ThiefHott Too much of everything

Abbigail Bush what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

cheema761 This is not a biography of Mohammad Ali, but it is his fight against American establishment, There was a great performance by Christopher Plumber but best performance of the movie was Ali's himself. I always remained a fan of Mohammad Ali but after seeing this I have become an even greater admirer of him. At end of movie when presenter asks him what will he do against the people/administration who has taken so many precious years of his life, Ali's answer was description of his whole life. A worth watching movie, not due to historical facts but due to "Ali's Character against Injustice". I would give it 10 but too much focus on unrelated scenes like fight between the clerks convinced me to give it a 9.

rship19 It should suffice to observe that Stephen Frears, the crew and cast took on a subject that no other film-maker chose to, and did so commendably. As Justice Harlan, Christopher Plummer also does a very commendable job. I also did not particularly find Mr. Plummer's early performances suitable for the screen, from 'Inside Daisy Clover' to 'Somewhere in Time'. Somehow, the hammiest roles early on were preferable (he does what the script demands as Commodus in 'The Fall of the Roman Empire' and his Atahualpa in 'Royal Hunt of the Sun' is actually much fun: "They EAT Him!"). As his art has matured ('Silent Partner'; 'Dolores Claiborne'; 'The Insider'; 'The Last Station'; 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo'), the more I have looked forward to his performances, as here. Still, while I understand the politics of casting better-known actors in leading roles, I regret that Harris Yulin, another great too long under-appreciated in movies who plays Justice Wm. O Douglas, was not cast as Justice Harlan. Mr. Yulin ('Clear and Present Danger'; 'Training Day'; 'Looking for Richard') will always bring to his characters, villains included, a delicate gravitas that does not belie the humanity of their circumstances: different surely, if not better or preferable to Mr. Plummer's characterization - but audiences would certainly have regarded it very well-tailored for him.

vincentlynch-moonoi It's rare that an HBO film disappoints, and this film is no exception. Of course, you may be surprised that no actor plays Mohammad Ali; but he is generously represented with actual news footage from the time. While the film is about the boxer's quest to go to the Supreme Court to have has conviction on not fulfilling the draft decision overturned, the real story here is how the Supreme Court (may) work.And so, the primary reason to watch this film is to enjoy a number of very fine performances by veteran actors who are portraying Supreme Court justices. And chief among these...although he was not the Chief Justice...is the performance of Christopher Plummer as Justice John Harlan...in this case the pivotal vote. Although I didn't particularly enjoy Plummer in his early years in Hollywood, the more he aged, the more I enjoyed his performances. He is a treasure! Frank Langella is also superb here as Chief Justice Warren Burger. Danny Glover appears as Justice Thurgood Marshall, although his part is small because Marshall recused himself from the case. Barry Levinson is very good as Justice Potter Stewart. Ed Begley, Jr. plays Justice Harry Blackmun, and I can't quite get my mind around whether or not his performance is a solid one. Harris Yulin is very good as Justice William O. Douglas. Peter Gerety -- here as Justice William J. Brennan -- is a fine character actor that I always enjoy. Fritz Weaver -- at age 87 -- is good as Justice Hugo Black. Dana Ivey again plays a secretary, and while her part is small she's always a joy to watch. How accurate is the film? Who knows. But it's enjoyable to watch this ensemble of actors...it all runs like clockwork. Recommended.

George Wright This movie took me back to those years, now long gone, when the passions of the 1960's and early 70's were unleashed. Change was in the air and the forces of the status quo were pushing back. However, the movie is more about the Supreme Court and the personal relationships between a group of senior jurists, some liberal and some conservative, who divide over Muhammed Ali. Ali was the world's greatest boxer and the issue was his right to refuse to serve in the armed forces during the Vietnam War, when conscription was compulsory for most males. I remember the Supreme Court becoming a lightning rod during the presidency of Richard Nixon, when two of his appointees were repudiated by the Senate. I also remember the lengthy hiatus of Muhammed Ali from the ring. This movie brings it all back. This movie is enlivened by the newsreels of Muhammed Ali, a formidable figure in and out of the ring; President Richard Nixon; and the youth who confronted the established order. In this movie, the fight was on a court divided between the left and right, with a Chief Justice who wanted to avoid a difficult decision. The court appears to be made up of scatterbrained and feeble old men who are not inclined to take risks. I don't know how historically accurate this image is but the Supreme Court is shown as an old boys club, not a group of serious jurists who form a third branch of government. It was made up of all men with only one black, Thurgood Marshall. I found it hard to watch the depiction of Judge Hugo Black as someone seemingly in the throes of senility. I believe in his day he was a great Justice. Frank Langella plays a rather staid, unimaginative and out of touch Chief Justice named Warren Burger, the man who succeeded the great Earl Warren. Christopher Plummer plays Justice John Harlan, a southern conservative who has a passion for the law. He hires a young man who advises him to rule in favour of Ali and his conscientious objector status, following the precedent set in 1955 for the Jehovah's Witnesses. The movie makes the liberal wing look far more sympathetic than their conservative counterparts, who sense no need for the court to rule on the case. But the Justices were capable of following a leader like John Harlan, who showed leadership by ruling on the basis of legal precedent and breaking rank with his boss who wanted a Court that would follow his orders. British Director Stephen Frears shows the Supreme Court as a branch of government that was able to move out of its own comfort zone in spite of itself.