.... and as such I wasn't disappointed. It had passable acting, passable direction, passable scripting. The situation depicted was credible, the actions of the characters for the most part believable, and was one of the few legal dramas where the legal arguments were of a kind that would actually be made.
Contrary to claims about the perceived liberal politics of this movie being shoved down your throat, there's hardly anything "liberal" about disliking the fictional "America for Americans" group run by character John Walker in this movie - they are basically the KKK without the hoods - an extreme right wing white supremacist group who advocate that only whites should have rights in America.
Also, the legal arguments were hardly dubious - many of the arguments and cases mentioned in passing would have passed by in a blur for the lay audience. I saw this movie as part of a First Amendment law class, and that was the reason I got so many of the references. Our assignment after watching the film was to imagine that John Walker appealed the case to the Supreme Court - we had to right two Supreme Court decisions, one overturning John Walkers conviction, and one confirming it, before making the case for which we felt was more compelling.
The arguments in the film regarding hate speech, whether it is protected under the Constitution and whether you could be held responsible for someone else's actions undertaken under the influence of your words were credible and convincing (both for and against - it is still very much a live and contentious issue in the US and indeed in the UK. It forms a major part of the controversy over the plans to have a crime of "incitement to religious hatred" and "glorification of terrorism").
Of course, these days it is the parties on the political right who would like to hold people criminally responsible for their words, if others act under their influence (think for example attitudes towards Muslim clerics). As this was the argument espoused by the so-called "liberals" in the movie, I hardly think this espouses a liberal agenda. The "bleeding heart liberal" argument should really be "no matter how hateful your speech you should be allowed to say it".
So, if you are looking for great cinema, then look elsewhere (in fact why are you even looking at a TV movie?). If you are looking for good cinema, then look elsewhere. If you are looking for a way to kill 90 minutes in a generally entertaining fashion then you might want to consider it. If you like legal dramas and have an interest in the issues of hate speech and the ins and outs of US First Amendment law, then you'll want to check it out too.
Contrary to claims about the perceived liberal politics of this movie being shoved down your throat, there's hardly anything "liberal" about disliking the fictional "America for Americans" group run by character John Walker in this movie - they are basically the KKK without the hoods - an extreme right wing white supremacist group who advocate that only whites should have rights in America.
Also, the legal arguments were hardly dubious - many of the arguments and cases mentioned in passing would have passed by in a blur for the lay audience. I saw this movie as part of a First Amendment law class, and that was the reason I got so many of the references. Our assignment after watching the film was to imagine that John Walker appealed the case to the Supreme Court - we had to right two Supreme Court decisions, one overturning John Walkers conviction, and one confirming it, before making the case for which we felt was more compelling.
The arguments in the film regarding hate speech, whether it is protected under the Constitution and whether you could be held responsible for someone else's actions undertaken under the influence of your words were credible and convincing (both for and against - it is still very much a live and contentious issue in the US and indeed in the UK. It forms a major part of the controversy over the plans to have a crime of "incitement to religious hatred" and "glorification of terrorism").
Of course, these days it is the parties on the political right who would like to hold people criminally responsible for their words, if others act under their influence (think for example attitudes towards Muslim clerics). As this was the argument espoused by the so-called "liberals" in the movie, I hardly think this espouses a liberal agenda. The "bleeding heart liberal" argument should really be "no matter how hateful your speech you should be allowed to say it".
So, if you are looking for great cinema, then look elsewhere (in fact why are you even looking at a TV movie?). If you are looking for good cinema, then look elsewhere. If you are looking for a way to kill 90 minutes in a generally entertaining fashion then you might want to consider it. If you like legal dramas and have an interest in the issues of hate speech and the ins and outs of US First Amendment law, then you'll want to check it out too.
