A fictional account that I cannot abide

Rating: 1/10 (23 October 2007)

What is the problem with Redford? Is he trying to ruin the lives of people or sully their memories at the expense of their surviving family memories families. Like JFK before it, I can only hope that those who watch this movie will seek the truth. It is not in this movie. Charles Van Doren was not getting back at his father. His father was a wonderful, not boring, professor at Columbia. The Geritol marketing director played by Scorsesee (sp?) was not aware of the fraud. And neither Van Doren nor Stemple lived the lives stated at the end of the movie--apparently to give it a dour ending. Redford commits the atrocities of money and capitalism that he said he was targeting. Redford, the fake mountain man, grew up in Santa Monica and is just another Hollywood virtue monger who should examine his own virtues before speaking about (er, fabricating) the lives and virtues of others.
I will admit that when I first saw this movie, I thought it very good, but after seeking the truth, I cannot in good faith give it more than one star. I will not recommend movies that criminalize innocent men and besmirch admired professionals without evidence.
If you are interested, there is a Hollywood history of such Constitutionally protected atrocities. You should also search out the truth about the wife of William Randolph Hearst portrayed as a worthless woman in Citizen Kane. She wasn't a worthless woman and she was living and crushed by the movie. Hollywood blames Hearst for killing this great movie, but if he did it to protect this woman, he is to be admired.
Just because it is protected by the constitution doesn't make it right.