The movie clearly states at the beginning that it is a fictional story "inspired" by real events. As I watched it I was reminded of Vanessa Leggett who a few years ago spent almost 6 months in a Houston jail because she refused before a Grand Jury to reveal her notes on a story she was researching on accused wife-murderer Robert Angleton. She never relented and was released only when the Grand Jury was dismissed.
Here Kate Beckinsale is news reporter Rachel Armstrong. She is about to break a very big story of a fellow local mom who she claims is a secret CIA agent who often has special assignments in foreign countries. The movie opens with an assassination attempt on the POTUS, as a catalyst for her case, but it turns out to be only loosely relevant.
As the movie unfolds we don't know the identity of Rachel's source, and she tells no one, not even her husband or her lawyer. Our only clue is when she says that her source "wasn't aware of the revelation." That in itself is puzzling. Was her source drunk, or drugged? We only find out at the very end, and when we do it forces us to re-think our reaction to the whole story.
Good as a special prosecutor is Matt Dillon as Patton Dubois. He contends that refusing to reveal sources with national security implications is a crime for which Rachel could be imprisoned. Alan Alda is Alan Burnside, the fancy lawyer hired by Rachel's newspaper to get her off. Angela Bassett is her editor, Bonnie Benjamin. David Schwimmer is Rachel's husband, Ray Armstrong.
The story is not as clear-cut as some want to make it. There is legitimate concern that both sides are right. Reporters surely must have the right to protect their sources, but are reporters right to dig for "news" which may endanger others and compromise national security? After the whole story was told, I found myself siding with the US Government, to me Rachel, given the circumstances of her "source" was wrong to pursue it and publish the story just to bring attention to herself.
SPOILERS: As the movie begins we see Rachel, a school room-mother, riding the bus with small children. As two boys begin to bicker Rachel ends up next to young Allison Van Doren who sees Rachel typing on a notebook computer and says her dad writes also. Soon the little girl tells Rachel that her parents argue because mom is in the CIA and had to go to Argentina recently, to investigate the role of that government in the POTUS assassination attempt. That was Rachel's source, which she later confirmed from a half-drunk man at a backyard party. Her story was published, eventually a crazed man shot and killed the little girl's mother, Rachel was in prison almost a year, and finally bargained herself to a two-year sentence, presumably finally for revealing that her source was the young daughter.
Here Kate Beckinsale is news reporter Rachel Armstrong. She is about to break a very big story of a fellow local mom who she claims is a secret CIA agent who often has special assignments in foreign countries. The movie opens with an assassination attempt on the POTUS, as a catalyst for her case, but it turns out to be only loosely relevant.
As the movie unfolds we don't know the identity of Rachel's source, and she tells no one, not even her husband or her lawyer. Our only clue is when she says that her source "wasn't aware of the revelation." That in itself is puzzling. Was her source drunk, or drugged? We only find out at the very end, and when we do it forces us to re-think our reaction to the whole story.
Good as a special prosecutor is Matt Dillon as Patton Dubois. He contends that refusing to reveal sources with national security implications is a crime for which Rachel could be imprisoned. Alan Alda is Alan Burnside, the fancy lawyer hired by Rachel's newspaper to get her off. Angela Bassett is her editor, Bonnie Benjamin. David Schwimmer is Rachel's husband, Ray Armstrong.
The story is not as clear-cut as some want to make it. There is legitimate concern that both sides are right. Reporters surely must have the right to protect their sources, but are reporters right to dig for "news" which may endanger others and compromise national security? After the whole story was told, I found myself siding with the US Government, to me Rachel, given the circumstances of her "source" was wrong to pursue it and publish the story just to bring attention to herself.
SPOILERS: As the movie begins we see Rachel, a school room-mother, riding the bus with small children. As two boys begin to bicker Rachel ends up next to young Allison Van Doren who sees Rachel typing on a notebook computer and says her dad writes also. Soon the little girl tells Rachel that her parents argue because mom is in the CIA and had to go to Argentina recently, to investigate the role of that government in the POTUS assassination attempt. That was Rachel's source, which she later confirmed from a half-drunk man at a backyard party. Her story was published, eventually a crazed man shot and killed the little girl's mother, Rachel was in prison almost a year, and finally bargained herself to a two-year sentence, presumably finally for revealing that her source was the young daughter.