IMDb RATING
6.5/10
4.5K
YOUR RATING
The courtroom and publicity battles between Hulk Hogan and Gawker Media explode in a sensational trial all about the limits of the First Amendment and the new no holds barred nature of celeb... Read allThe courtroom and publicity battles between Hulk Hogan and Gawker Media explode in a sensational trial all about the limits of the First Amendment and the new no holds barred nature of celebrity life in an internet dominated society.The courtroom and publicity battles between Hulk Hogan and Gawker Media explode in a sensational trial all about the limits of the First Amendment and the new no holds barred nature of celebrity life in an internet dominated society.
- Awards
- 4 nominations total
Emily Gould
- Self - Former Editor-in-Chief, Gawker.com
- (archive footage)
Pamela Campbell
- Self - Judge
- (archive footage)
Bubba the Love Sponge
- Self - Radio Host
- (archive footage)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
This was a well-produced and thoughtful piece that certainly caught my eye as I scrolled through Netflix. As a guy who follows journalism fairly close (as a hobby, not an occupation), I was certainly intrigued.
There were three problems I saw with the movie.
First, it was very one-sided. Sheldon Adelson, a Republican, is obviously a horrible, maniacal billionaire whose only reason to purchase a newspaper is to hide any negative press about himself. Nevermind all the Democrat billionaires who buy newspapers-Buffett, Bezos, John Henry. I'm sure their intentions are 100% pure and noble and they never try to use their newspaper to cover up stories? Mmhmm. Sure.
Second, it was just an attack on one person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I did not vote for him and will never vote for him. But the disingenuousness behind the documentary was insulting. We can talk about the effect the Hogan/Bollea case has on journalism without having to go the anti-Trump route. (Also note, they say nothing about Obama trying journalists under the Espionage Act).
But the bigger point to all this is that journalists actually think they are above any criticism. ANY story they come up with is newsworthy, important, and completely above reproach. And to criticize them is to slap the face of the most important arm of civil society. To question them is to question the fabric of society-which is obviously the journalists.
We can't question them, call them to the carpet for shady, unethical, or inappropriate uses of their positions, stories, or actions. And since the general public's faith in journalism is waning (many will contend it's all but gone), they have to pat themselves on the back.
Nobody is going to bat for the journalists anymore. And perhaps that's the bigger element for them: they see their impact on society decreasing, so they need pieces like this.
I found this to be an intriguing, yet troubling film.
There were three problems I saw with the movie.
First, it was very one-sided. Sheldon Adelson, a Republican, is obviously a horrible, maniacal billionaire whose only reason to purchase a newspaper is to hide any negative press about himself. Nevermind all the Democrat billionaires who buy newspapers-Buffett, Bezos, John Henry. I'm sure their intentions are 100% pure and noble and they never try to use their newspaper to cover up stories? Mmhmm. Sure.
Second, it was just an attack on one person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I did not vote for him and will never vote for him. But the disingenuousness behind the documentary was insulting. We can talk about the effect the Hogan/Bollea case has on journalism without having to go the anti-Trump route. (Also note, they say nothing about Obama trying journalists under the Espionage Act).
But the bigger point to all this is that journalists actually think they are above any criticism. ANY story they come up with is newsworthy, important, and completely above reproach. And to criticize them is to slap the face of the most important arm of civil society. To question them is to question the fabric of society-which is obviously the journalists.
We can't question them, call them to the carpet for shady, unethical, or inappropriate uses of their positions, stories, or actions. And since the general public's faith in journalism is waning (many will contend it's all but gone), they have to pat themselves on the back.
Nobody is going to bat for the journalists anymore. And perhaps that's the bigger element for them: they see their impact on society decreasing, so they need pieces like this.
I found this to be an intriguing, yet troubling film.
Although fairly interesting, it's very muddled and unfocused, and very biased. Lots of interviews with the press-side, hearing their opinions, but nothing but others footage from anyone else making for a very one sided argument. No matter who is right or wrong, it makes for a very biased film.
The law should help us. Now when it helps "them" it's a bad law. And both sides are equally unpleasant in their stride to introduce the totalitarian state based on arbitrary decisions "for freedom" replacing the rule of law.
In this twisted sprint towards the total state, the scandal rags are actually "doing things differently." Anyway, the documentary is dishonest. And is trying to pull in any conspiracy in their favor.
Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch
In this twisted sprint towards the total state, the scandal rags are actually "doing things differently." Anyway, the documentary is dishonest. And is trying to pull in any conspiracy in their favor.
Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch
Spin doctoring and fake news exists on both conservative and liberal outlets. This documentary is a PRIME example of the very thing it argues against because it spins against conservatives only. Shameful.
Our free press clearly has a credibility problem.
Our free press clearly has a credibility problem.
For the most part, this is an engaging documentary. But despite its marketing, "Nobody Speak" isn't really about the Bollea v. Gawker case. Sure, the trial gets plenty of screen time (in all its salacious and uncomfortable glory) but this is really about behind-the-scenes funding; the billionaire with a grudge against Gawker, the baron who buys out the Las Vegas newspaper to suppress unfavorable reporting. These are moneyed villains that beg to be reviled. Even His Trumpness is involved in a final segment that feels wholly supplemental) after waging a war on "Fake News".
The movie loses steam when it moves away from Peter Thiel and Gawker (its strongest segment) to broaden the support of the Fourth Estate. But on the whole, it's not bad.
6/10
The movie loses steam when it moves away from Peter Thiel and Gawker (its strongest segment) to broaden the support of the Fourth Estate. But on the whole, it's not bad.
6/10
Did you know
- ConnectionsReferenced in Film Junk Podcast: Episode 619: Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 35m(95 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content