Terror's Advocate (2007)

I love this movie so much

Great Film overall

An Exercise In Nonsense

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Verges is in love with his own hate. He sees hypocrisy everywhere and like a spoiled brat wants to tear everything done. And so he supports dictators and mass murderers in the the name of justice.He also asserts that the Cambodian genocide under his friend Pol Pot did not happen and blames the Americans for most of the damage.The fact that over one quarter of Cambodia's population perished under Pol Pot's rule - the fact that Pol Pot's insane policies drove the population to utter starvation - the fact that Pol Pot's regime actively conducted mass imprisonment, torture and murder of hundreds of thousands of its own people - including children - does not bother Verges who still admires Pol Pot.This film does not press Verges on such hard questions. Its an utter waste of time and only serves as a limelight for his overwhelming ego.

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.

This really hadn't any beginning, middle or end. It simply was a long conversation with various persons and Jaques Verges, the advocate of terror.The idea is an intriguing one, that of a lawyer who defends the reprehensible because he believes in due-process and the law more than abstract ideas like morality and goodness.But this isn't what it was, because Verges never believed his clients lacking in morality or goodness. He represented these clients because politically he felt he had to.It'd been more interesting (I think) to understand the psyche of a lawyer who represents clients he himself (or she herself) detests and holds no political allegiance to.The runtime is a bloated two-hours and seventeen minutes, and in that time holds very little focus. It's very interesting subject-matter, but it's presented in such a wandering manner that leaves us bored. Only two or three trials are explicitly discussed and played out for the viewers. The rest of this film is Verges political tendencies and how they have got him in hot water with the French government.

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.