Justicia salvaje

Frankly, I'm pleasantly shocked that a 90s Hollywood film could be so balanced over a historic event which was so aflame with bias (the leftist hand of Oliver Stone was not involved). If you were firmly on the side of Anita Hill OR Clarence Thomas, this effort will probably not shake your faith and fandom. If, however, you thought one or both were lying, that Hill's going public about Thomas after following him from job to job didn't ring true or that Thomas' purported predilection with porn was sad, then this will probably make both seem more human. The movie deals more with the way the two "combatants" were manipulated, at first willingly, and later (especially in Thomas' case) kicking and screaming. The acting throughout is excellent, and the pacing is spry for such a talky tale. Note that when Hill and Thomas give long testimonies to the assembled (and silhouetted) senators, it takes on a stagy, out-of-body quality. In this, Thomas comes off much more convicted and intelligent while Hill sounds whiny and self-centered; this is, in my opinion, interesting as Thomas comes off as more naive in the rest of the picture while Hill is focused and sober. So which one does the movie portray at his or her worst? Neither. Instead, it's Senator Joe Biden. Mandy Patinkin, commenting as himself as the credit rolled, thought that Biden probably regrets not calling a key witness in the case more than anything else in his life. Sorry, Mandy. It was probably his well-known plagiarism before that. And certainly how poorly he's treated in Strange Justice before that, too. A good film and I recommend it.