否定と肯定
Trailer
Overview
ユダヤ人女性の歴史学者デボラ・E・リップシュタットは、イギリスの歴史家デイヴィッド・アーヴィングが主張する「ナチスによる大量虐殺は無かった」とする"ホロコースト否定論"を看過できず、真っ向から否定していた。しかし、アーヴィングはリップシュタットを名誉毀損で提訴し、異例の法廷対決を行うことになった。訴えられた側に立証責任があるイギリスの司法制度で戦う中でリップシュタットは、大量虐殺の事実を証明する必要があった。彼女のためにイギリス人による大弁護団が組織され、アウシュビッツの現地調査に繰り出すなど、歴史の真実の追求が始まった。そして2000年1月、多くのマスコミが注目する中、かつてない歴史的裁判がはじまった。
製作費: $10,000,000 (15億円)
興行収入: $7,994,527 (12億円)
純利益: $-2,005,473 (-3億円)
配信サービス
サブスクリプション
レンタル・購入
Cast
Reviews / 口コミ
あなたの評価を記録する
TMDB ユーザーの口コミ
**A courtroom drama about who's right and who's wrong!** There are many factors to consider, especially for a film like this. Yep, the film was based on the real courtroom event. The film is about two people to prove they're right on their book about the war crimes whether that took place or not. So all the episodes take place in a British high court with mention of Auschwitz concentration camp, particularly about its ruins than the events that happened in there. That means it's a great drama to learn about how these two fought in a lawsuit face-off, but there's nothing about the real event just like the film 'The Eichmann Show'. If you are not a Jew or a neo nazi or not even a European and North American, then this is an okayish film from the entertainment aspect, other than learning truth and history. I really expected some real events, but we have already seen in many films about Auschwitz camp. So they kept this film as a modern day court trial than mixing up with those old crime. Great acting by all. Timothy Spall nailed it in his negative role. He was just a fine supporting actor, till I started to recognise him since his genius display in a biopic, 'Mr. Turner'. This is his one of the top performances. He could play Don Trump in his biopic, beside Rob Redford who's a bit old for that. Rachel Weisz was okay. Her role was not strong enough, despite she's in the main character. Because everyone around her took the honour to rise above hers. Be it Tom Wilkinson, who was surprisingly awesome. So in my perspective the film was good, but not great. The courtroom events lacked strong hold with what a film needs and what the viewers wants with twists and turns in the argument. But I'm very happy being honest than modifying its story to make film commercial worthy. Though the film had some its own moments, in the end it was not enough. Particularly how it concludes and to think why this trial even took place makes no sense at all. Seems more a joke than anything serious, just because of someone being crazily challenging and the other one responding to it. Anyway, it's still largely a sensitive matter and my view is just as an outsider. But the film is worth a watch, if you are not expecting a bigger picture after reading its synopsis. _7/10_
