This was pointless


It was simply a re-hash of events, using actors to repeat the words spoken by the actual people (Hill, Thomas, etc.). The movie does not make a convincing case that Clarence Thomas was guilty of the actions he was accused of, at least no more than the real life testimony. It does not give a very deep background look at either Hill or Thomas. The claims by Ms. Hill are shocking, as they were in real life, and the rebuttal by Mr. Thomas was brilliant and convincing, as it was in real life. This movie does not even take sides, although it seems to be slightly more sympathetic to Ms. Hill. It's just a rehash. Kind of gutless, actually.

reply

This movie does not even take sides


So by implication can we assume it's pointless because it's a 25 year old historical drama that isn't biased?





http://tinyurl.com/9-simple-easy-guacamole-recip

reply

[deleted]

I thought the fact that it didn't overtly take sides was probably its greatest strength. It never really seemed for a second like it ever doubted her account, but it was also tactful enough to not hang him out to dry either.

________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehqFDXjKpOE

reply