Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Leonard Nimoy's acting is, as usual, superb and the story moves along at a decent pace--never edge of your seat excitement but not dragging anywhere either. The problem is that it takes a fairly complex court case and turns it into a good v evil morality play. This often happens when movies are made based on real events because rarely are the actual events compelling enough to hold an audience.The problem with the movie is that the viewer is left with the impression that Mel Mermelstein--a Holocaust survivor--took on a vast, well-financed, powerful network of neo-Nazi extremists who believe the Holocaust is a myth and was able to prove once and for all in a court of law that the Nazi Holocaust did indeed occur and thereby score a great victory for historical truth.In actuality, the case was not about whether or not the Holocaust occurred but whether or not Mel Mermelstein had a valid contract with the Institute for Historical Review. Mr. Mermelstein did get the judge in the case to take judicial notice of the fact that Jews were gassed at Auschwitz.This, however, was not a major coup for historical truth nor was it anything new. As far back as 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal that tried the Nazi war criminals took judicial notice of the fact that Jews were murdered in gas chambers at Auschwitz--and that Jews were murdered in 'steam chambers' at Treblinka while at Belsen they were killed in a room with an electric floor.A fact is not proved to be true when a court takes judicial notice of it. Theoretically, a court should only take judicial notice of a fact because it has already been proved to be true. The fact that a judge in California took judicial notice of gas chambers at Auschwitz has meaning only to lawyers in a court room in California. It means nothing to a historian.In the movie, Mel Mermelstein proves that the Holocaust is true and the IHR is forced to pay him the $50,000 they offered to anybody who could prove a single Jew was gassed at Auschwitz and they are forced to apologize to Mr. Mermelstein for causing him anxiety and to acknowledge that Jews were indeed gassed at Auschwitz.Nothing could be further from the truth. The IHR in actuality settled out of court before trial because litigating the case would easily cost more than what Mr Mermelstein was asking in damages. The IHR did not have to acknowledge that there were gas chambers at Auschwitz and, although they wrote an apology to Mr. Mermelstein for causing him anxiety, they did not apologize for questioning the official holocaust story.There'a a big difference between a husband who tells his wife he is sorry that he came home drunk last night and the husband who tells his wife he's sorry that she was angry at him for coming home drunk last night. The IHR apology is along the lines of the latter. They said they were sorry that Mel Mermelstein got upset that the IHR asked for proof of gassings at Auschwitz. The IHR did not apologize for asking for proof of gassings at Auschwitz.The movie ends with the historical truth of the Auschwitz gas chambers triumphing over the evil of neo-Nazi holocaust deniers, all because one man had the courage to speak the truth. As far as genuine Holocaust scholarship is concerned however, Mel Mermelstein contributed nothing to our understanding. He did not submit any evidence that Jews were ever gassed at Auschwitz to either the IHR or to the courts. As far as the offer the IHR originally made in 1979--$50,000 to anyone who can prove that there were gas chambers at Auschwtiz--Mel Mermelstein was able to provide an affidavit of his own experiences at Auschwitz but nothing more. He submitted nothing that addressed the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz. He didn't even say that he saw the gas chambers with his own eyes!! To this day, Mel Mermelstein has not proved that there were gas chambers at Auschwtiz and nobody else has submitted any proof of gas chambers at Auschwitz in connection with the IHR contest either.The fact that anybody watching this movie would believe that they understand the basic facts of this case but instead would have no idea of what really happened is what makes the movie so awful in my mind. It would be a pretty good little flick if it was presented as a work of fiction. Presenting it as based loosely on the truth is misleading at best and is more accurately described as a demonstrable fraud.

For a made for TV movie, it's not actually all that bad. Leonard Nimoy does a fine job and it's nice to see him step out of the Spock role every once in a while.Unfortunately it's takes a complex court case and turns into a simple good v evil morality play. It also unfairly portrays the villains as Nazis and anti-Semites, which they are not.Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the movie is the celebration of the judge's decision to take 'judicial notice' of pivotal facts in favor of Leonard Nimoy's character as a great victory when in fact this single action has suppressed historian's ability to factually investigate and understand one of the major catastrophes of the twentieth century--the Holocaust.

"Never Forget" was run and re-run several times in the course of just a few days when it came out, as I remember, and I've never seen or heard of it since. But it is a decent picture and Leonard Nimoy is excellent in it as the Holocaust survivor who sues an anti-Semitic, "Holocaust is Myth" group who offers a cash reward to anyone who proves that the Holocaust really happened. Nimoy's character demands the money and when he's refused, sues the anti-Semites for breach of contract. In court he prevails by getting the court to take "judicial notice" of the fact of the Holocaust. "Judicial notice" is a mechanism of legal proof where the fact is so well-known that there is no reason to have to put on real proof (i.e., there's no need to prove in court that the sun rises in the east).I particularly remember Nimoy's scenes where he has to undergo a cruel deposition by the anti-Semites' lawyer who badgers him with questions and tries to get him to admit that he never saw anyone actually gassed at Auschwitz. Nimoy gets the final word though with his moving testimony before the court.

I know William Cox who is portrayed here by Dabney Coleman. After watching the video with him he told me that it was an accurate account of the events that took place. Mr. Cox suffered significant financial losses taking this case but felt a personal need to continue. The concept of using "Contract Law" to establish other legal precedents is now taught to first year law students as a result of this case. Perhaps someday the video will be more widely available.