Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just now back from seeing it. Highly recommended. Very interesting, I didn’t pay a lot of attention to the news 23 years ago so this film fascinated me. Great acting throughout...liberals will hate this film, it exposes the crooked MSM and FBI.
Not me - I loved the movie! Very well put together, with excellent acting.
I saw it this evening. I thought it was a great movie but, like all recent Eastwood movies, they tend to be longer than necessary. They drag on a tad too long but they are enjoyable flicks.
There was some fantastic acting in this film, the unknown actor (to me) who portrayed RJ was off the charts fantastic. So was Sam Rockwell. Olivia Wilde, Jon Hamm and Kathy Bates were great too. I’d hope they’ll get some recognition, but doubtful the academy will reward them since the film/Eastwood has a conservative bent.
I love the irony in this. The AJC basically ruined this guys life on fake news, yet the AJC is trying to sue Clint for the portrayal of the reporter that ruined his life.
Anyone seeking insights into just how bad this movie sucks should read this article. The comments with the article are also excellent (tip: sort them by 'most liked' to see the best ones).
Excerpt: Films marketed as conveying “a true story” have an obligation to respect the moments — and people — upon which the narrative turns. When they malign real people, distort the facts or invent them to amp up the drama, they disrespect their audiences. In “Richard Jewell,” those distortions join the sustained and alarming assault on the credibility of the nation’s news organizations. A ludicrous and short scene in the film sets the table: We’re at Jewell’s apartment, where the hero-turned-suspect in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing lives with his mother. The media swarms outside. As Jewell’s lawyer escapes in his car, a reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution pops up in the back seat to demand an interview. The lawyer refuses and insists she get out. That never happened. And serious journalists don’t operate that way. It’s just one of the film’s many phony cheap shots at journalists. But it’s not close to the worst. The film reinforces misinformed beliefs about professional reporting with a series of situations that portray journalists as untrustworthy and unprincipled.
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
Friendly reminder from your Movies subforum Moderator: There are deleted posts in this thread due to being off topic. Please remember to keep posts on topic to the movie itself. Commentary about used car salesmen, journalists and namecalling are not within the TOS. Thank you!
Anyone seeking insights into just how bad this movie sucks should read this article. The comments with the article are also excellent (tip: sort them by 'most liked' to see the best ones).
Excerpt: Films marketed as conveying “a true story” have an obligation to respect the moments — and people — upon which the narrative turns. When they malign real people, distort the facts or invent them to amp up the drama, they disrespect their audiences. In “Richard Jewell,” those distortions join the sustained and alarming assault on the credibility of the nation’s news organizations. A ludicrous and short scene in the film sets the table: We’re at Jewell’s apartment, where the hero-turned-suspect in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic bombing lives with his mother. The media swarms outside. As Jewell’s lawyer escapes in his car, a reporter for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution pops up in the back seat to demand an interview. The lawyer refuses and insists she get out. That never happened. And serious journalists don’t operate that way. It’s just one of the film’s many phony cheap shots at journalists. But it’s not close to the worst. The film reinforces misinformed beliefs about professional reporting with a series of situations that portray journalists as untrustworthy and unprincipled.
Actually the lawyer himself is a fictional character based upon Lin Wood.
Also the implication the journalist had sex with the FBI agent to get the information is being highly disputed by her colleagues.
But whatever, there is no "true story" that remains faithful to the facts. Just saw Bombshell and the character who sucked off Roger Ailes is also a completely made up character.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
