User Reviews

Arthur Kirkland is a young lawyer who realizes early on in his career that whatever he learned in school is different in real life. When we first meet Arthur he seems eager to help his clients. He soon realizes the legal system, as it's practiced in the court room, depends on who is judging the case, as there appears to be jaded judges who are blind to the justice he is seeking for his clients.

This 1979, directed by Norman Jewison, and based on a screen play by Barry Levinson and Valerie Curtin, offers another look at the way our legal system works.

The young Arthur clearly gets his fill of what is wrong with the system early on as he sees an innocent man go to jail for something he didn't do. That same man, plays a pivoting role in the story when he becomes so frustrated that he can't take it anymore. The same goes for the black cross dresser, who puts his trust in Arthur, only to feel betrayed when Arthur sends a colleague to defend him, but obviously, that lawyer couldn't care less what happens to the poor man.

The film is engrossing because of the work of a young, and eager, Al Pacino, who as Arthur Kirkland, is basically, the whole movie. Mr. Pacino, under Mr. Jewison's guidance did a wonderful job in getting under Arthur Kirkland's skin. This was one of the best performances this talented actor gave early in his career.

The rest of the cast shows some actors that went on to bigger and better things. Craig T. Nelson, Christine Lahti, Jeffrey Tambor, Domnenic Chianese,and Larry Briggman, made good contributions to the success of the film. Some veteran pros like Jack Warden, John Forsythe, Lee Strassberg, Sam Levene, are also showcased in the film.

"And Justice for All" is a satisfactory film worth a look because of Norman Jewison and Al Pacino.

AND JUSTICE FOR ALL is getting to be a bit long in the tooth nowadays, but unfortunately it still rings all too true in America today. Every day we see another example of the film's basic truth; if you have enough money or influence, you can do almost ANYTHING and walk away clean. Jewison's film is just one in a long line of protests against a system where justice is a two tiered affair; from Bob Dylan's THE LONESOME DEATH OF HATTIE CARROLL, through grousing newspaper editorials about corporate criminals walking away, through grumbling in the Vox Populi (and subsequent rioting) about the handling of the O. J. Simpson case, and the currently impending travesty that will probably allow those responsible for the Enron debacle to avoid responsibility for the lives they've destroyed.

The ending of AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, although fictional, gives us all a bit of welcome relief from a sea of corruption that seems to be drowning us all... but is the film really an accurate reflection of what's going on in the legal system? I decided to find out.

I have a friend who is an attorney who seldom watches movies of any sort; he doesn't even own a television set. He's never seen AND JUSTICE FOR ALL, so I sent him a cut rate DVD of it (which he played on his PC's DVD drive). I asked him for comments from the point of view of a real, working lawyer.

He enjoyed the film, but I found his comments fascinating... from a technical standpoint, the film had a few flaws, but also had some rather neat plot twists that, for odd reasons, ring true.

First off... I was very surprised to hear that Arthur Kirkland's opening statement to the jury would be VERY UNLIKELY to get him disbarred! In fact, given the circumstances, it was about the only course open to him, and if he HADN'T sunk Fleming, Kirkland COULD have been disbarred! Under the canons of legal ethics, once Kirkland knew FOR CERTAIN that Fleming was guilty of the accusations (and he knew that from Fleming's own admission of guilt), he had only two options. Failure to exercise one of both of them IS grounds for disbarment.

1- He would have to go to the judge and request to be relieved as Fleming's defense attorney. If he were to defend Fleming, KNOWING that he's guilty, it would necessarily require him to LIE in open court, a clear violation of legal ethics. In real practice, a lawyer will often tell a prospective defendant FLAT OUT "If you're guilty, I DON'T WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IT". Unfortunately for us all, Kirkland's probing for the truth (and Fleming's confession) are totally unrealistic. As we know from the film's plot, the option of walking away from the case was neatly cut off for him. Even if he had been able to exercise it, he was still on shaky ethical ground, and could possibly have been hauled before the Bar Association at a later date.

2- Kirkland's other option in this situation involves his role as an Officer of the Court. Once he knew for certain that Fleming was guilty, he was OBLIGATED to report that fact to the court. If he had dropped the case and it could be proved later that he knew about Fleming's guilt but hadn't taken this whistle blowing action, he was disbarment bait. The failure to report Fleming's confession constitutes the deliberate withholding of evidence.

In the end, Kirkland fulfilled this requirement with his outburst, thus covering his ass from an ethical standpoint. However, due to the unconventional way he did it, one of two things would probably happen in a real court.

First, Judge Rayford would reprimand him in open court for his unseemly performance, and possibly find him in contempt.

Second, even tho it was a VERY touchy situation, it's possible that the State Bar Association would probably also issue a reprimand, falling short of disbarment proceedings, again on the basis of unseemly conduct in court.

My attorney friend was also critical of Kirkland's handling of the Jeff McCullough case. Repeatedly, Kirkland tells Jeff "I'll get you out".

Lawyers may sometimes seem like all powerful miracle workers to the general public, but they're not. With his "I'll get you out" statements, KIRKLAND WAS MAKING A PROMISE THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE THE POWER TO KEEP, and thus was lying to Jeff. The proper statement would have been "I'll do everything that I can to get you out".

Another criticism... when the charges were first filed against Fleming, he should have been suspended from the bench IMMEDIATELY until such time as the charges were disposed of. If found eventually guilty, EVERY case that Judge Fleming decided from the time of being charged had an almost automatic appeal loophole.

These things seem like minor technicalities, just the nitpicking of a few words and concepts. That may be true, but the law itself IS nothing but a few words and concepts... words and concepts that we're supposed to be living by.

One final thing the lawyer said, and this is, to me, the most ominous comment of all.

He doesn't deal with Kirkland's sort of practice... in his own words, criminal law is far too sleazy for his tastes.

The lies, back-room deals, corruption, and as he put it, "Playing Penalty Poker" with prosecutors are all too accurately portrayed in this film, and he wants no part of it.

Like Hill Street Blues a couple or three years later, ...And justice for all looks at the seedy underbelly of society. There may be a humanity to this society occupied by drag queens, nut cases and corruption but rest assured the good guys are few and far between.

This is the basic premise of this drama co-written by Barry Levinson and also set in has native Baltimore like many of his directorial efforts. Al Pacino's character, here named Kirkland (Pacino looks as much as a guy named Kirkland as John Forsythe, Pacino's co-star would look like a guy named DeNunzio). Anyway, it seems that Kirkland is cursed with caring too much about his clients. He has two sort of innocent clients, one who is already in jail and one who is facing it. Kirkland is also dating a woman, played by the lovely Christine Lahti, who investigates crooked or incompetent members of the legal profession. A sort of Internal Affairs for jurists. And we could go on from here describing the plot and it would fill about ten pages.

The trouble about this movie is that it's too busy. The focus had to be more about the more interesting plot about the judge accused of rape. Instead we are hit over the head with the tired underdog plot about one good man against a cruel world.

That is not to say that this isn't worth seeing. There are some wickedly funny spots, especially involving the relationship between Kirkland and his legal partner, played by Jeff Tambor who more or less expanded this character into his Judge Alan Wachtel for Hill Street Blues. The most hilarious of these moments comes at the very end of the film.

Altogether, not bad but for all persons involved not the best they have ever done.

This is not a review: 'And Justice for all' has been reviewed to death here below: as comedy; as a tour-de- force acting performance by Al Pacino; as an entertainment and as a musical showcase. I was hugely entertained by this movie but in a different way.

This is a personal evaluation of a landmark movie directed by Norman Jewison and written by Barry Levinson & Valarie Curtin. The film reflected the rage that many felt against the failed Criminal-Justice system of 25-yrs ago. Since then, Judges have been reigned in somewhat, and DNA technology has freed thousands, many even from death row. What still persists is law-enforcement's inability to admit a mistake. Officialdom will move heaven and earth to stand firm on any previous decision; as if to admit error would undermine the legal edifice and bring the law into disrespect. The opposite is true of course. The whole world knows that mistakes are made in adjudicating the relations between people and if law enforcement could admit this fact with grace, the whole legal system would run more smoothly, in fact an order of magnitude smoother and more efficiently. And thus the rage.

I would like to start at the end.

With titles running, Arthur Kirkland, Baltimore lawyer, is sitting, bewildered and despairing on the steps of the Baltimore Court House; he has just blown the career he loved. His rage at the phony and corrupt criminal-justice system has led him to betray the client he was sworn to defend and he will surely be disbarred. The trial he has been ejected from will certainly be declared a mistrial and a vicious criminal may go free. The affair he was having with Gail Packer, a thing of the past.

The writers had no doubt about the story they were telling. It's a story about justice denied to all but those who can get the best legal representation and that means money. It is a story of a system where judges have become so arrogant and crazed by their own power of life or death that they have lost all contact with the world around them. Without a modicum of respect for the rights of those that come before them for justice, sometimes carelessly and sometimes with malice they meddle heedlessly in peoples lives causing havoc and dismay.

The plea-bargaining system also comes in for its share of bashing. In the lobbies and antechambers of the CourtHouse we see lawyers and prosecutors haggling over the penalties to be meted out in exchange for a guilty plea. These are almost biblical scenes of temple desecration.

Judge Henry T. Fleming played by John Forsyth is the metaphor for evil in this movie. His aloofness and arrogance and his repetition of the words 'I don't care' convey the awesomeness of his depravity. He really doesn't care about the people who come before him or their lawyers or the rest of the World for that matter. In this he is the distilled essence of evil. As the story evolves we realize that this man is more criminal than those who appear before him and all ironies are complete. In the penultimate scene, the 'You are out of order' scene; Judge Fleming, accused rapist, and Kirkland's client gazes sternly and coldly at Kirklands' helpless rage.

There are plenty of movies that have aged gracefully and are still wholly relevant, such as The GodFather. However, this is not one of them. Unfortunately, it doesn't even fall in the "it's so bad, it's good" category either.

Please note that this review contains multiple spoilers.

For instance, as a 1979 picture, studios wanted to be on the cutting edge of what was considered cool at the time and thus, instead of a dramatic symphonic soundtrack, we are greeted right from the get-go with disco grooves. Since this felt so out of place, it would have made sense to see John Travolta in a cameo as the introductory credits rolled by. Keep in mind this is a drama about a case where a woman is severely beaten and raped, so prompting the audience to snap its fingers and gyrate its hips to appease the brutality of the crime was a decision that the kindred spirit of Jeffrey Dahmer presiding over Columbia Pictures at the time reasonably took.

There are countless moments of total absence of logic that should baffle the mind of anybody with an IQ of 60 or higher.

For one, Pacino's character, "Arthur," is in jail overnight for trying to punch a judge in the face. There is no way that he would still be practicing law afterwards. However, due to the infinitely spotless track record of 24h jail timeouts, it makes sense to assume that Arthur has learned his lesson. Next, a woman on a committee that antagonizes Arthur falls for the lamest sober pickup attempt in film history, in spite of the fact that she's a foot taller and out of his league. I've witnessed fewer leaps of faith in Rambo. Then, they proceed to have yelling matches sporadically throughout the movie but are magically able to separate their professional and personal lives. I have witnessed better chemistry between a Nazi officer and a concentration camp prisoner.

Arthur's best friend is Jay who spends 2 scenes laughing exaggeratingly loud and long at an ironic element in the story. It had more weight and appeared more natural when Dr Evil did the same in Austin Powers. It is known later that a killer he freed on a technicality killed 2 children which upset him so that he took refuge at the end of a long hall with an endless stack of plates which he frisbeed at people who would approach him. This posed such a threat that 2 police officers unholstered their guns ready to shoot him. Later, he shaves his head (eat your heart out, Brittany Spears).

Arthur is blackmailed into to defending the judge he despises in spite of the fact that he's guilty because he could otherwise be disbarred on a technicality. Trying to hit a judge is bad but apparently not as bad as calling the cops because he thought a crazy client of his might kill people, which is a conflict of interest. Makes sense.

There is another judge in the story who is purely suicidal. He spend his lunches on the ledge of the 4th-floor, pilots helicopters with limited fuel supplies, and attempt to shoot his head off with a long rifle in his bathroom before court starts. Next to him, the Joker is the picture child for mental stability.

The climax of the movie is the courtroom scene where Arthur is making his opening statement. He stops midway and announces that he can't continue because his client's guilty. The presiding judge tells him he's out of order to which Arthur yells back "No, YOU'RE out of order!" indicating to everybody that his comebacks have the wit of a 6-year old. Incredibly, the courtroom audience erupts in applause, give him a standing ovation, and the accused judge is seen with his head in his hands, all telling us, that the defendant will finally pay for his crimes. Unbelievable. I have seen more tactical argumentation from Creationists.

Arthur is then seen sitting on the steps of the courthouse where Jay, who is clearly wearing a wig, is ready to come in. Jay salutes Arthur by lifting his wig off like you would a hat as a gesture of politeness. This surreal scene tops anything in the movie. Even in his drunken foolishness, the director must have thought the same, which is why the credits started rolling right after... complete with bland disco beats! I would rather pour a generous coating of sweet honey over my naked genitals and offer them buffet-style to a hungry tribe of fire ants than ever watch this movie again. You have been warned.