Opiniones de usuarios

We don't get many of these types of movies anymore. Studios worry about their commercial appeal (ie. appeal to teenagers on a date) and give us more gory thrillers or rom-coms instead, but back in the 70s the occasional satiric drama would sneak past the studio committee types and hit the box office like a blot of lightning. Part of the reason for this was the presence of successful writers of hard hitting social satire like Paddy Chayefsky among the front of rank of Hollywood scripters and another reason was powerhouse actors like Pacino. Like his earlier hit Dog Day Afternoon, here the camera stays on him like a spotlight as he fights a doomed fight with every breath in his body.

This movie took on a serious subject: a Justice System so lost in its own bureaucracy and politics that it could no longer dispense the thing it was created for, ie. justice. Pacino ran with it in classic fashion, ranting, foaming at the mouth, practically rabid with indignation and frustration. It's a powerhouse performance, not subtle by any means, but affecting, maddening, galvanizing. By the time the movie's over, you want to make this guy governor of New York.

The script by Valerie Curtin and Barry Levinson is the film's greatest strength. Years later I could still quote from it line for line. It is funny, clever and insane by turns with enough wildly believable ironies for ten courtroom dramas. Corrupt supposed officers of the court spout on about ethics yet are not above blackmail. The wealthy and connected enjoy privileges, while the bureaucracy grinds up the unsuspecting.

Director Jewison gave everything a professional polish, but then wisely stayed out of the way of his star. This was Pacino's stage and he owned it.

Be prepared to have your world rocked. There are few modern actors who would even attempt a role like this. They want the audience to like them. Pacino just wants to be heard. And he'll yell to make that happen.

I liked And Justice for All. I found it very entertaining and absorbing. In its satiric way, the movie is full of rich characters and plausible situations even if sometimes you can spot the cliché around the corner. Sometimes satire works as a magnifying glass to expose and better criticize something. And I believe that's what happens in this movie with all those bizarre scenes and deranged characters.

Even though Jewison focuses problems such as corruption, criticizes the danger of powerful people in the wrong places and brings up moral dilemmas about the practice of law, I believe And Justice for All is more of a satire than a serious alert to a possible decadence of the judicial system. The odd elements in the plot are one too many to see the movie strictly from its dramatic point of view: a cross-dresser client, an evidence-eating defendant, a suicidal judge, a hysterical lawyer.

In a certain way, the message of this movie reminded me the one of Mike Nichols anti-war comedy Catch-22: in order to cope with a crazy situation you have to become a little crazy. In a war scenario people fight for values like justice and order, but they also fight for power and interests; the same thing happens inside a courtroom. Some lawyers see Law as a business, some see it as a way to promote their personal careers and some see it as the opportunity given to those who have nothing else to lose.

The performances are just great, specially the ones of Jack Warden and Jeffrey Tambor. Al Pacino unquestionably steals the movie with another over-the-top performance as the lawyer willing to risk everything and delivers another memorable speech during his `opening statement'.

This movie stands out among the hundreds I've seen; It is exactly what it was initially marketed as; an inditement of the late 70's (and I suspect little has changed) legal system. This is accomplished magnificently.. Imagine an over-worked court appointed defender with a heart of gold.. in a corrupt web of compromise, and over-stressed beauro-crats. If you have ever enjoyed a court/lawyer movie give this one a chance!!! Look out for one of the funniest and yet reasonably plausible situations I've ever seen in a movie.

As a student in 1968 I worked in my father's law office when 20 years of age running errands and picking up clients and other attorneys at the airport. I once thought I wanted to become a lawyer like the old man. After that experience it never crossed my mind again. It was then I recognized that lawyers were merely another "mob" with public sanction. My father ultimately had to give it up because of all the disingenuous people he had to deal with in that arena. Justice is difficult to come by under the best of circumstances and courtrooms present an intellectual environment one notch above that of an alley.

For me this movie should be required viewing by all prospective attorneys. Especially the criminal variety for eventually they shall be exposed to all that they have seen in this movie in one form or another and very likely much, much worse.

Oh, and I liked the movie.

I remember this movie from when I was a kid. I remembered it fondly, and always pictured Pacino giving the big "This whole courtroom's out of order!!" speech.

I just rented it again after not seeing it for about twenty years, and WOW! There's a lot more to remember than that one speech. I absolutely loved this movie! I always like Pacino, but sometimes he just plays a similar character over and over. In this one, young Pacino got to play everything from scared to sad to funny to furious... and I thought he did great. I haven't felt for a character so much in quite a while.

The relationship between Pacino and his "leading lady" was a good one, especially for the '70's. I thought those two characters were interesting together.

The music sucked, but every movie soundtrack at that time sounded like a porno flick, didn't it?

It's a story where one bad thing after another happens in a short period of time, in very unrealistic (we all hope!) fashion - but that's a whole movie genre in itself (although I don't know what you'd call it), to make us think of lots of different things and to push the main character over the edge. Without all the subplots, I don't think the ending would have made as much sense.

I'd like a copy for my video library, and I don't say that often.

And Justice for All is a rather psychological take on American or rather any country's judicial system; a cabaret with a variety of performances and fiascos to keep a stray bunch of audience entertained. So the courtroom is quipped with hooting, jeering and maudlin. AJFA is a sardonic depiction of courtroom proceedings where the principled, the just get ignored for profit, gossip and technicalities. It is quite a revelation for me right now, as I type the review as my words embolden my understanding towards the film. The act may not be perfect but it quite sublimely conveys its message.

Arthur Kirkland (Al Pacino) is a vehemently righteous lawyer who flips off the depraved and satirical judicial system for making a mockery of justice and humanity. There is a wave of imbroglios throughout, with a client chewing lottery tickets, a judge wielding a gun to silence the situation, a suicidal magistrate who arbiters the system etc. Most of them detail the wonkiness that take for granted the victim's ordeal during the proceedings. Fed up to the teeth with unfairness, Arthur now has to face the test of morality and principles when he is authorized to defend Judge Fleming, a rule-abiding fellow who is in the former's bad books. There is also a love affair which does not get to intrusive. Thank God for that.

AJFA is quite a nimble comedy, drama which may entertain a lazy day. It tries not to get too serious or refined, a boon and a bane for the film since it lacks the impact of some of its contemporaries. It falls in the category that best describes films of the eighties, scrupulous but not groundbreaking. It's like entering a pie contest, where a coop of smiling, simple yet impeccably dressed ladies present their pies to you, which you eat, praise and leave the scene. And that's the end of it. AJFA is one of the better pies.

Al Pacino is a marvelous actor, and I say this because I can see that he knows where and how he should take his character. The role is balanced, with its share of intonations and restraint. In the initial scenes, I was disillusioned by the act but as the film progressed, he justified his initial approach in the film. Who would like to see him shouting all the time? Though I felt he could have added some more color to his role, in some sequences, knowing his status in film history. For example, in the lottery scene, when Al and some others prevent him from chewing any more tickets, Al could've looked at his colleague and cracked a smile at the ludicrousness of the situation, since the scene was meant to be humorous. But Pacino has tremendous control in the final few scenes e.g. the outburst at the court and at his friend and colleague.

Al subtly takes most of the credit, even when other established actors take up quite some screen space. An unknown face, Ralph Christian steals the spotlight apart from Al, as the transgender accused of a petty crime. All he had to convey was fear of being embarrassed and horror of being sent to the callous prison, which he did efficiently. Scene 1humiliation was tragic and the effect of the successive encounters and ignominies was etched on his face. Another hapless convict unfairly incarcerated is portrayed delicately by Thomas G. Waites, who pines on Arthur till he reaches a breaking point, his pleas being disregarded by everyone else except the latter.

John Forsythe's character has a supercilious, apathetic attitude towards subordinates and the accused and is a power-exploiting unscrupulous. Though he should be getting more screen time, he doesn't because, as I stated previously, the movie is not about the case but the psyche. Jack Warden is bumbling and lampooning, perhaps to depict the depreciation of the mind of a magistrate, who has to adhere to the sometimes anachronistic or pedantic laws. His helicopter scene borders on idiocy to an acidic extent; I momentarily felt I was watching Mr. Bean.

The main complaint I have is that the film digresses so much; it never covers the rape victim's story and jumps straight to conclusions, in order to obviate any technicalities in the film. It's a Woody Allen approach, but I constantly wanted it to push a bit more. What is least appealing is the garish music that infuses incoherently dance tracks and trumpets in a film like this, a music best suited for Saturday Night Fever or a sports movie.

AJFA may not have done complete justice to the movie, but it's a novel idea that tries to reach out to the people, even though it may have dreamt to be much more.

I really wished "...And Justice for All" was a great movie about one lawyer's conflicts within a broken justice system. I wonder if the movie might have been better if Sidney Lumet and Paddy Chayefsky collaborated on this uneven darkly comical project instead of director Norman Jewison and screenwriters Barry Levinson and Valerie Curtain.

What ruined it for me were the various subplots and supporting characters which got in the way of the main plot in which an attorney (Al Pacino) finds that was hired to defend a corrupt judge (John Forsyth) he does not respect.

Even though the final scenes were outrageously over-the-top, the final 20 minutes were the best scenes in the movie. Pacino loud, bombastic appearance fit perfectly and I only wished that the ending was as good as the rest of the movie. I think "...And Justice for All" was unable to do what "Network" did three years earlier due to some ill-advised creative choices that made the film more silly than biting.

I will always remember the ending. The rest of the movie is a bit of a blur.

I doubt you will ever see as thorough an indictment of the American legal system as you are brought in the film And Justice For All. Too often the object of that legal system has been terribly lost in the process.

This film has become my favorite Al Pacino role. I don't think he was ever better on the screen as Arthur Kirkland, an attorney who cares maybe too much for his clients both for his career and his own mental health.

During the course of And Justice For All, Pacino has two clients who for reasons I won't go into here, do not get their proper day in court and both stories end tragically. The clients are Robert Christian as the cross dressing Ralph Agee and Thomas G. Waites as Jeff McCullaugh and both players give stunning performances. The hardest audience heart out there will feel their pain.

Their stories are mixed in with Pacino's running feud with a malevolent judge played by John Forsythe. John Forsythe in this film is not the John Forsythe of Dynasty or Bachelor Father or the disembodied employer of three shapely female private eyes. As it turns out this law and order judge thinks he's quite above the law. And he involves Pacino in his effort to prove his innocence after he's accused of rape.

Life does have a funny way of imitating art and later on the New York State Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, Sol Wachtler, was brought down in a similar scandal to what Forsythe is accused of here.

Jack Warden is another judge operating out of that same Baltimore courthouse that Forsythe does. He's quite a whack job himself, sitting on a window ledge eating his lunch, wearing a concealed revolver under his judicial robes. It's a crime for the rest of us to do that, but he's another judge who feels himself above the law.

Pacino has some very tender scenes with Lee Strassberg who plays his grandfather and Sam Levene who is Strassberg's friend at the nursing home they reside it. They're all such good players that you don't even think while you're watching them that this is a reunion of Michael Corleone and Hyman Roth. His scenes with them are his link to a world beyond his chosen profession.

The tragedy of And Justice For All is not so much the personal tragedies of Christian and Waites, bad as they are. It is the arrogant abuse of the rules and procedures of our legal system by the very men who are a bound by it as Pacino is. Pacino finds himself so boxed in that the only way he can see justice done is blow up his own career in a now legendary courtroom climax scene.

In the post Watergate Era, And Justice For All found its audience. And its message is still a timely one.

Norman Jewison is a leading Canadian director who has made many socially relevant offbeat films which have left their mark on American cinema.It can be said that things did not work out well for him when he made "And Justice for All".In this film,he has tried to depict the corruption which has soiled the image as well as reputation of American criminal justice system.However,despite the presence of some leading names of Hollywood cinema including superstar Al Pacino,this film has failed to be a major achievement as somewhere in the middle of the film viewers feel abysmally lost.This might be due to the fact that audiences are made to believe that they are watching a drama film whereas in reality they are being forced to witness a comedy film.It is true that "And justice for all" is absolutely honest in its approach but due to its irrational assortment of various feather brained characters,viewers tend to dissociate themselves more and more with the overall development of film's honest plot and story line.In the past, somebody remarked that "And justice for all" had a strange kind of reactionary effect on American criminal justice system which was similar to "All the President's Men" directed by Alan.J.Pakula. However,after seeing both the films,one wonders how such a lopsided comparison was made.

When we think of the great roles over Al Pacino's career, we automatically conjure up images of The Godfather I and II, Scent of A Woman, Carlito's Way and Serpico among many others. What gets little mention and is oft forgotten is Al Pacino's performance as Arthur Kirkland in "…And Justice for All." From days past and as I would watch Pacino classics, I always think back to 1979 and his portrayal of an ethical lawyer fighting for truth and justice in a not so ethical legal morass.

Thanks to AMC for bringing this movie back for new generation of movie watchers and also for a reminder of how great an actor Al Pacino is. If you have not seen "…And Justice for All," you are in for a treat. Far and away this was Al Pacino's best film role and possibly one of the greatest film roles of all time.

Too bad Hollywood was so engrossed in the morbidly depressing and cynical Kramer vs. Kramer in 1980. Head to head, Dustin Hoffman's role in Kramer vs. Kramer could not hold Al Pacino's water, but alas, the Hollywood types on most occasions vote with their backsides and not their heads.

See this Movie!!!!!

The basic premise of this film is a sound one, albeit common. It is hard to resist Al Pacino's down to earth and well acted character portrayal. This is the first highlight of the film; first thing you notice. The second highlight would have to be the philosophical questions it poses regarding justice; however, it get's there, asks some good questions, and ultimately ends up being an episode of Perry Mason. A good episode.

This film ends rather abruptly and what seems to be not well thought out. You may find poetry in it, I found it to be rather contentious. You decide.

The character actors are good in spots, but 'over-act' through a great deal of it. Again, Perry Mason.

However, for an early Pacino performance with guts, this works fine and isn't so bad, just not good.

If it's on cable, check it out.

This movie is compelling. It is not just a supremely entertaining courtroom drama, but more so a brilliantly detailed character study. Al Pacino, predictably, is just class, and the other characters give him some very competent support. The interweaving of secondary cases with the main one is seamless, and keeps the pace moving at a pleasing level. The ending, which is so often talked about, is terrific, if a little sudden, and not totally satisfying. The script is faultless. My only criticism is that the disco soundtrack is incongruous with the serious issues at hand and at times pretty comical. But I guess the time period is perfectly evoked through it, not that the issues are exclusively relevant to the late 70s/early 80s though. 9/10.

C'mon, people. Are you really having trouble determining whether this is a comedy or not? From beginning to end, it's filled with hysterical and whimsical (if sometimes troubling) situations, wickedly funny bits of dialogue, and sight gags. There are way too many to mention here, but the highlights would include the trial of the foul-mouthed gentleman, the helicopter ride, the defendant eating the lottery tickets, Arthur and Gail's Chinese dinner, the ethics committee hearing, Carl and the prostitute and, of course, the "opening statement" in the courtroom. An important subplot runs through all this -- Arthur trying to hold his sanity and legal practice together, while sparking up his love live -- along with some of the tragedy he witnesses. He is, after all, a budget-priced criminal defense lawyer in a large Eastern city, so I wouldn't expect everything to be pretty and tidy, even in a comedy. Contrary to some of the comments below, this movie is highly pedigreed. Thought the script was weak? Barry Levinson co-wrote it. And what's all this bellyaching about the music? This movie was released during the disco craze and the score was performed by a jailhouse ensemble. What did you expect the music to sound like, Tangerine Dream? Porter Wagoner? Beethoven? It was written by Dave Grusin, who has been nominated for seven Oscars (he won in 1988 for "The Milagro Beanfield War") and also has collected seven Grammys over the years. Of course, it was directed by Norman Jewison, who has shown good, if occasional, aptitude for comedy ("The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming," "Moonstruck," "Other People's Money"). Also, if you look at Pacino's performance with a critical eye, you may decide it was one of the best of his career -- especially compared with some of the more contrived (if popular) portrayals subsequent to this movie ("Scarface," "Scent of a Woman"). Try to remember the context in which a movie was released while watching with that critical eye and it's generally apparent if it stands the test of time. I'd say this one does -- beautifully.

Superb performances of all players without exception, but of course special mention has to go to Pacino who gives one of the best performances of his career. If you are interested in joining the legal profession (as I was), this is a must-see. Pacino is an over-worked, successful defence lawyer, juggling his heavy caseload. When a judge, whom he is publicly known to hate, is charged with Rape, Pacino is asked to defend him. Although this is the premise for the film, it is so beautifully entwined with many different, rich characters and a multitude of cases, it's almost unfair to even pinpoint the main thread. A perfect blend of tragedy, comedy and drama, I would rank this film in my all-time top 10.

There were quite a few of these types of films in the seventies - not really comedies or dramas per se, but a clever mixture of both, and part of the reason that the '70s are regarded by many as the richest era for films & film-making. Another sample which comes to mind is "Mother, Jugs, and Speed" - not as good, but comparable. These films point to a darkly humorous take on our existence, usually taking place in modern, contemporary times, and in an urban setting. In this one, the legal - justice system is targeted; it's the system we supposedly depend on and which elevates our nation (the U.S.) above the rabble of the world. But the way it's examined here, the system doesn't really work. It's geared towards those with the power (read: money) and most of those incarcerated, it seems to say, are there by an awful whim of fate. Most lawyers (Pacino plays a particularly compassionate one) function merely to make the suffering of these innocents a bit less grueling, through kissing the butts of hard-line judges (Forsythe is a particularly mean one).

It's a one-sided view, to be sure, that we have here: those who are truly guilty, such as child-killers, get released on technicalities and proceed to murder the next day, causing at least for one lawyer (Tambor) a spin down to a nervous breakdown. Do such things really happen in real life? Surely. But, here it's de rigueur, as if looking at the world through a funhouse mirror, a sly distortion. It's amusing to view this satire on our society's ills and we can laugh, with a bit of discomfort, at a picture of what passes for rule of law or justice. But it's probably more gratifying to see Pacino, Warden and the rest acting their best, mostly 'New York-style' (though this takes place in Baltimore). Pacino's character really shouldn't be a lawyer; he feels too much and is a genuine human being, where as everyone else is caught up in the abstracts of winning in the system. Even Pacino's new girlfriend (Lahti in her 1st movie role), tho appearing sympathetic to his dilemmas, is just another cog in the system. When he explains his biggest problem to her in the last act, instead of heartfelt advice, she gives him a list of options, as if she was his, well, lawyer.

Pacino's all alone in this picture. All his peers have enclosed themselves in callous shells. His only outlet, a grandpa (acting teacher Strasberg) is moving steadily into senility. His stand-in father-judge (Warden) is literally giving in to the craziness. It all points to the thrilling finale of Pacino's opening statement during the climactic trial. Where in action pictures it usually points to a thrilling final battle, in this type of picture it's a thrilling monologue by the main actor. Pacino's all alone up there and his rendition is worth the price of admission by itself.

For anyone who hasn't seen this movie, I can only say do yourself a favor and watch it. Al Pacino gives a wonderful performance as Arthur Kirland, a rare, honest lawyer. It has comedy and drama in it. Jack Warden as Judge Rafert is a gem and John Forsythe plays his role as Judge Fleming very convincingly. I think the best part of the movie is the opening statement that Arthur gives. A movie well worth watching again and again.

And Justice for All is an expose of the corruption, politics, and general crookedness of the legal profession. We are introduced to this unsavory world in the form of Al Pacino's character, Arthur. The movie does a good job of portraying both the human and systemic flaws of the American legal system. While the film works well if it is viewed as a segment of episodes, it suffers if viewed as a whole. Taken together the episodes feel disjointed. Still, And Justice for All is a socially relevant film and the presence of Pacino adds to its appeal. 7/10.

"...and justice for all" is a remarkable film that shows the American legal system from the inside. The film clearly shows us that corruption is a common and everyday thing in order to settle and getting off the hook. The legal profession has always, and I might add, that it probably always will, face an amount of problems and prejudice when it comes to honesty and "fair play". In this movie the remarkable Al Pacino plays a lawyer who actually cares for his clients. To him it is not about the money, but it is all about to give each individual, poor or rich, homosexual or not, the best legal defense possible. Unfortunately lawyers like Al Pacino's character are a minority. Throughout the movie your hate against the accused judge is really growing, and the end of the film is the finest work I have ever seen on the screen! Al Pacino' opening procedure will always be remembered in the film history, especially among the movies in the history which deal with the legal system. The movie is splendid. Do me a favor and watch it!

I'm a big Al Pacino fan. I bought "And Justice for All" because of the fact that it starred Pacino, and I was excited because I had heard he was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar. Now, after seeing the film, I can see why--his performance is great. Unfortunately, it's a great performance stuck in a lousy movie - "And Justice for All" is incompetently directed and, worst of all, the musical score really, really dates the film and almost makes it hard to watch at times.

The subplots - like Pacino taking a ride on the judge's helicopter and having it crash - are so '70s-ish that I felt as if I were watching an episode of "Starsky and Hutch" or something. Honestly, this movie plays like a cheesy '70s daytime drama with better actors.

Underneath the mess it has a good message about the legal profession. Pacino fans should see it because his performance is one of his best. However I find it hard to warm up to any movie that presents its courtroom scenes with a disco track playing in the background. If someone were to re-edit this film and insert more dramatic music (like a John Williams score or something), it might actually be watchable.

I've never seen music literally ruin a film before, as I have with "And Justice for All." As you watch it (if you should choose to), you might recognize the score - it's the same song you heard in the last elevator you rode in. Yeah, it's that bad. The composer should be shot.