The Report, directed by Scott Z. Burns, has everything that Hollywood loves; A-list male leads in Adam Driver and Jon Hamm, it's based on a true story, it's political, it’s relevant and it’s made by a proven director. Similar films like Argo and Spotlight have enjoyed massive success in both the box office and critically, and I don't see The Report being any different.

The film follows Daniel Jones, played by Adam Driver, as he spends half a decade building a report on the conveniently coined 'enhanced interrogation techniques' used to coerce information about future terrorist attacks after 9/11. It's a riveting film that not only induces anger at our current system but builds a non-partisan perspective that shows the audience that political figureheads don't necessarily control our government in the way we think they do.

Ultimately, what makes the narrative approach so strong is that it draws a clear line of partisanship that is honest and unflinching. It sticks to the facts while constantly challenging Jones' and the Senate's integrity. In America's political system, much weight is put on partisanship and that is felt heavily throughout. The conservative powers in place challenge the Jones' report as being, of course, a democratic conspiracy. ‘Fake news’ if you will. However, the film accepts that challenge by bringing the question up constantly of whether or not Jones' report was slanted. The film is quite fair in that way as it allows the conservative argument to live. The film also shows the fault's on the Democratic side when Obama comes into power. However, it will be no surprise if that is lost on many viewers as it is sure to outrage some staunch conservatives.

The argument boils down to two sides; the first being the emotionally driven idea that after 9/11 we had to play dirty to protect America, the second being the logical idea that torture does nothing but force the subject to give up false information in order to make the torture stop. The film posits that statistics, studies, and evidence conclude the latter to be true. As for the former, the film seems to still be fair in evaluating the emotional nature of the program. People were scared, citizens died and our democracy was threatened. So, of course, extreme measures had to be taken. But, the film does not disagree with the original emotional sentiments of the program, rather it evaluates how successful the methods truly were.

This film also features a strong presence of political figureheads. The story flows through Dianne Feinstein, giving the audience an insider perspective of the bureaucracy that she deals with on a day to day basis. It doesn't paint her as a hero either, it paints her as a strict bureaucrat that is hard-nosed in doing things the right way, and to a fault. It's hard not to think of how her approach has been taken advantage of by the other side of the aisle in other instances of her career.

When all is said and done, nothing is more representative of the film’s concerns than when it throws some heavy shade in the direction of the film “Zero Dark Thirty.” If there is anything to be taken out of this, is that we should always be wary of any media that propagates for the benefit of the government. At first glance, this film may seem like a liberal attack on conservative conspiracies. But by the end of it, the whole government looks bad. I’m sure there will be some defensive conservative critiques when it gets its wide release, but truly the film is not anti-republican, it’s pro-truth.