Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaAn inside look at the legal battles that lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are facing during the Trump administration.An inside look at the legal battles that lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are facing during the Trump administration.An inside look at the legal battles that lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union are facing during the Trump administration.
- Prêmios
- 2 vitórias e 5 indicações no total
Rachel Maddow
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
John Oliver
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
Donald Trump
- Self
- (cenas de arquivo)
Resumo
Reviewers say 'The Fight' is a documentary showcasing the ACLU's commitment to civil liberties via high-profile cases. It is lauded for its narrative, emotional depth, and insight into attorneys' work. Yet, some criticize its perceived bias, especially regarding controversial clients and political issues. Debates arise over its balance between free speech and marginalized group protection, with concerns about its potential recruitment and fundraising roles.
Avaliações em destaque
Greetings again from the darkness. The American Civil Liberties Union has been around since 1920. That's 100 years of striving to be the stewards of our nation's liberties. Eli B Despres, Josh Kriegman, and Elyse Steinberg are the three credited directors who bring us a behind-the-curtain look at the dedicated and hard-working ACLU attorneys in the New York office.
The film picks up on January 27, 2017, just seven days after President Trump's inauguration and subsequent immigration order, also known as the "Muslim ban." We are shown a sea of volunteer attorneys set up to assist affected immigrants - especially those seeking asylum. The basic premise of the movie is to provide a glimpse of the challenges faced by the ACLU against the Trump administration.
Since there have been approximately 140 lawsuits filed since this President took office, the filmmakers wisely focus on four specific cases, along with the assigned attorneys: Garza v Hargan, which involves the right to an abortion for an immigrant minor; Stone v Trump, the administrations military ban of transgenders; Department of Commerce v New York, dealing with the "citizenship" question proposed for the U.S. census; and Ms. L vs ICE, a family separation case tied to a child taken from her mother at the border.
The cases are presented in an easy-to-follow manner, and we get to know each of the attorneys and their individual challenges, both with their specific case and their own personal or family life. Each of the attorneys provide their unique "tour" of the ACLU offices, and we quickly understand how they are focused on their own specialties, rather than the organization as a whole. One of them remarks that there are more tattoos and piercings present than at the DOJ, which underscores not just the age difference, but also the attitudes of these crusaders.
A very brief history of the ACLU informs us that their mission dictates they support civil rights for all, which means not just the 1967 interracial marriage of Richard and Mildred Loving, but also the Charlottesville Rally which resulted in the death of Heather Heyer. In keeping with protecting 'everyone's rights', the organization has even defended the rights of Nazis. Still, it's obvious where the organization stands when Brett Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court is discussed ... the attorneys admit it will make their jobs that much more difficult.
Despite attorney Lee Gelernt's middle-age struggles with technology (somehow the dude can't keep his cell phone charged), the dedication and commitment of these folks is on full display (they even celebrate with "train wine"). Court cases, by definition, have two sides, and since we aren't allowed in the actual courtroom to witness the cases being presented, this film focuses on one side. Because of that, it often plays like a fundraising or recruiting video for the ACLU. Still, the behind-the-scenes view of what these attorneys go through to fight for liberty is fascinating and worthwhile.
The film picks up on January 27, 2017, just seven days after President Trump's inauguration and subsequent immigration order, also known as the "Muslim ban." We are shown a sea of volunteer attorneys set up to assist affected immigrants - especially those seeking asylum. The basic premise of the movie is to provide a glimpse of the challenges faced by the ACLU against the Trump administration.
Since there have been approximately 140 lawsuits filed since this President took office, the filmmakers wisely focus on four specific cases, along with the assigned attorneys: Garza v Hargan, which involves the right to an abortion for an immigrant minor; Stone v Trump, the administrations military ban of transgenders; Department of Commerce v New York, dealing with the "citizenship" question proposed for the U.S. census; and Ms. L vs ICE, a family separation case tied to a child taken from her mother at the border.
The cases are presented in an easy-to-follow manner, and we get to know each of the attorneys and their individual challenges, both with their specific case and their own personal or family life. Each of the attorneys provide their unique "tour" of the ACLU offices, and we quickly understand how they are focused on their own specialties, rather than the organization as a whole. One of them remarks that there are more tattoos and piercings present than at the DOJ, which underscores not just the age difference, but also the attitudes of these crusaders.
A very brief history of the ACLU informs us that their mission dictates they support civil rights for all, which means not just the 1967 interracial marriage of Richard and Mildred Loving, but also the Charlottesville Rally which resulted in the death of Heather Heyer. In keeping with protecting 'everyone's rights', the organization has even defended the rights of Nazis. Still, it's obvious where the organization stands when Brett Kavanaugh's nomination for the Supreme Court is discussed ... the attorneys admit it will make their jobs that much more difficult.
Despite attorney Lee Gelernt's middle-age struggles with technology (somehow the dude can't keep his cell phone charged), the dedication and commitment of these folks is on full display (they even celebrate with "train wine"). Court cases, by definition, have two sides, and since we aren't allowed in the actual courtroom to witness the cases being presented, this film focuses on one side. Because of that, it often plays like a fundraising or recruiting video for the ACLU. Still, the behind-the-scenes view of what these attorneys go through to fight for liberty is fascinating and worthwhile.
10annagdlf
I already knew the work at the ACLU was important but this really confirmed that for me. Not only seeing the behind the scenes of all these major court cases but getting to see who it affects and the lives that were changed was incredible!
This review has been deleted nine times now. Several others critical of the ACLU's Fight movie have also been deleted. Only the reviews posted by their own employees are still active. Apparently criticism of bad ACLU propaganda movies are not allowed by Google, which owns IMDb.
The Fight is a totally left-wing movie that does not even try to give any honest viewpoint to why the United States and all other nations have borders and immigration policies.
Instead, the Fight advocates for open borders, and no control over who comes into the USA. This is a very dangerous and irresponsible point of view.
The Fight is a totally left-wing movie that does not even try to give any honest viewpoint to why the United States and all other nations have borders and immigration policies.
Instead, the Fight advocates for open borders, and no control over who comes into the USA. This is a very dangerous and irresponsible point of view.
It was incredible. The work of the lawyers and their colleagues truly inspired me.
An horrifically unfair and ridiculous telling of what they've pretended happened vs actual occurrences.
Remember, the ACLU has also decided to stop fighting for the civil liberties of American women, it was only a matter of time before they stopped fighting for actual born/raised American citizens.
This rubbish needs to finally face critical pushback and not just idolization from inside the echo chamber-this was not well done, well represented, or full of factual data to support frivolous claims - but because they've filled the virtue signaling bingo card- just look at these 8-10 star reviews pour in!!! I'm stunned it wasn't given an Oscar.
Remember, the ACLU has also decided to stop fighting for the civil liberties of American women, it was only a matter of time before they stopped fighting for actual born/raised American citizens.
This rubbish needs to finally face critical pushback and not just idolization from inside the echo chamber-this was not well done, well represented, or full of factual data to support frivolous claims - but because they've filled the virtue signaling bingo card- just look at these 8-10 star reviews pour in!!! I'm stunned it wasn't given an Oscar.
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- País de origem
- Central de atendimento oficial
- Idioma
- Também conhecido como
- La lucha
- Locações de filme
- Tijuana, México(Asylum Seeker)
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- US$ 2.000 (estimativa)
- Tempo de duração1 hora 36 minutos
- Cor
- Proporção
- 16:9 HD
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente