Government cover ups and how people tried to uncover them are always a good source for a movie. It's the whole thing about David versus Goliath sort of. Overcoming odds that seem too big too overcome. But not all stories do end like most would want them too. Will this be any different and did you already know the case? Because as you may already know, this is based in reality/true story.It's really suspenseful from beginning to start and it will be able to keep you at the edge of your seat. The one time Bourne substitute and Avengers team player can show off some other talents here. And Jeremy Renner did so before of course (remember Hurt Locker?), though some may have forgotten. This is to remind everybody of that raw material he's working with. A really good movie from start to finish

If there is one word to perfectly describe this film it would be cliché. While the story is good and interesting because it id based on true events. The way the film is made is hackneyed and has been seen many times before. The dialogue and scene to scene pacing along with rehashed character types and situations make this film barely watchable. The lines of dialogue and over the shoulder parking garage "following" scenes prove that the film makers made no attempt to create an original presentation of a "based on true events movie". The few courtroom scenes were the best executed from a filmmaking standpoint. If you ignore the poor film making the story itself is actually quit interesting and noteworthy.

I absolutely love Jeremy Renner in this docudrama. To me this is only more proof that many branches of the government are not properly regulated, and who pays for their deception? We do, as a country and as a people. Whether it be the reporter who breaks the story or the communities involved; the public, no matter who it may be, are the ones left to pick up the pieces.This movie pulled back the elusive, "Iron Curtain", that is the CIA, and Webb paid the ultimate price. To expect anyone to believe a man committed suicide by shooting himself, not once but twice, in the head just proves further how naive the government truly believes us to be.

Nice acting all around. Especially the central figure, Jeremy Renner, whom I like a lot. The reasons I find him admirable are not just that he's a reliable actor, which he is, but that he's no taller and no more handsome than I am. (Let us operationalize our value judgments.) I respect the location shooting too, and I lived in San Jose about the time these events were transpiring. Elections were underway. And I found the coverage of the San Jose Mercury-News to be at least the equal of those two colossi to the north, the Chronicle and the Examiner. I was doing research on the milieu to which recently discharged psychiatric patients were trying to adjust, and the Mercury-News was a fountain of data. The CIA are after reporter Gary Webb for spilling some beans that should not have been spilled. A pretty olla podrida of rotten beans too. The CIA had been selling cocaine in the black districts of Los Angeles in order to fund illegal arms shipments to a CIA-sponsored revolutionary group in Nicaragua, ruled by a government we didn't like. There was never much doubt about the CIA's illegal support of the Contras. The president said that the facts led him to believe it was true. The question had to do with the importation of crack cocaine and its sale by the CIA.It was controversial and important stuff. It received a great deal of criticism from papers like the Post and the L.A. Times. The Inspector General's report acknowledged that the CIA had indeed worked with suspected drug runners while supporting the contras. The public wasn't anxious to hear its judicial icons knee-capped, I guess, because there were plenty of pick up trucks around with bumper stickers calling for Ollie North to be president. Ollie North was the instrument that organized the illegal operation because, as his secretary put it, they had to answer to a higher authority than the United States Constitution. And why not "North For President?" When you get right down to it, what else is the constitution but an old piece of paper crawling with germs?But the strength of the story is knee-capped by dramatic misstatements. It is simply not well written. A man calls Webb in the middle of the night and warns him to be alert. The man on the other end, calling alone from an office, is whispering. Why is he whispering? Okay. There are shots of Webb coming and going at his home and at work. The shots are dominated by gigantic close ups of solemn faces. Why? Close ups, if necessary, are used for portentous moments unless you're making a commercial for a toothpaste. The ultimate effect is that of being hit over the head with a crowbar.Okay. Webb is sitting at home with his wife, his adolescent son lounging in the doorway, during a visit by Webb's sympathetic young editor and boss. The editor hesitantly tells Webb that the CIA had dug into his past and found evidence of an extra-marital liaison. The guy's family knows nothing of this and the friendly editor pops up with this news item that threatens its integrity.Okay. We're now in the garage where Webb is trying to explain the affair to his son. The kid, who is about sixteen, is so choked up, so close to tears, that he can barely speak. "I made a mistake!", explains Webb. "Did -- did you love her?" "Do you love Mom?" "I'm really disappointed in you." I don't believe a word of that conversation.The film is based on a book by Gary Webb. Everybody wants to be the hero of his own story. Nobody wants to be comic relief.The writers need to go back and watch "The Insider" again and pick up all the mistakes they should have avoided. Then they should watch "All the President's Men" again to see how it should be done. The director needs someone to tell him he's making a dramatic feature film, not a commercial for Mennen underarm deodorant or one of those Canadian specials that show us a universe filled with betrayal and heartbreak on Lifetime Movie Network.Yet there are implications that, however muted, take us beyond one hero's tragedy. The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times both try to torpedo Webb's story, not only because they question his sources but evidently because they dislike seeing hot news in a smaller newspaper. They "attack the messenger" by digging into his private life as if this somehow taints his story -- which it does. The logical fallacy is called "ad hominem", meaning "to the man." It works very well, even now.