Muhammad Ali's Greatest Fight

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.

One of the best thing that I found about Americans is that they are so cool about change (for the good). And this movie represented that though. Fabulous script and acting. Overall a good movie

While being an interesting look at a major event in American history, I thought the general mood of the film didn't really mesh with the subject matter.

The locker room bro moments of the clerks felt more like a distraction in my mind from what was really interesting. I understand that throughout the move there's an attempt to compare and contrast the generational differences between the justices and clerks, but really it came out more muddled than insightful. But hey, maybe that's just me.

I think a more interesting movie would have been a more focused study into the closed-off perspective of the justice's world. A closed-room style would have fitted well. The hippies lined up outside made to seem distant and strange, even to the blue justices.

The movie also seemed a little closed off and lacking much room for audience pondering. Mohammed Ali was valid for conscientious objector status. No question. This might have been the case, but I'd rather come to that conclusion myself.

Anyway, it was a fine TV movie. Definitely worth a watch.

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. This movie is about the Supreme Court, liberal and some conservative, who divide over a pivotal issue: Muhammed Ali's right to refuse military service in the Vietnam War, when conscription was still the rule. 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 and is enlivened by the newsreels of Muhammed Ali, a formidable figure in and out of the ring; President Richard Nixon, one of the most controversial presidents of all time; and the youth who were standing up to the established order. In the 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 rather elderly 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, deciding in accord with its conscience and legal precedent.

What I enjoyed most about this movie, it wasn't dramatic. It wasn't polished. It was real. It was factual. It shows us that life isn't full of glitz. It shows us that real life the hours and days are long. The conflict is real. I loved that all of Ali's footage was actual footage. It was well done. I enjoyed the different layers of story lines. You had the SCJ, the interns, the Justices with their staffs, you had the support staff and the families. It was welcomed to see the "behind the scenes" office interactions along with the times at their houses. I appreciated the personal touch they showed in dealing with a mental illness and how that wore on the Justice, along with his own physical battle. I came across it yesterday on HBO and was instantly drawn in. It was like a great book. I sat down and couldn't stop watching until it was over. We need more movies like this one.