Lumsdal Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

SnoopyStyle Jacques Vergès has been the defense attorney for members of the Khmer Rouge, Algerian FLN, Palestinian PFLP, and other terrorists. It starts with him as a French foot soldier. As a young lawyer, he's contacted by the Algierian resistance and he became their sympathetic disruptive famous lawyer. Using footage from "The Battle of Algiers", it tries to explain the struggle. It's mostly his friends, clients and supporters in this movie.The movie starts with him defending Khmer Rouge leaders and that's really annoying. This is very much an one-sided monologue. It's somewhat interesting to follow his life and career but he's a fanatic. He's not some ACLU lawyer looking to ensure rights of the condemned. This guy has no objectivity or sympathy other than for his clients. It feels like the movie is preaching to the choir. There is also an arrogance to the man that is off-putting. I don't know why he won't reveal where he was for those years. He's there smoking his cigar and I'm sure the documentarians must have asked. It's part of his superiority complex. It's not until the Nazi connections that the movie gets interesting but that takes over an hour to get there. However the movie fails to connect all the dots. This documentary fails to answer some very basic questions about who this guy is and where he comes from. The investigation is incomplete. Then there is the style of the documentary. It is non-stop talking heads make it rather boring. It's like trying to cobble together a narrative with each witness giving one or two sentences. Most docs use a narrator to direct and drive the discussion. This one needs something more than talking heads talking. This feels like a rambling run-on sentence.

Sindre Kaspersen French-Swiss producer and director Barbet Schroeder's documentary feature is based on his opinions about his main interviewee. It premiered in the Un Certain Regard section at the 60th Cannes International Film Festival in 2007, was shot on locations in Algeria, France, Cambodia and Lebanon and is a French production which was produced by producer Rita Dagher. It tells the story about a person of Vietnamese and French origins who was born in Thailand on the 5th of March in 1925, raised on Réunion Island in France, taken to a mass grave by his parents as a ten-year-old, served his initial service as a seventeen-year-old, joined the French Communist Party as a twenty-year-old, studied literature and eastern languages in Paris, France, began studying law as a thirty-year-old after his twin-brother named Paul Vergès was arrested for the murder of a political opponent of his father named Raymond Vergès and as a thirty-two-year-old lawyer was introduced to an Algerian Muslim and political activist named Zohra Drif and asked to defend an Algerian member of the National Liberation Front Algeria named Djamila Bouhired. Distinctly and precisely directed by French-Swiss filmmaker Barbet Schroeder, this finely paced documentary which is narrated interchangeably from multiple viewpoints though mostly from the central person's point of view, draws an informative portrayal of a son, brother, husband, father, anti-colonist and renowned 20th and 21st century author and defense attorney with both French and Algerian citizenship named Jacques Vergès (1925-2013), and his relationship with his clients. While notable for its versatile milieu depictions and reverent cinematography by cinematographers Caroline Champetier and Jean-Paul Perrard, this narrative-driven story about the history of international terrorism and France-Algeria relations, connections, colonialism leading to anarchy, terrorism and war and what it is like for people to live in colonized countries, where interviews with friends, Cambodian, Algerian, Palestinian, German and Lebanese freedom fighters, members of Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, members of Khmer Rouge, members of Revolutionary Cells, secret service agents, Stasi agents, revolutionary Islamists and Christians, journalists, jurists, collaborators, politicians, historians and philosophers talks about their experiences, political views and views on the person in question, depicts a majestic and mysterious study of character and contains a great and timely score by composer Jorge Arrigada. This somewhat humorous though thematically on the contrary, poignantly atmospheric and retrospectively historic documentary feature from the late 2000s which is set in the late 20th century and early 21st century in European, Middle eastern and Asian countries and where the life of a profound jurist and character with character who surpasses many great acting performances in cinema history, who defended terrorists, dictators and war criminals, who worked in mysterious ways and who in the 1970s after having gotten married with a client and converted to Islam went incognito for eight years, is placed into an historical context which commendably emphasizes the irrevocable consequences of terrorism and how closely associated state officials are with militant groups, is impelled and reinforced by its fragmented narrative structure, rhythmic continuity, cinematic use of archival footage, news articles and photographs, interviews which ranges from Tunisian journalist Lionel Duroy, German former exile Hans-Joachim Klein to German photographer Magdalena Kopp and comment by Mansour : "But after having considered the case,- maybe they heard voices like Jeanne d'Arc did, they chose me." An investigative biographical mystery.

marymorrissey the film begins with a credit, as stated in other reviews, that it represents the point of view of the director. the material is ambiguous but it seems to me pretty clear that Schroder respects Verges. I disagree strongly with the person who imagines it'd be more "interesting" to watch a doc about lawyers who represent people they despise and wonder what at all would be interesting about that. yes the film leaves some questions unanswered and in the interest of covering more ground on its subject does not get bogged down with some details about the role in history of some of the figures involved. this hardly means that the film was formless, incoherent, but as another reviewer mentioned the film requires the viewer to think, does not hand over conclusions wrapped up in a nice package with a bloody bow on top. It seems indisputable that Verges was a *collaborator* with those of his clients involved in "the struggle" against colonialism, whom he viewed as nothing more or less than soldiers, some honorable and some not so much. He took on the indefensible case of barbie to hold up a mirror to France's record in algeria. I don't really understand peoples' confusion about schroder's point of view of this complicated but far from unfathomable character. I appreciate that this film points the way to other viewing cf the battle of algiers.

Max_cinefilo89 In the movies lawyers have often been depicted as honest guys who try to do their best to defend their client, but also as vicious fellas who do the job just for money or fame, even if that implies having dangerous clients (the culmination of such a concept was Taylor Hackford's The Devil's Advocate). And somewhere in between we can put Jacques Vergès, the French attorney around whom Barbet Schroeder has constructed his new film, the documentary Terror's Advocate.The title derives from the case that made Vergès famous at the beginning of his career: he was asked to defend a group of terrorists, responsible for a series of killings in Algeria. Of course, these men and women claimed to be freedom fighters, that what they did was the right thing to do. Vergès shared their ideals, managed to get them all out of jail and even married one of them. Subsequently he was always hired for controversial cases, and always ended up winning, even when his clients were former Nazis or Holocaust deniers.The point of the movie is this: what should people think of Vergès? In fact, the opening caption says: "This film represents the director's personal point of view on Jacques Vergès", yet ironically Schroeder's opinion is not clear. While he seems to agree with the titular lawyer in the first half, saying that the Algerian terrorists had good intentions but used the wrong means (and it is hard not to think likewise, especially after seeing Gillo Pontecorvo's The Battle of Algiers, based on those events), he does not directly express his feelings on Vergès' supposed ties with numerous German terrorists, some of which were involved in the 1972 Olympic Games massacre in Munich.As a consequence, the ambiguous attorney never really comes off as either good or bad: he does seem to have some kind of moral standards (when asked if he would have defended Hitler, he answers: "I'd even defend Bush, but he would have to plead guilty") and claims he has just been doing his job the whole time, but he refuses to comment on his alleged connections with German criminals, spreading no further light on the matter, nor does he reveal exactly what happened during his 12-year "disappearance", which he apparently spent in Paris for purposes unknown.Nonetheless, it shows that Vergès has two essential qualities for a good lawyer: charisma and eloquence. And he knowingly uses those tools while being interviewed, providing valuable insight on a previously unseen side of the legal system and making Terror's Advocate an intriguing picture, although clearly not to everyone's taste.