Trumbo (2015) User Reviews (239)

Bryan Cranston owns the screen

[dfranzen70 · 8/10 · 18 October 2017]

All movie fans should recognize the name of Dalton Trumbo. Even if his heyday was a good half-century ago, his actions during one of Hollywood's very darkest periods still have tremendous impact even today. Especially today, for that matter.

Some quick background. You may recall that in World War II, the US and the Soviets were allies but that after the war we became distrustful adversaries. This time was known as the Cold War – since the two countries didn't fight one another – and really ended only in the late 1980s. Prior to the end of WW II, many Americans joined the Communist Party as a way to fight the rise of Fascism in Europe. After the war, current and former members of the Party were looked upon as pariahs of the highest order. Screenwriter Dalton Trumbo (Bryan Cranston) was one of these pariahs. It didn't help that he actively tried to rally technical workers on film sets (grips, lighting and sound technicians) to strike for higher pay. Unionizing was seen as a bad thing, despite the gains it had achieved for American workers earlier in the century.

Trumbo's membership in the Party wasn't a big deal at first, but then gossip columnist Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren), who wielded an enormous amount of power in Hollywood, took it as a personal affront and used her column (and weekly appearance in newsreels) to denounce Communism in general and Trumbo in particular. Kicking the whole scandal into high gear was a little-known congressional group – the House Un-American Activities Committee. These guys tried to rout out Commies from Hollywood (which it saw as holding a lot of sway over Americans, much more so than today) by calling a group of known or suspected Communists to Washington for sworn testimony. These men were known as the Hollywood Ten. Trumbo was one of them, and he refused to tell the committee the names of anyone else who was or who could be a Communist. He, like his fellow Ten members, was found in contempt. Later, someone not in the group did name Trumbo, and he was put in prison for a full year.

When he got out, no one would hire him (or any of the others in the Ten). Except for King Brothers Studio, which couldn't pay him much. But Trumbo worked fast as both a writer of original stuff and a fixer of existing scripts. The Kings loved him. So much so that the others in the Ten were offered jobs (for no credit, same as Trumbo) working as script doctors. During this time, Trumbo also got work from some friendly sorts in the business by selling them a script but not taking on-screen credit; the credit typically went to a fictitious person, or to a willing accomplice – known as a front. Through this method, Trumbo won two writing Oscars – although no one knew it at the time.

Dalton Trumbo fought for himself, his fellow writers, and for anyone for whom the Bill of Rights holds any meaning. He reasoned that if people could be silenced for political beliefs, then anyone could be silenced for any reason. This is, unfortunately, still true today. And although he didn't receive credit at the time, Trumbo was awarded his Oscars eventually (one posthumously). He's recognized as being one of the very greatest screenwriters the world has ever known. The movie does a terrific job describing Trumbo's struggles – and that of his family: his wife Cleo (Diane Lane) and his three doting children. The toll that his stance took on them was noticeable to everyone except for Trumbo himself.

Cranston turns in what was an Oscar-nominated performance, but his was not the only one of note. Lane is superb as his suffering, strong better half. Elle Fanning, as his eldest daughter, is also a standout, as are John Goodman (as Frank King) and Alan Tudyk (as writer Ian McLellan Hunter). Spellbinding from start to finish, and all screenwriters owe Trumbo a huge debt of gratitude for his long struggle on their behalf.

An Overwhelmingh Historical Tale

[fanaticusanonymous · 8/10 · 24 November 2017]

I happened only 70 years ago and so many young people have never even heard about it. How can it be? And, how dangerous. Not to know will always put you at a disadvantage, oh yes, sooner or later. Trumbo feels like a story set in a totalitarian Country and yet...The spread of fear is a powerful weapon used by self-aggrandizing sociopaths. Joe McCarthy's success is still a mystery to me and Trumbo proves, in the most riveting way, how easily we can fall in that trap. Bryan Cranston is simply, sensational portraying a true American in all its contradictions. I never really thought of the actual degradation Trumbo and the other blacklisted writers went through until I saw it in Bryan Cranston's face. David James Elliott portrayal of John Wayne is chilling and disturbing, specially because id true. I've heard from people who knew him, what a nice man Duke was and yet...Helen Mirren as Hedda Hopper was another chilling and unexpected portrait of utter ignorance. I've only recently found out that she was behind the forces that wanted Charles Chaplin out of the Country. Congratulations to director Jay Roach and to a spectacular cast. Let's hope everyone pays attention.

A Very Important Film

[litcity · 8/10 · 7 December 2015]

I give this movie an 8 out of 10. I think, technically, it deserves a 6 or 7. It hinges on the modern notion that a biopic isn't complete unless we see all the nuances regarding the protagonist's family life. That is not necessarily the fault of the filmmakers. I don't think a picture can get funded if it doesn't adhere to these modern foibles. I give it an 8, however, and, for its purpose alone, it deserves a 10.

It takes guts to make a movie like this today.

In the United States, we tend to get comfortable and forget that the concept of freedom of speech is the most important idea any human being has ever put forth. We tend to forget that the powers that be don't like that idea.

They really, REALLY don't like that idea.

They want us lowly masses to be good little sheep and do what we're told and think exactly the way they want us to think. We tend to forget that fighting against that tendency of power is a struggle, a painful, sometimes lethal struggle. Folks in other countries know about it. They know all too well. That's why, in spite of all the other problems they may have with the U.S., they still want to live here.

But we've gotten lazy. Not only are there forces on the extreme right that would like to dictate how we live, think, and even breathe--now we have a warring faction from the left, seen most prominently on college campuses, that embraces censorship and the "shutting down" of alternative opinions like little McCarthys on methamphetamine. The concept of a "safe space," where no "offensive" opinions may be heard, is nothing short of censorship. Defenders of this nonsense often make the claim that the government is not getting involved, therefore, it's not a violation of the First Amendment. Here's what's wrong with that argument:

1. Remember our old friend Katherine Hepburn in Adam's Rib? In her closing arguments, she says the law has two parts--the letter and the spirit. It's true, by the letter of the law, students harassing and banning speakers on campus they don't agree with does not equal the federal government censoring those speakers. But it does violate the SPIRIT of the First Amendment. The government, as the film Trumbo clearly shows, cannot always be trusted to safeguard the LETTER of that particular law. It is up to us, We the People, to safeguard the SPIRIT of that law.

2. Trumbo shows us the horrific world where the government trampled on the First Amendment from the top down. What is happening on college campuses today is that violators of what is deemed "politically correct" (a phrase originating from Mao's Cultural Revolution, which should raise several alarms on that basis alone) are subjected to kangaroo courts on the campus, away from legitimate, LEGAL courts of law. They are harassed and humiliated (just as dissenters in the Cultural Revolution were) with no legal recourse. If this practice becomes accepted in normal society, we will have a political environment no different from the times depicted in the film. The only difference--this time, it we have started with the people and spread to a government ready and willing to enact "speech codes" for its own purposes.

By now, those who still, stubbornly, cling to the notion that there is nothing wrong with what is happening on college campuses today will have dismissed this review. They might even leave typical ad hominem attacks on the message boards to make what attempts they can to silence me (to kill the messenger, if you will). This should very well indicate that what I've said is true.

The sane people reading this, no doubt, are asking what the heck this all has to do with Trumbo.

Answer:

Everything.

Having been subjected to a kangaroo court on a college campus where I was called in to the Title IX office for teaching Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron," I couldn't help but think, as I watched Trumbo, of the horrific witch hunt I was subjected to. That the film so easily earned my empathy is a testament to how well it's made.

I wish everyone involved a long, healthy career in the movies. We need more stories like this, stories that remind us the struggle to survive as individuals in a world that so stubbornly clings to collectivism is a never-ending battle. It's happened before. It's happening now. If we don't speak up and resist, it will continue happening in the future.

What a great film

[steven98664 · 8/10 · 28 November 2015]

I have seen so many documentaries about this era. The Hollywood blacklist, McCarthyism.

However, this takes a fresh, personal look at what happened. It shows how folks actually handled this, rather than just the circumstances of the time and newsreels of Congress hearings. How did they do it? This shows the how and when, the risks. Of course, Trumbo captures the full story of the persecution.

Stay to the very end of the film, stay for the credits as some of the clips they show are so meaningful.

I don't know if Trumbo was the person shown in the film, but if he was, he was an American hero. I think films like this represent the spirit, the best or worst of the spirit of what happened.

Trumbo wasn't just a hero from the look of it, he was also a survivor who made his way through the worst of it and came out on the other side.

Excellent acting, great writing and keeping true to history make TRUMBO the best film of the year

[jmsdxtr · 10/10 · 21 November 2015]

Okay. I'll admit that I gave this film a ten because it should have a higher score altogether than the 7.3 it has, and I wanted to up it. But a solid 8 at least or even a 9, for sure. There are at least two reasons why this fine film is not getting a higher rating, I believe. One is that there are many people (including critics) who look only at it from a political standpoint, both left and right. And those on the right are not going to like it no matter what, fine acting, writing or whatever. The same in the left but conversely (and a smaller number). Secondly, this is a slow and thoughtful film that will not go over with many young viewers who are used to fast paced action and CGI content. they will find neither in Trumbo.

But, for students of history and for people who like a good story, without the fluff, it is all here. Classic good vs evil dynamics coupled with the inherent contradictions. The struggle of lost faith and eventual redemption. And perhaps mostly, excellent social dynamics especially centered around family loyalty and the struggle of holding to ones personal values.

As for the history, there is much here. As stated above more than any film ever having dealt with the subject. Films like "the Front" and "Guilty by Suspicion" are indeed good films that, especially at the time where breaking ground for a more nuanced exploration of the subject. That Trumbo is a biography is advantageous. A real biography, not a overly fictionalized and caricatured profile of the era. This despite that fact that some of the characters are fictionalized, they nonetheless represent the experiences and attitudes of real people. Louis C.K.'s Arlen Hird character being one. Dalton Trumbo may have had a better time of it than most, such as Hird. It is thought by some that the rising star of John Garfield was killed (literally-a heart attack) by the effect of the HUAC on him. This was a time, as the film states when people were fighting for their professional and personal life against what could be called a creeping fascist tendency in the US political environment. The fear and reaction and self promotion of many (ie John Wayne, Hedda Hopper et al.) is evident here.

The writing is excellent. My hat goes off to John McNamara and Bruce Cook for their adherence to historical accuracy and verisimilitude. The dialog is remarkable and keep you involved. It keeps you thinking and hits at an emotional level that few films do at all anymore. But it all comes together with the excellent direction of Jay Roach. To bring together the historical and personal is such a way is no small feat. He deserves an Oscar (as do McNamara and Cook).

I could go on...but just see the movie. You won't regret it. You can still watch Star Wars at Xmas...

Overcomes hurdles to succeed in delighting its audience.

[cscaisse · 7/10 · 13 November 2015]

Trumbo is a period piece set in the late 40s and early 50s, following the life of Dalton Trumbo, arguably the leader of the Hollywood 10 who stood up to congress over what they saw as the illegal investigation and censorship of people's beliefs and free speech during the Second Red Scare after WWII. At the time, Congress and, in turn, members of the Hollywood elite blackballed writers, actors, directors, etc who identified as communists. Not spies for Moscow, but communists by political belief. Some faced jail time. Some lost their homes because they could not find work. Others encountered harsher realities. And Hollywood witch-hunt was merely a small part of a more wide-spread affront to civil liberties.

The time period itself is difficult to portray without seeming to be caricature - or perhaps style and communication have changed so much in 65 years that it just seems like caricature. Added to that difficulty are portrayals of John Wayne and Kirk Douglas, legends of film that, as a young person, I may have gone my whole life subconsciously thinking of as only existing on screen. Trumbo mostly rises to the occasion.

Much of Trumbo is comedic, and with intention, but the film also carries a certain amount of poignancy, if maybe a little less than it could use given the subject matter. Bryan Cranston is incredibly enjoyable to watch, and during the credits you get to watch a clip of the real Trumbo to compare. The portrayal is jarringly realistic (something you may question for the entirety of the film). Helen Mirren is a worthy antagonist, and very effectively displays the fear and anger that result from war - the need to dehumanize the enemy in order to survive the loss you feel as your family is fighting thousands of miles across the world, the need to justify pain through rigid ideology.

Other notable performances come from Michael Stuhlbarg, whose character, Eddie, provides for much of the films poignancy, and Diane Lane as the quiet but strong Cleo Trumbo, the rock of her family. John Goodman, is well cast as the comedic used car salesman of film, and Elle Fanning makes her mark as the rebellious daughter learning to be every bit of a force as her father.

It would be unfair to pin the failings of the film on a single person, but Louis C. K. continues to prove that being a great comedian does not make you a great actor. His portrayal is, in fact, so flat that it pulls you out of immersion in the film, a flaw that is further exacerbated by Bryan Cranston's mastery. Scenes between the two are simply absurd.

As a whole, the film's laughs are well earned and its feelings are well felt. Where the film falls short is to evoke, without personal reflection, the so obvious parallels between the state of our country today and that of the film. But perhaps that is not the goal. Perhaps the goal was to, with a bit of fun, portray a larger than life writer who decided to take on the world...and won. In that, Trumbo is a great success.

Omits relevant history, makes a great point

[vandeman-scott · 8/10 · 19 July 2020]

This is a very well made movie in spite of the fact that it omits relevant history, specifically the fact that Dalton Trumbo was intellectually inconsistent, rightly fighting for free speech for some, but turning others in to the government for speech he didn't like.

Nevertheless, TRUMBO the film is a terrific indictment of McCarthyism and blacklisting that's, intentionally or unintentionally, relevant to our times. Some people today who foolishly support cancel culture could and should take a lesson from this film before they suffer under the next needlessly punitive fad.

Beautiful picture that takes you there and was a very fair portrayal of the man and his cause.

[subxerogravity · 7/10 · 21 November 2015]

A quite impressive job for everyone involved.

Bryan Cranston gives a performance of a lifetime. Truly Oscar worthy as he plays Dalton Trumbo, a witty screen writer who was part of the communist party, and fought for the right to be a part of the party when everyone in Hollywood saw him as a traitor due to the red scare that was happening during the golden age of the silver screen.

Film making wise, Trumbo has a real feel for old Hollywood and really takes you there.

The personal info on the biography of Trumbo makes you think about the entire subject matter, that's truly a sign of a well done story, when it makes you think.

It's was interesting and entertaining.

a fun movie on a serious subject

[Quinoa1984 · 8/10 · 27 November 2015]

I've seen some mixed reviews of Trumbo, and in a way I can understand why it wouldn't impress some film critics. It is a movie where the movie business, and especially movie personalities, are given over to actors to play. It's not unlike a few years ago with the Anthony Hopkins Hitchcock: you got a big cast and they all have roles to play from people who, if you're a big movie buff (or even someone who just knows who Kirk Douglas or John Wayne were, and that's probably a lot, whether or not you know who Dalton Trumbo was entirely), there's an aspect of 'Oh, he's or she is playing HIM or HER!' But I think with a sharp enough script that sort of thing goes by the way-side, especially if it gives the right actors some good stuff to play. There's nothing about Trumbo that is especially complex, as it has the message that most of us in 2015 would agree with: the Hollywood Blacklist, not just what happened to the Hollywood 10 but many others, was a horrible thing, and the thesis comes down to the idea that there were good and bad people in it but it also came down to the nature of it all making people victims... well, except for Hedda Hopper.

The movie is fun though whether or not you know a lot about the history because of who is in the cast and especially Bryan Cranston as Trumbo. He's a man who makes a lot of money in the 40's in Hollywood writing scripts and yet is an avowed Communist (he makes the case to his daughter in such a way early on in the film that some might question but most of us would go 'huh, that's it then'). A lot of the conflict comes because of what the history had right there: HUAC went after people in Hollywood who were suspected 'traitors', but in reality were just writers and (some) actors and directors who had affiliations with the party, and thanks to pressure by columnist Hedda Hopper (played here by Helen Mirren in a role that's deliciously evil) and John Wayne (actor I can't remember but does a good impression without being caricature-ish), a group got pressured. They didn't name names, were held in contempt of court, found guilty and did time. Well, unless if you were Edward G. Robinson (though he's shown in a somewhat sympathetic light, maybe just by Michael Stuhlbarg being in the role).

The bulk of the story is about the 'front' that Trumbo led for himself and other blacklisted writers such as stubborn/cancer-ridden Arlen Hird (Louis CK, always a pleasure to watch, but especially in scenes with Cranston). They used fake names to get their scripts made, even as they had no choice for a while but to team up with filmmakers who were out to just make "crap" (an echo in a way for me of Burton's Ed Wood with the John Goodman character). There's some predictable drama that unfolds - the all-business-all-writing part of Dalton that conflicts with being a father and family-man and clashing with his daughter and wife (very good Elle Fanning and Diane Lane respectively) - but what helps it along all the way is just a sharp script and direction that keeps things thematically strong.

This is serious stuff what happened to these people in Hollywood, and director Jay Roach and writer John McNamara know that, all the way up to a final speech from Trumbo upon winning a WGA award that puts things into a perspective that (almost) makes Trumbo too fair to those who really wronged him and his friends. But it's just full of wit an clever lines; if you're a sucker for that, as I can be sometimes, then Trumbo makes for a balance of the light and dark stuff. Again if nothing else, Cranston makes someone who can easily be seen as a CHARACTER in bold letters (and by many accounts that is who Trumbo was) and gives him three dimensions and perspective on the situations that unfold. He does things that may be wrong and provocative, in both bad and good ways, and is told off enough that any of his short-comings become kind of charming. I could've spent more time with his Trumbo and been happy, especially in light of the history that unfolds here (i.e. Roman Holiday, Spatacus, Exodus, other productions like The Brave One).

The Hollywood Ten

[ferguson-6 · 6/10 · 19 November 2015]

Greetings again from the darkness. For an industry that thrives on ego and self-promotion, it could be considered surprising that more movies haven't focused on its most shameful (and drama-filled) period. The two Hollywood blacklist films that come to mind are both from 1976: Martin Ritt's The Front (starring Woody Allen) and the documentary Hollywood on Trial. There are others that have touched on the era, but director Jay Roach and writer John McNamara (adapting Bruce Cook's book) focus on blacklisted writer Dalton Trumbo in a film that informs a little and entertains a lot.

Director Roach combines his comedic roots from the "Austin Powers" and "Meet the Parents" franchises with his more recent politically-centered HBO projects Recount and Game Change. His subject here is the immensely talented writer Dalton Trumbo, whom Louis B Mayer signed to the most lucrative screen writing contract of the 1940's. It was soon after that Trumbo's (and other's) affiliation with the American Communist Party came under fire by the House Un-American Activities Committee headed by J Parnell Thomas. The divide in Hollywood was clear. On one side were the staunch Patriots like John Wayne (David James Elliott) and the Queen Muckracker, gossip columnist Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren); on the other were "The Hollywood Ten" … those accused of being traitors simply because they stood up for freedom.

What's interesting here is that despite the dark subject matter, the film has an enormous amount of humor … including multiple laugh out loud moments. This happens because most of the focus is on Trumbo the family man and Trumbo the justice fighter. Of course, as a writer, Trumbo does his best fighting with words … words whose message is "they have no right" to question the thoughts and beliefs of individual citizens. The committee's mission was to prove treason by linking to the Russian agenda, but in reality these folks were mostly supportive of labor rights … most assuredly not a crime. The investigations, such as they were, seemed to prove the gentlemen were more Socialist than Russian – which makes an interesting contrast to modern day where we have an admitted Socialist running for President. The Hollywood Ten stood their ground, served jail time, and were either forced out of the industry or forced to go "underground" using pseudonyms. Trumbo, while unceremoniously writing under other names, won two Best Writing Oscars – one for Roman Holiday and one for The Brave One.

Bryan Cranston delivers a "big" performance as Dalton Trumbo. Everything is big – the glasses, the cigarette holders, the mustache, and definitely the personality. He does his best writing in the bathtub, and is never without a quick-witted comeback … whether sparring with The Duke or the committee. Unfortunately, Hedda Hopper does her most effective work in undermining the rights of Trumbo and his cohorts, including Arlen Hird (Louis CK) and Ian McClellan Hunter (Alan Tudyk). We also see how Edward G Robinson (Michael Stuhlbarg) quietly supports the cause, while also trying to salvage his fading career.

Trumbo is by no means presented as a saintly rebel with a cause. Instead, we see him as a loving yet flawed father, husband and friend. Once released from prison, he is so focused on writing and clawing his way back, that his relationships suffer – especially with his eldest daughter Nikola (Elle Fanning) and loyal wife (Diane Lane). It's the King Brothers Production Company led by Frank (John Goodman) and Hymie (Stephen Root) who give Trumbo an outlet for writing and earning a living. Most were schlock movies, but there were also a few gems mixed in (Gun Crazy). However, it's Kirk Douglas' (Dean O'Gorman with an uncanny resemblance) courageous stand for his (and Stanley Kubrick's) movie Spartacus, and director Otto Preminger (Christian Berkel) and his film Exodus, that put Trumbo's name back on the screen, effectively ending Ms. Hopper's crusade.

The ending credits feature clips of the real Dalton Trumbo being interviewed, and it brings clarity to Cranston's performance, while more importantly relaying some incredibly poignant and personal words directly from the man … maybe they really should be "carved into a rock". It's an era of which Hollywood should not be proud, and it's finally time it was faced head-on … and it's quite OK that they bring along a few good laughs.

Are you now or have you ever been . . .

[Red-125 · 10/10 · 30 November 2015]

Trumbo (2015), which is based on the life of Dalton Trumbo, was directed by Jay Roach. It stars Bryan Cranston as Trumbo.

Trumbo was the highest-paid writer in Hollywood, and he was really, really good. Although it was legal to be a member of the Communist Party, Trumbo actually went to jail because he wouldn't name names before the House Un-American Activities Committee.

Sadly, many actors and screenwriters ran afoul of the HUAC witch-hunt. Some named names. In this movie, that person is Edward G. Robinson (Michael Stuhlbarg). (Historically, but not included in the movie, director Elia Kazan did the same thing.)

The HUAC was supported by a cheering squad, among whose ranks was gossip columnist Hedda Hopper, played brilliantly by Helen Mirren.

The HUAC wasn't satisfied with sending people to jail. They wanted to destroy them. They accomplished this by enforcing the blacklist. Anyone on the blacklist couldn't find work in Hollywood. All doors were closed to them. Some moved to Europe, others wrote and directed using substitutes or false names.. Many of them were desperate, because they were cut off from any income despite their the ability to work effectively in their profession.

John Goodman is brilliant in the supporting role of Frank King, a studio owner who has never overestimated the intelligence of the people that flock to his Grade B movies. Diane Lane plays Dalton Trumbo's wife, Cleo Trumbo. It's not really a great role, because she truly does have to portray the long-suffering wife. Still, she manages to pull it off. Helen Mirren plays Hedda Hopper. Hopper loves the fact that millions of viewers read her column every day, and that gives her a power that even studio heads don't have. Mirren is one of the great actors of our day, and this is another movie where she demonstrates just how great she is.

A positive aspect of this movie is that it shows a writer actually writing. We get multiple scenes of Trumbo pounding on his typewriter, fueled by alcohol and benzedrine. Most movies about writers show every part of their lives except writing. Director Roach doesn't make that mistake.

We saw Trumbo on the large screen at the excellent Little Theatre in Rochester, NY. It will work almost as well on the small screen. Trumbo may turn out to be the best film of 2015. Don't miss it!

Worthwhile as entertainment, but Propagandistic.

[timbermisc · 6/10 · 23 November 2015]

I enjoyed this period film depicting life in the early 50s. For mere entertainment, it plays well to an adult audience. There are no action scenes for the enjoyment of teenagers. I gave it a "6" because it distorts history.

Trumbo was a Hollywood script writer who overtly declared that he was a card carrying Communist. It was not illegal to be a Communist in the U.S. at that time. The movie business executives of Hollywood create a "blacklist" banning certain screenwriters. Trumbo and 9 others are on this list and they become the "Hollywood 10" defending themselves against a contempt charge. They would not answer questions. They are guilty; and they go to prison.

This movie simplifies Communism to such a degree that this movie could be used to convince viewers of Communism's worth. It is explained that Communism is all about sharing food. Capitalism is therefore about not sharing food. This movie is propaganda because it gives an incomplete picture of what Communism is in its entirety. It seems that Communism is just a good natured system that helps people. And this type of message could therefore be placed into a Hollywood script to ease a viewer into a positive view of communism. Why communism could be thought of as some kind of religion of helping people. The negatives of communism are not presented. And this is what Communistic writers of Hollywood scripts did, they placed words and actions and scenes in scripts which gave the viewer an unbalanced, biased view of capitalism hoping to persuade the audience to support communism or socialism.

Capitalism has institutions that share food. These are usually religious institutions. Communism bans all religions. So, here we have a fact that is missing in the movie. Communism gives the right to a guaranteed job; but without a choice as to what that job will be. Capitalism gives the citizen the right and a choice to sell oneself for a job position. With Capitalism, a person may try hard to gain a job position or create a business of his choice.

But there are more facts missing from this "free speech" movie about Trumbo's efforts to continue writing. Trumbo was a propagandist for Stalin. He also supported the Nazi regime. And he supported the North Korean communist regime. He took a pledge to end the American government and to replace it with a Leninist Communist Government. The fact that Stalin starved millions of people was not an issue with him.

Before you see this movie, it would be wise to Google "Trumbo Stalin Nazi". Read around the opinions of many websites that will fill you in on what facts are missing in this Trumbo (2015) movie. I was entertained because it was a trip back to the late 40's and 50's. People seemed more respectful then; and they had real haircuts! But this movie whitewashes, hides the truth about the Communist threat of that era.

The fact is, the Communist Party in Hollywood had enough power to restrict or ban any film that criticized Communism. The communists restricted free speech! Ronald Reagan, John Wayne, Senator Joe McCarthy are therefore patriots because they hit the alarm button on the propaganda threat that these Stalinist writers and actors and producers

could make and did make. All of this is not presented in this film. Remember, when you take over someone else's country, you should command the media. You would then create propaganda messages. And that is what these people were in the act of doing.

Senator Joe McCarthy at least appears here to have his target correctly in his sights. Later he will be discredited for not having proof of a present communist threat. He was seen as a magician who found Communists everywhere. Well, his methods were too blunt. And the Communists were too careful.

I enjoyed this film because it makes the black listing episode a personal experience. This film attempts to bring history to life. But it isn't true history. We see how Trumbo adapts to this threat on this career. The net result of this movie is to make us feel that he is just an American who is fighting for Free Speech and recognition for his creative writing. And his being a Communists is just a "so what" issue.

So, I urge you to read about the real Trumbo at various websites first. You will then see that this movie is a propaganda movie about a propagandist!

There is no violence or ugly language. Hey, this is the 50's. There is a lot of talking, so I don't think younger people will have their attention held by this film.

Another good movie of the same period, is "Bridge of Spies". I think if you could see both movies on the same day you would be solidly in the 1950's all day long.

Some comment on the "respectful attitudes" of people during the 1950's. Well, yes, respect was taught with 100% church attendance. And respect was shown by getting a haircut every two months.

Hagiography of blacklisted screenwriter fails to show his darker side

[Turfseer · 5/10 · 6 December 2015]

The dictionary tells us that a hagiography is any biography that idealizes or idolizes its subject. By definition, a hagiography is an inferior form of literature because it focuses on only the purported good side of its subject—those looking for any kind of nuance will inevitably be disappointed.

As director Jay Roach and his scenarists would have it, Dalton Trumbo, the acclaimed Hollywood screenwriter, was a veritable saint for sticking to his conscience and not naming names before HUAC (House of Un-American Activities Committee) in 1947.

Trumbo basically follows the facts of what happened to him after he was blacklisted: a 10 month stint in a Federal prison for contempt of Congress; supporting himself by writing and/or editing screenplays under pseudonyms; winning two Academy Awards for best screenplay while concealing his identity; becoming addicted to prescription medication in order to be able to churn out such a voluminous amount of work; the difficulties he had with his wife and children due to the slavish devotion to his work; and his eventual triumph over the blacklist after director Otto Preminger and actor Kirk Douglas agree to give him credit as screenwriter for their movies.

There is really only one scene in the film (the best one!) which suggests maybe Trumbo wasn't the saint that most of liberal America now believes him to be. That scene involves the meeting between famed actor Edward G. Robinson and Trumbo after Robinson has named names before HUAC. Robinson exposes Trumbo's self-righteousness after pointing out that Trumbo could still support himself by writing under other peoples' names, while he, as an actor, had no anonymity and hence had no choice but to "name names."

Director Roach would like us to believe that Trumbo was a political innocent. The only scene where he deals with Trumbo's political beliefs is when he has Trumbo speaking with his young daughter about Communism while horseback riding. Trumbo's definition is basically that Communism has to do with "sharing" and hence helping others.

The reality of Trumbo's political beliefs is much more complex than what director Roach and his crew let on here. Robert Radosh, in his most informative article, "Red Star Falling: The Trumbo Train Wreck," informs that Trumbo, due to his support of Stalin, was an isolationist before the war. His anti-war novel, "Johnny Got His Gun," was published in the Daily Worker but after the dissolution of the Nazi-Soviet pact in 1941, Trumbo immediately had the book withdrawn from circulation. He even went to the FBI, as Radosh tells us, and gave them the names of people who had inquired about the book. (Later of course Trumbo had no problem condemning those who named names before HUAC.)

Trumbo insisted that he was motivated by free speech but according to Radosh, he "used his power in the film community to prevent proposed anti-Communist films from being made." He called Stalin "one of the democratic leaders of the world," and tried to undermine a film based on Trotsky's biography of Stalin as well as other anti-Communist films which he considered "untrue and reactionary."

Radosh has no illusions about HUAC's tactics but also decries the Hollywood Ten's true political character. Writing in 1991 in the American Spectator, Radosh reviewed the newly released film about the blacklist, "Guilty by Suspicion": "HUAC's hearings were clearly punitive--their 1951 investigations turned up nothing, and were meant to force recalcitrant witnesses to engage in a humiliating game of contrition by offering the Committee names it already had. Only the contrite could gain absolution, and the proof was to confess one's sins. But in reality, most of those brought before HUAC were ardent Stalinists or fellow travelers, whose own record of politics was hardly that of moral propriety. They were unfairly treated and punished, but they were not without their own degree of sin."

Radosh quotes the left-leaning author Larry Ceplair from his book "The Inquisition in Hollywood," about the Hollywood Ten and their ilk who "defended the Stalinist regime, accepted the Comintern's policies and about-faces, and criticized enemies and allies alike with infuriating self-righteousness, superiority, and selective memory which eventually alienated all but the staunchest fellow travelers."

For those who would argue that Trumbo's views had evolved after World War II, Allan Ryskind writing in the NY Post reminds us that he was still an unrepentant Stalinist even at the time the Korean War broke out. Ryskind informs, "Channeling his inner Stalin, he also wrote a screenplay — egged on by some of his Hollywood Ten friends — in which the major character, Catherine Bonham, reveals her ardent attachment to North Korea. Bonham insists Kim's country is a 'model' Asian nation and is fighting for its freedom 'just as we had to fight for our own independence in 1776.'"

Trumbo quit the Communist Party in 1956. While working on a book about the blacklist, Robert Radosh found an unpublished 1958 letter by Trumbo. In it he finally admits that "the Ten did not "perform historic deeds," but took part "in a circus orchestrated by Communist Party lawyers, all to save ourselves from punishment." Trumbo went even further: "They lived in the United States, not Stalin's U.S.S.R., and should have openly proclaimed their views and membership so that the American people could judge them for what they believed."

In his speech to the Screen Writer's Guild in 1970, Trumbo claimed no one was without sin during the days of the blacklist. It's a shame that this new biopic failed to provide an ample catalog of Trumbo's own sins. While Bryan Cranston does a fine job in depicting one side of Trumbo as the lovable curmudgeon, his more complex political views along with those of his "fellow travelers," are whitewashed and soft-pedaled. The despicable acts of HUAC and their supporters don't excuse perfidy on the left as well, which Trumbo only owned up to in his later days and in limited fashion.

70 Years On, Some People Still Want to Tell Others What to Think

[vsks · 9/10 · 8 December 2015]

After practically having the frequently shown previews for Trumbo memorized, I finally saw the film itself. (Though one trailer scene with Helen Mirren didn't actually appear in the movie. Weird.) As you undoubtedly know, Trumbo is the story of the Hollywood 10, writers blacklisted during the communist witch-hunts of the late 1940s and 1950s. Joe McCarthy and all that. When called before the House Un-American Activities Committee, Dalton Trumbo (played beautifully by Bryan Cranston) and the other nine refused to give Congress information about their beliefs or to rat out others in the film industry. As a result, a number of them including Trumbo went to prison for contempt of Congress ("I AM contemptuous of Congress," he said after the HUAC hearing). He was in the slammer for 10 months and once he was out could no longer get work. Meanwhile, some industry personages—in the movie, producer Buddy Ross (Roger Bart) and actor Edward G. Robinson (Michael Stuhlbarg)—saw their careers going up in smoke and did testify (though in real life, Robinson did not name names). The movie effectively skewers that Great American Flag-Waving Hero, John Wayne, who managed to avoid any military service during World War II and Korea. "If you're going to act as if you won the war single-handedly," Trumbo tells him, "it would be more believable if you'd actually served," as he and so many of his black-listed colleagues had. They represent the tip of the iceberg of people harmed by the virulent anti-Communism of the day, and although the movie is about the Hollywood 10, it's really about the Hollywood One, Trumbo, the most accomplished of the lot. The composite character Arlen Hird has the unenviable job of being Trumbo's verbal sparring partner and representing an amalgam of several of the harder-line writers' views. Trumbo is unfailingly supportive of him, even though he inserts his political views into scripts (which Trumbo rewrites) and clearly doesn't trust Trumbo. (This is where the "You talk like a radical, but you live like a rich man" line from the trailer fits in.) While not a lot of acting was required of Diane Lane as Trumbo's wife, she did a fine job, and Helen Mirren is perfect as the odious Hedda Hopper, blackmailer without portfolio. As writer Hird, comedian Louis C.K.'s acting inexperience shows a bit, as he's up against such acting superstars, while John Goodman is all prickly geniality and Alan Tudyk plays a credible Ian McLellan Hunter. Hunter wins the Academy Award for the Roman Holiday script (the Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn classic), but Trumbo wrote it. In fact, Trumbo and the others write many screenplays for which they receive credit only belatedly, if at all. The back of the blacklist can't be broken until a few Hollywood luminaries are willing to give appropriate screen credit. Directed by Jay Roach with a solid script from John McNamara. While in their vision, the character of Trumbo doesn't change much over the course of the story—except perhaps to learn not to take what he most cherishes for granted—"he is no more or less principled at the end than he was at the start," said Anthony Lane in The New Yorker. He is forgiving, though, and in the end acknowledges that all humans are a mix of good acts and bad (except perhaps for Hedda Hopper). The real opportunity for learning lies with the audience. While those anti-Communist days may now seem rather quaint—Congress taking on a bunch of two-fingered typists—there always are people who believe they know best what other people should think, who believe others are too dim or inattentive to grasp hidden political messages, who think citizens are like children who have to be protected from difficult ideas. That, the movie Trumbo seems to say, is still the danger. Another film well worth the price of a ticket.

Excellent film on perseverance and brilliance

[iwillservemypeople · 10/10 · 27 November 2015]

This film should be best film of the year for many reasons. For one it challenges one's beliefs. Two it shows accounts of U.S. history and third it demonstrates great courage.Dalton Trumbo's life was a testament of the power of one's mind. Trumbo's life was amazing by itself but the film made an autobiography come to life. Trumbo accomplished more than most men ever will. He used his life experience's, his quick thinking, and brilliance in writing and politics to challenge the United States government. He also suffered because of his bravery. This film is a great reminder of how flawed this country can be despite being promoted as the land of the free. America has many accounts of being unjust and oppressing that it has conveniently for years hid. This film shows some accounts of this and spotlights a brilliant writer and his equally gifted family members who stood their ground and pushed forward against a system that for decades had went unchallenged. Dalton Trumbo's life is inspiring and his wife and daughter's characteristics seemed to mirror his dedication and bravery. This is a great time period film and a must see if you are part of the cinema community.

Overly Dramatic Trumbo

[chicagopoetry · 6/10 · 15 November 2015]

I have mixed feelings about Trumbo. Granted Bryan Cranston gives a stellar performance as the blacklisted screenwriter, but the rest of the cast simply didn't rise to the occasion sort of making this a one man show. Especially off were those portraying celebrities, such as Michael Stuhlbarg's very dull Edward G. Robinson who neither looked nor sounded very Robinson-like, and Dean O'Gorman admittedly gives it his all trying to be Kirk Douglas but sorry, I just wasn't convinced. On the other hand David James Elliott pretty much nails John Wayne but unfortunately he's only given about three or four scenes. But the worst is by far Louis C.K.'s performance. Every time he spoke I was ripped out of movieland and reminded that these are just people acting. I think it was a combination of bad casting and simply poor acting but his depressing, whiny performance was completely annoying. John Goodman looks like a beached whale and I think the only time he rises from the sitting position throughout the entire film is the scene with the baseball bat that you probably already saw in the trailer. And I think the trailer was a huge part of the problem. It led me to believe that this would be a jazzy, fast paced comedy but instead I found myself sitting through a very heavy handed drama that simply did not let up with the thick tragedy. It's anything but frolicking as the trailer suggests, but instead it's very long and uneventful and to be honest quite dull at times. It really shoves its message down our throats, about how government shouldn't interfere with art, without even recognizing that those were the good old days. If we only could have some art today that government is threatened by, instead of one superhero movie after another. Today the censorship comes from the movie studios themselves that are owned by huge monopolies and from the apathetic audience as was proved today when I was the ONLY person in the theater to see the movie Trumbo.

This movie about a man's struggles as a writer is engaging, compelling and just plain entertaining, highly recommend.

[ruadhan-38183 · 8/10 · 1 December 2017]

This movie is important. It tells the story of the struggles faced by the people who sought to have a differing political view in the 1950s and 60s. Their decision to think differently left them facing prejudice and hatred in America. This is the focus of this movie.

The story follow Dalton Trumbo, portrayed by Brian Cranston,a successful screenwriter in Hollywood in the 1950s. Cranston carries this movie on the shoulders of his performance. It is truly phenomenal how he brings such life and energy to this character. He captured my attention anytime he was on-screen and is without a doubt one of the major reasons you should see this movie.If you are a fan of any of Cranstons previous works you should love this movie for that reason alone. Cranston was nominated for an Oscar for this performance, a nomination I believe was well deserved.

The movie is of course based on a true story. while I cannot attest to the validity of the facts, I can confidently say that anyone interested in this period of history will find this movie much more enjoyable then reading a Wikipedia page.

Overall I give Trumbo 8/10 for its compelling plot and excellent performances. i would highly recommend it.

Dalton Trumbo, the saint of Hollywood

[pete36 · 6/10 · 23 November 2019]

Dalton Trumbo was by the end of the forties about the most succesfull screenwriter in Hollywood but also an active member of the communist party and a big supporter of Stalin. When the HUAC starts its hearings he is ofcourse one of the first to be targeted and indeed found guilty, as one of the infamous Hollywood Ten, put in jail (but only for 10 months) and upron release can't find a job so starts to work on B-movies but prevails in the end with winning two oscars and writing the screenplay for "Spartacus".

As a classic moviebuff I quite liked the movie, especially to find out how all these actors would be portrayed : Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger are spot-on, John Wayne so-and so but the Edward Robinson part is a joke, played by an actor who looks at least 20 years younger then the real Robinson at the time.

But let's face it : this is an almost Ghandi-like haghiography by today's liberal leftleaning Hollywood. Cranston does an OK job : he portrrays Trumbo as rather grumpy but lovable family man who only cares on the fact that also his stricken colleagues get some work. There is even one who has cancer. He also lives in a grand mansion (as a real commie) but which he ofcourse has to leave when things get rough and then has to movie to a house in the suburbs (how terrible).

Anyway, if you are supporting for a country that is in deadlocks with your own country on about everything (definitely in the fifties) you might consider piping down a bit, especially on the First Amendment thing, something that is rather missing in the Soviet Union legal handbook.

Best Bio of the year.

[das5712 · 10/10 · 28 November 2015]

Truth may be stranger than fiction. This true story is way better than all the current competing fictional concoctions. The lessons from this story are more pertinent than ever, as fear of controversy limits the fare at the cineplex to pablum or propaganda for the political establishment. Trumbo won multi Oscars for his work, and his life as told here, deserves another. We need more serious well done films like this. Award nominations are deserved for writer, direction, lead actor, ensemble/best picture. Special mention to the actors who undertook the most difficult task of portraying those well know characters who lived within living memory. These are most difficult roles and good performances added so much to the film.

A stark reminder of dark times

[Gordon-11 · 15 January 2016]

This film tells the story of an excellent scriptwriter who was persecuted during the cold war for his political inclination. He became jobless and broke, yet he works around the hysterical system and live to see justice.

It is particularly sad to see that people were persecuted for their non mainstream belief. Fuelled by propaganda, people suffered without justifiable reasons. This story concentrates on one individual who suffered needlessly. He stands up to persecution with courage, but without resorting to violence or criminality. It's a tale of a respectable man fighting a war that he has little odds of winning. The story is interesting, and it is particularly satisfying when Trumbo finally gets the recognition he deserves. I think this film will help to remind people of the dangers of intolerance, as well as crediting a great writer.

"No - he wrote Spartacus!"

[bob-the-movie-man · 6/10 · 5 March 2016]

Most countries have dark parts in their history, and America is no exception. Did you know for example that eugenics was actively practiced in the US during the 1920's and 30's? Not going as far as the gas chambers of Nazi Germany, but getting pretty close in some institutions where "imbeciles and defectives" were allegedly quietly euthanased or forcibly sterilised to cleanse the gene pool.

Another equally dark period of history were the McCarthy witch hunts in the post WW2 period, and that is the topic that "Trumbo" focuses on.

In a true story, Dalton Trumbo (Bryan Cranston) was a successful Hollywood screenwriter (including "Roman Holiday", "Exodus" and "Spartacus") who was also a communist. Together with nine other colleagues, this "Hollywood Ten" collectively decide to take a First Amendment stand against the questioning, under subpoena, of the 'House Committee on Un-American Activities'. This lack of cooperation gets them black-listed from working in Hollywood, which removes their livelihoods.

Stoking the fire is bile-filled journalist Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirran), trying her best at every opportunity to subvert their own subversion of working around the blacklisting.

The film is a fascinating insight into a period of movie history I knew nothing about. Famous actors such as John Wayne, Ronald Reagan, Edward G Robinson and Kirk Douglas pop up on different sides of the fence, sometimes as impersonations (the best one being Dean O'Gorman's uncanny impersonation of Kirk Douglas) and sometimes from original stock footage.

Cranston was Oscar nominated for the role of Trumbo, and he is very good indeed as the larger than life character. But there are a number of other very compelling performances worthy of note: Michael Stuhlbarg ("A Serious Man") is great as the conflicted Edward G Robinson; and Elle Fanning ("Super 8"), younger sister of Dakota, is once again fantastic as Trumbo's eldest daughter - having more to put up with than just the teenage hormones.

Overall though, while it is an educational piece, the film is rather stodgy in places and lacks passion for its subject. The only point for me when the film reached its dramatic potential was the angry bathroom scene between Cranston and Fanning. Rather disappointing, given my expectations.

(Please visit bob-the-movie-man.com for the graphical version of this review. Thanks.)

People did what they had to do

[bkoganbing · 9/10 · 12 March 2016]

The blacklist is a subject much discussed, analyzed and written about. I always thought that the best commentary on the blacklist came from Robert Redford's character in The Way We Were. They'll come a time when producers will need the talent they have ostracized and the wives of right wing producers will be screwing left wing writers and vice versa and no one will remember what it was really all about. The blacklist like Prohibition, like segregated baseball caved in under the weight of its own imbecility. The tragedy is so many lives had to be ruined.

The story of Dalton Trumbo's years in exile are told in the film Trumbo and it's lead Bryan Cranston who received an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. He might have gotten the award had the Academy voters felt that Leonardo DiCaprio was overdue.

Dalton Trumbo in his life never spied for the Soviets, no American security issues were ever breached by him. Like so many he joined the Communist Party at a time when we were allies with the Soviet Union against the Nazis. He never hit it and thought this was what America was about, the right to think one's own thoughts express the same and not be penalized.

When things got hostile between the USA and the USSR that's when the forces of reaction came to the fore. The House Un-American Activities Committee which never passed a single law in its history was great at getting headlines. What better headlines than having movie stars of all kinds appear before that committee? So an investigation of the movie industry and the hidden Communist messages in films by writers of leftist sympathy.

Trumbo was one of the first to be blacklisted, a member of the so- called Hollywood Ten of writers. It might be an interesting exercise to look at his screen credits and try to see what could have the members of HUAC found in such films as A Guy Named Joe and Our Vines Have Tender Grapes that are Communist tinted.

The blacklist came and it was enforced by a group called the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. Heading it were John Wayne who during the years of the early 50s when the blacklist was riding high and he was number one at the box office. Wayne is played here by David James Elliott who has the height, but no one could ever capture that outsize personality.

Michael Stuhlbarg plays Edward G. Robinson who turned friendly witness after being a defender of the Hollywood Ten and who Trumbo worked with in Our Vines Have Tender Grapes. Unlike Trumbo and the writers who formed an underground cottage industry of writing under pseudonyms to keep bread on the table, actors could not do that. It was why so many like Robinson and Sterling Hayden for instance did what they felt they had to do to preserve their careers.

Even Wayne was a manipulated figure who thought he was doing a patriotic service. Hedda Hopper played by Helen Mirren was far more evil. She was right wing to the core and she did in fact as is shown in Trumbo chastise Wayne for being too soft when he wants to relent.

It was hard on the Trumbos, but Cranston and supportive wife Diane Lane and their kids held it together. The domestic scenes and the Trumbo household are very significant because it shows that other than the fact that dad was barred from working in the most glamorous of industries, they were as ordinary a family as you might find on Leave It To Beaver or The Donna Reed Show. Other than the fact these kids developed some severe social consciences as we see in Elle Fanning as Trumbo's older daughter. But many did who did not live and work in Hollywood.

I should single out John Goodman who really should have gotten a nomination himself in the Best Supporting Actor category as Frank King who was an independent producer of cheerfully admitted shlock movies who hired Trumbo and his colleagues under the table. What he does with one of Hedda Hopper's spies from the Motion Picture Alliance was priceless.

History records the blacklist ending when Trumbo is officially given credit for both the films Spartacus and Exodus. Both came out in 1960. If there are any villains in the story it was the large studios who caved into political pressure. Had any one of them back in the late Forties told HUAC where to go and what to do there would have been no blacklist. A whole lot like the integration of baseball when Jackie Robinson was signed by the Brooklyn Dodgers. When that great experiment was successful teams like the Boston Braves, New York Giants and Cleveland Indians all signed black players and in a decade every team was integrated.

So it was with Hollywood's blacklist. In 1965 the producer and star of Spartacus Kirk Douglas and the producer and director of Exodus Otto Preminger both worked with John Wayne on In Harm's Way. In 1969 John Wayne included in the cast of True Grit blacklisted actor Jeff Corey. It was all a bad dream.

But those who dreamed good dreams and fought the good fight for their freedom of speech and their right to work in expressing their speech were people like Dalton Trumbo for whom this picture and review is dedicated to. Sometimes the real heroes aren't in front of the camera.

American Paranoia

[rmp2-163-744654 · 7/10 · 5 February 2016]

It is hard to believe this actually happened. Just for speaking out in favour of film workers rights the whole Federal machine came bearing down on the hapless writers and numerous other film workers. I am at a loss just what Hedda Hopper (A great performance from Helen Mirren!) and John Wayne thought these film worker were going to do to 'overthrow the government?' They were never convicted of any crime but were charged with 'contempt of Congress' and jailed. Madness! Wayne and his fascist friends do not come out of this well. There is a great moment when Trumbo confronts Wayne and points out that he and a few other writers were in the war zones during the Second World War. ' Where were you Duke,' asks Trumbo, 'On a film set in Hollywood?' Quite so. Bryan Cranston is superb as Trumbo and a good cast make this a film worth seeing. My usual bugbear about true stories adapted for film. Why do they not stick to the truth? Here we have Trumbo out of jail and rushing around L.A speaking to the movers and shakers and being visited by Kirk Douglas among others. The reality is that Trumbo and his family decamped to Mexico City! They were there for a number of years. So any communication with Hollywood would have been by letter or telephone. Still ignore that and enjoy seeing American paranoia of the late forties and early fifties in all its awful glory.

Great movie spoiled

[marfrie56 · 2/10 · 29 December 2015]

I did enjoy it. I laughed and I cried. I loved Cranston, loved LCK, enjoyed the pacing, and all the supporting roles. Then I found out that Edward G. Robinson was made to testify but NEVER ratted out by naming names. NEVER!!!

I do NOT understand how a supposedly scholarly movie - one that seems to pride itself of historical accuracy - an important time in our history - portraying important and very well known people - and one that got many details spot on like Douglas' breaking of the blacklist by giving Trumbo the screen credit in Spartacus - HOW could such a movie make a massive mistake like this???????

When Robinson testified, you know he must have been under TREMENDOUS pressure to name the names. But he NEVER DID! It was Sterling Hayden that named the names. Not Edward G. Let's set the record straight!

And what does our beloved Little Caesar get for his bravery and integrity under fire? Is he revered? Is he lauded? Is he at least admired for displaying the kind of backbone and grit that is championed by Dalton Trumbo?

No he is not. He gets to be unfairly defamed. You watch it and say, wow - that Edward G was some POS.

And all for NO dramatic purpose. It had no bearing on the outcome - the 10 were already in prison, hearing EGR naming the names on the radio. Was this some sort of dramatic license? It should not even be LEGAL to slander a real person in this way. EGR's estate should be fuming about it. I would be.

I mean it CAN'T be an unintended mistake. The least fact checking reveals what I wrote above. So it was an intentional deception, assassinating the character of an actual person, known to and loved by millions - and for some unfathomable purpose.

When I learned of this inaccuracy, it spoiled the movie for me. Granted, I'm a big Edward G fan. I love all of his roles. Every one of them. One of my favorite actors of all time. How would the director or script writer like it if after they're dead, they are made out as villains and traitors?

I realize that this sort of chicanery happens in the movies all the time. I think it's wrong. It's one thing when a movie is an obvious fantasy, another when it is clearly and ostensibly depicting real events.

So as good a movie as it is, I have to give Trumbo only 2 stars.

Very similar, to a lot of political battles, and social struggles, still going on today!

[Hellmant · 9/10 · 14 January 2016]

'TRUMBO': Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

A biographical-drama flick, based on the life of successful Hollywood screenwriter Dalton Trumbo; who was jailed, and blacklisted (in the 1940s), for his communist beliefs. The film stars Bryan Cranston, as Trumbo, and it costars Diane Lane, Louis C.K., Helen Mirren, Elle Fanning, John Goodman, Michael Stuhlbarg, Dean O'Gorman, David James Elliott and Alan Tudyk. It was directed by Jay Roach, in his dramatic directorial debut; following many popular comedy flicks (like 'MEET THE PARENTS', it's first sequel, and all of the 'AUSTIN POWERS' movies). The film was written by John McNamara, and it was based on the book ('Dalton Trumbo') by Bruce Cook. I found it to be very involving, educational and inspiring.

In 1947, Dalton Trumbo (Cranston) was one of Hollywood's most successful screenwriters; he was also a member of the extremely controversial CPUSA (Communist Party of the USA). The party was so threatening, to those in power, that many famous Hollywood figures, of the time, were subpoenaed and jailed, for their beliefs (and refusing to admit to the use of propaganda, in their work). Trumbo was one of 10 screenwriters, that fell victim to this paranoia. Upon release from prison, he continued to work, under aliases, and attempted to expose the injustice, of this abuse.

I didn't know a lot about the details, of these historical events; I also knew very little about Dalton Trumbo. So for me, the movie was very informative, and fascinating. It reminded me (a lot) of similar political battles, and social struggles, still going on today. For these reasons, I found the film to be extremely emotional. I also found it to be very entertaining, because of it's insightful details, about Hollywood (at that time). Cranston gives a very impressive performance; and the supporting cast is all good as well (O'Gorman is especially memorable, as Kirk Douglas). Roach might not have been the best director, for this material, but the movie is still really memorable, and enjoyable!

Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://youtu.be/j9uf6E4pnlw