Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) is a Jewish history writer. She refuses to debate holocaust denier David Irving (Timothy Spall) but he continues to confront her. In her latest book, she ridicules him and he sues her in London for defamation. To her shock, the burden of proof is on her. She hires Princess Di's lawyer Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott). She goes to Auschwitz with lawyer Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson).

There are limitations to making this history come to life. This is surprisingly compelling considering that it's a stodgy court drama. It's able to bring some interesting FACTS to light. When Julius forbids survivors from testifying, I wonder if they would climax with the expected testimonies. In fact, I wonder if Lipstadt would be beaten up by neo-Nazis in a darken alley to amp up the climax. It doesn't do any of that. There is a limited climax and some tension throughout. The weight of history is quite heavy but the historical outcome is not much in doubt.

I don't know if this was a good movie. The case was interesting and that pulled me along. Of course, the title comes from the antagonist's claim that the Holocaust never happened. The you female teacher and author has been striving against these posers and is finally confronted during a lecture by the foremost nut case on the subject. When she attacks his credibility, he charges her with defamation and has her come to England to face the music. What happens is that she is of little worth as a character because her defense team does all the work. She is sort of unpleasant and doesn't listen well to advice. The defense attorney is the most interesting character in the movie. I have to agree with previous viewer that there is a lack of suspense. The character of David Irving who looks like Richard Nixon on a bad day has little to say and allows the defense to debunk his ideas. It just didn't sparkle although the case was certainly a benchmark one.

In the 1980s Britain saw the rise of the right wing historians. Maybe the study of history has always been subjective, they say it is rewritten by the victors.

Now we had right wingers getting increased media airtime to push their agenda. A period where David Irving's reputation would initially flourish as he was the first to denounce the Stern magazine's publication of the Hitler Diaries as forgeries.

Denial based on true events is adapted by David Hare and directed by Mick Jackson, his return to the BBC after almost 30 years.

American historian Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) calls David Irving (Timothy Spall) out as a Holocaust denier in a publication. He sues her and her publisher for libel in the English courts. The reason being the burden of proof lies with the accused and the amount of damages were high in England.

Lipstadt had no problems raising funds in America to mount a defence and she employed top lawyers to defend her. Andrew Julius (Andrew Scott) the solicitor dealing with the day to day handling of the case and Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson) the barrister who would argue the case in court.

The film has to explain the English legal system and has a narrative of Lipstadt being passionate, wanting to bring survivors of the Holocaust to court to give evidence. She gets short shrift from her lawyers who wanted to prepare for the case dispassionately and methodically.

I think the film downplayed the smart move Julius pulled in getting Irving to agree to the case being tried by a Judge alone and not by a jury. The trial judge Charles Gray (Alex Jennings) had been a noted libel lawyer himself in real life.

The lawyers for Lipstadt had to prove that Irving was a racist, anti-Semitic and knowingly twisted the facts about the holocaust in his academic works.

Irving's reputation lay in ruins after the trial and rightly so. He still has his defenders but the man is a holocaust denier.

The narrative of the film did come across as too much of a 'movie of the week' to me. The film is not riveting enough and at times creaky. The highlight is Tom Wilkinson's masterly performance as the barrister.