humor with its weighty subject.

Ehrlich finds the courtroom drama compelling and urgently relevant, though he considers it middle-brow and not great cinema. He praises Tom Wilkinson’s restrained performance and the film’s refusal to treat Holocaust denial as a legitimate debate.

The review praises Denial as a passionate defense of reason and factual truth, though it finds the film deeply sober. It singles out Rachel Weisz’s lively, camp-tinged performance and the film’s portrayal of both Lipstadt and Irving as outsiders shaped by hardship.

Turan finds the film effective when its serious themes matter, despite awkward direction and stretches of standard-issue drama. He praises the script’s emphasis on Lipstadt’s struggle to accept the legal strategy of remaining silent.

The page identifies this as a Toronto review of Mick Jackson’s 2016 film, but the review text is behind a paywall. Its verdict and any specific praise or complaint are not visible.

Hassenger finds the film relevant but dull and only passably engaging as a courtroom procedural. He praises Timothy Spall’s chilling portrayal of David Irving, while criticizing the film’s flat, TV-movie-like presentation.

The review finds the film thought-provoking and as gripping as a fictional courtroom drama. It praises the script for giving the story factual weight while avoiding preachiness.

Huddleston finds the drama flatter than its extraordinary subject. He criticizes its lack of dramatic force in retelling the case of Holocaust-denying historian David Irving.

Richards finds the film timely and intellectually engaging, but ultimately airless and lacking emotional impact. He praises its treatment of the trial’s difficult questions and the courtroom sparring, while noting that Lipstadt feels underdeveloped.

The Guardian’s verdict is negative: despite its important subject and pedigree, the film feels like a flat, hammy legal drama. The review praises the Auschwitz visit for being sensitively handled and affecting.

Sragow finds the film’s subject timely but says the storytelling fails. The standfirst praises its timeliness while singling out storytelling as the weakness.

Gleiberman finds the courtroom drama awkward and muddled, unable to bring its important subject to life. He criticizes the film for making Lipstadt passive and failing to explain the legal strategy, though Irving’s eventual defeat is satisfying.

Hammond calls the film a vital, urgent, and richly rewarding drama. He especially praises Rachel Weisz’s performance and the filmmakers’ ability to make the courtroom story gripping and cinematic.

Kermode finds the film powerful, thoughtful, and unusually sensitive, though she warns its appeal may be limited. She particularly praises Rachel Weisz’s nuanced performance and the film’s mature, restrained approach to its courtroom drama.

The critic finds the courtroom drama timely, compelling and effectively balanced. They single out Rachel Weisz’s lead performance and Timothy Spall’s unsettling portrayal of Irving.

Crow finds the film a timely, cathartic cautionary tale, though not quite the riveting thriller it aims to be. He praises its strong ensemble performances and its fidelity to the historical record.

The critic finds the film sturdy, satisfying, and effective despite its familiar courtroom-drama beats. They praise Jackson’s dignified restraint around the Holocaust, while noting that it costs the film some energy.

Goldberg finds the film timely but says its story fails by silencing its protagonist. He praises its engagement with the erosion of truth, while criticizing its clinical, pedantic approach.