SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Hadrina The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Joanna Mccarty Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

kitellis-98121 This was a gripping and thoroughly enjoyable thriller/drama that was equally intelligent, thought provoking, and satisfying. Well written and directed, with excellent performances from the entire cast, it avoided many potential pitfalls of the genre, and managed to draw me in with sufficient emotional investment in the characters that I was experiencing surges of adrenaline throughout, while not tipping me so far over the edge that I hated any of the "bad" guys so much that I couldn't bear watching any more, or lost faith in a "good" outcome (by my own moral standards).The film poses a deliberately snarly dilemma, of whether the interests of free speech trump those of national security. As a person who is both extremely conservative AND extremely liberal (with all the accompanying internal conflicts) I could have come down in either direction while watching this, and there was the potential for my conflicting views to cause it to be too stressful to watch.As it happened, I came down heavily on the side of national security. I don't know whether it was the intention of the filmmakers for me to go that way. I feel that it was not, since the central character, for whom I assume the majority of the audience are expected to feel sympathy, was the reporter who broke a story that potentially threatened national security. However, as much as I despise and distrust politicians (of all stamps) I am equally loathing of reporters so it could have gone either way for me. I don't know what made me take the side of the government in this movie. They were certainly not blameless, although the "outed" CIA operative was clearly innocent and had her life ruined by a journalist not thinking beyond the chance at a Pulitzer. But I spent the entire movie HATING the reporter and wanting her to be punished as much as possible. I was delighted at all the "bad" things that happened to her, and wanted lots more "bad" things to happen. My only frustration throughout the whole film was that she never seemed to "get" how irresponsible and despicable her "outing" of a CIA agent was, and how potentially dangerous it was, both to the agent personally (both in terms of physical safety, as well as career) and also potentially to all her overseas "assets". I really wanted the reporter to realise and acknowledge that her zealous belief in some arbitrary "right" to the truth, and consequential "right" to protect her "source" was not necessarily in the best interests of the "people". Her narrow vision, shared by all Pulitzer prize chasing journalists, and suborn refusal to see the bigger picture is one of the things that makes it so hard for me to support her actions.There is a very good argument, presented eloquently in the film by Alan Alder's character, that without freedom of the press there is no one to keep the government "honest", and that without the fear of being "caught-out" and publicly "exposed" the government could run rampant. My problem with that argument is that history continues to prove that successive governments continue to be dishonest, corrupt, and criminal, regardless of press scrutiny, and the ultimate perpetrators of evil are rarely (if ever) punished for their crimes aside from getting a bit of "bad press" that is soon forgotten in the next news cycle. The media, at least the modern version of it, is more about "entertainment" and "gossip" anyway, rather than hard news. And they wrap themselves in the 1st amendment in order to report on which celebrity is sleeping with which, rather than which politician is profiting from (insert dodgy deal here). So I spent the majority of the movie rooting for the prosecution, as it were, and hoping that the journalist would get thoroughly annihilated. And mostly things went my way - so I didn't have to endure the sort of seething frustration that often goes with a movie like this. After all, her irresponsible reporting and refusal to divulge her "source" left a potentially dangerous mole deep inside the government or security services.So when the "source" was finally revealed at the end, and it turned out that there was never any danger of a "mole" or other threat to national security, I'm sure I was supposed to feel sympathy and respect towards the reporter, and accept that she had been right in protecting her source.However, I still hated her and here's why: The whole thing could have been prevented. If she had simply come clean about the source, privately and off the record, the CIA agent wouldn't have been forced to resign (due to suspicions about her integrity) so she wouldn't have been without her security detail and would not have died. The government wouldn't have wasted time and money on a massive legal battle and mole hunt. The reporter wouldn't have gone to jail, so her kid wouldn't have been traumatised and her husband wouldn't have cheated. The "story" would still have been out there, and she would still have still got her Pulitzer nomination. And the government's crimes could still have been investigated and punished appropriately. EVERYONE would have been a winner, except perhaps the government (if it turned out they'd lied). And the "source", based on who the "source" was, would have suffered a whole lot less than they ended up suffering as a result of being "protected" by a misguided and foolish woman. Because, as it turned out in this case, the "source" wasn't actually a "source" at all, so no journalistic "integrity" was ever even at risk!In summary, this was a great film that got me just hot enough under the collar to be entertained, but not enough to have a coronary! So it's all good.

bkoganbing At some future date in our history there is an assassination attempt on our president. That is used to justify a military intervention in Venezuela when it's leaked to the press that they were behind the attempt. Kate Beckinsale investigative reporter writes the story and in doing so outs her neighbor Vera Famigia as a CIA operative. That's against the law and the government wants to know who her source is. But being the good journalist she is she won't reveal. So it's off to prison with her and that's only the beginning of her problems.The federal government is really vindictive in its persecution of her. They've even got a special prosecutor in Matt Dillon who is just devoted to her case alone. Talk about overkill. Dillon does very well in the part and never lets it slip into caricature. He genuinely believes in what he's doing and never sees the implications that Beckinsale's civil liberties lawyer Alan Alda does.Unfortunately outing Famigia makes her a target too and tragically so. That only makes Dillon and our government redouble its efforts to make an example of Beckinsale. As for Beckinsale she's wonderful in her part as unexpected hero who really sacrifices all for a free press.We do in fact learn the original source of her story and all I can say is it is sublimely bizarre. I would love to have seen Matt Dillon try to prosecute the source.

Coletha Albert I thought this was a great movie to watch on Mother's Day. A working mother being separated from her little boy for her principles. I watched this story unfurl by today's standards. The unfurling is very timid. Even for 2008 this movie is very mild. The son never told the mother, "I hate you!"...I mean, is that realistic for our times? I don't think so. The husband cheating is typical yet the attorney (Alan Alda) very unbelievable, in my opinion. The prosecuting attorney was a horror, translation: a great actor. I am sorry that this movie never made it to Seattle and it took me this long to see it. This role for Kate Beckinsale is her standard role; very sweet, good Samaritan who suffers while doing the right thing because she cares... Even in Blade,she was a great daughter fighting for the cause...She never plays a villain that I know of.Spoiler: She does have a source that she is protecting. That source is her son's little friend from school, unbelievable yet strangely very real. She could not reveal her source, it wasn't a choice. She would have been laughed out of the Grand Jury and her reputation would be ruined forever. So, it's not that her principles were so stellar - she could not tell no matter what. So, she went to jail. She was no hero. She was an ambitious human who would take data even from a child if it led to her winning a Pulitzer and to hell with an ex-agent dying and her son being separated from her AND her marriage going down the drain. Did I mention that the Sun Times her employer had to pay a fine of $10K for every day the reporter stayed in jail? That meant nothing to her. Let everyone else pay and think what they like only she and an elementary student knew the truth.I rated this film a 10 because this film NAILED human nature to the tee: the motive behind what people are doing is never what you think...

LiveYoLifeLikeYouMeanIt This review does contain spoilers, and that is in order to discuss the much debated ending of this movie. This is surely among the better Crime thriller movies out there, featuring some well executed performances from Kate Beckinsale and Matt Dillon, as well as good, strong dialogue, and most importantly, a question on the nature and morality of the relationship shared by the governments and the press, and the conflicts that arise out of them. So with fine acting, dialogue and a good story, this is film well worth the price of entry. Now, onto the ending. Spoiler ahead. So, in the end, after keeping the identity of the source a secret from us throughout, without having given away any hints, we are finally shown that Rachel first learned of Erica's true identity from Erica's daughter. I was quite honestly blown away by that revelation, and found it a very hair-rising ending. Some people claim this ending ruined an otherwise good movie, but in fact I think it raised it from being generic Hollywood fare. Up until that point it was clearly and firmly portrayed that Rachel very strongly stood by her principles and was determined to keep the identity of her source a secret in order to protect and safeguard her own integrity as well as the very profession of journalism. She, and her 'principle' were wonderfully glorified by the speech that Burnside allays at the Supreme Court. All this build up to glorify Rachel and her actions to stand by her principle are brought crashing down, with that revelation that she blatantly took advantage of the little girls naivety for personal gain and fame. She launched an attack on a matter of national security based merely on the honest, unwitting words of a toddler. The ending in fact reveals that Rachel isn't so much a woman of principle but instead a vile and repulsive human being who will go to any lengths to ensure her own professional gain. The reason she would never reveal the source of her information is simply because it was OUTRAGEOUS. It would definitely have tarnished her reputation as a now Pulitzer-nominated journalist and all the integrity and 'righteousness' that she had seemed to stand for would be for nothing. It all comes down to her belief that she'd rather have her life fall apart without anyone knowing that she had based something of such gargantuan national and international impact, on the meandering thoughts of an innocent toddler than have her life restored at the expense of revealing hher sick secret to the world. It is important to remember that she isn't weighing her political or legal options while deciding to keep her source a secret, but instead is herself so appalled at her methods of having procured the information that she'd rather go to jail and have people register her 'professionalism'. If she wouldn't reveal her source public perception of her while disputed, will undoubtedly oscillate from respect for her sacrifice in the name of upholding her integrity to confused apathy for ruining so many lives including her own at the cost of not disclosing one individual's name , but if she did disclose it there wouldn't even be a debate, her actions would be unanimously desecrated and her ethics and morals will be ridiculed. That is her line of thought, I believe. She is misguided in her thinking that she can still get back to living as close to a life as she used to lead, after completing her 2 year term. I see the ending in this light, and this makes the movie potent. But then again, I do agree that some questions can yet be raised about Rachel's actions, but I believe this is the what the ending was meant to convey. Overall, a good movie; entertaining and well executed.