Terror's Advocate (2007)

Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

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.

This movie gives an astonishingly revealing picture of the outspoken French lawyer Jacques Vergès, who defended such controversial figures as the terrorist Carlos, the Nazi criminal Klaus Barbie or a member of the Algerian resistance against French rule, Djamila Bouhireb. Jacques Vergès even confirms that he would have defended Adolf Hitler IF he pleaded guilty (George Steiner did it in his formidable book 'In Bluebeard's Castle').The movie reveals also the existence of a right-wing - religious financial network which provides judicial help for former fascists, like Nazi criminals. However, Barbet Schroeder could not uncover the exact nature of Jacques Vergès's pro-Palestinian actions or his support of the Red Khmer regime (on which he gives here, again controversially, a more or less positive comment) during the years of his life when he acted 'behind the scenes'.This movie is a fascinating portrait of an iconoclastic rebel with a formidable intelligence and a profound analyzing capacity of the dark regions of man's nature and the amoral or immoral motives behind his behavior. By incorporating this behavior in a global context of 'a world at war, a resistance to a colonial rule or a defense of minorities', he could (can) denounce all the parties involved or attack frontally the existing global world order and its alleged morality. A must see.

Terror's Advocate is a must-see for anyone interested in anti-colonialist movements or the politics and terror attacks of Europe in the 1970s and 80s. In many ways, attorney Jacques Verges' tale plays like a who's who of late-20th century international intrigue. Viet Nam, Algeria, Zaire, Cambodia, China, Pol Pot, Yasser Arafat and Carlos the Jackal are but a few of the hot spots and honchos to play a part in the duplicitous attorney's life.As a film, Terror's Advocate is not without its shortcomings. At well over two hours and consisting almost exclusively of interview footage, it is more reminiscent of the documentary style of yesteryear, employing no editing tricks or clever voice-overs that lend appeal to the more modern style of filmmakers like Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock. From an entertainment standpoint, the film definitely could have benefited from a greater use of file footage as well as better introduction to some of the major players, whose backdrops are often relegated to a single, brief subtitle. A prime example is the mention of the murder of Lumumba, a onetime communist ruler of the freshly independent Belgian Congo. After being overthrown and murdered by CIA directives and an aggressive colonel named Mobutu (who would eventually despotically rule Zaire for over three decades), Lumumba was replaced by Tshombe. Both Lumumba and Tshombe are mentioned in the film without a single reference to Zaire or the Congo. Similarly, little backdrop is created for Carlos. In doing so, the film assumes a lot of knowledge of events from its viewers, probably too much.Nevertheless, Verges is a fascinating character. His path, once pristine, very clearly strays from the light. Modern history generally credits the agenda of the Algerian "terrorists" that expelled the French in 1962. Pontecorvo's Battle of Algiers is a cornerstone of revolutionary anti-colonialist film-making and interestingly is used today as a reference by anti-terrorist government luminaries like Richard Clarke, the onetime anti-terrorist czar and biggest proponent of eliminating Al Qaeda in the presidential administrations prior to the 9/11 attacks. Somewhere along the way, though, Verges lost the faith, for the struggles of the proud Algerians can hardly be compared to the mercenary and ruthless murders committed by Carlos, a Russian/Columbian fighting in the name of Palestinian extremists, but more for his own profit. The former terrorist Stein hilariously refers to Carlos as a psychopath and laments the sad state of Algeria when its leaders later tell him that Hitler was a great man.In many ways, Terror's Advocate leaves more questions than it answers, especially with respect to the attorney's self-imposed 8-year exile, during which he was clearly doing more than just hiding from friends. He also appears to boldly lie to the camera when asked point blank about his connections to Carlos and some of the others (Pol Pot and his people deny Verges was ever even in Cambodia) and thus it becomes difficult to know when to believe him and when not to. It is also clear Verges hubris was ever increasing, as when he takes the Barbie case and faces an army of 40 lawyers for the prosecution (he insinuates that each is only equal to 1/40th of him).The DVD features a time line as a bonus feature. It is definitely worth looking at as it fills in some blanks and adds a little context to the accounts of the interviews.

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.