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.

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.

Barbet Schroeder's portrait of French attorney Jacques Vergès. You've seen him defending people like Klaus Barbie, Carlos the Jackal, Pol Pot as well as other dictators and terrorists.

This is a complex story of a complex man and it essentially tells the tale of the man from World War 2 until today. (And even at 140 minutes the film leaves a great deal out). Here is man of his time, who met and defended with many of the famous and infamous people of the last fifty years. He seems to be a man who generally believes in the right of the oppressed to stand up to their oppressors and to have some one to stand up for them. However this is not just the story of a man who fights for the oppressed but it is also the story of a man entangled in things that will cause many to question just how slick a guy is Verges. Many of the terrorists and dictators he defends are in fact his friends, and he is not doing it for the love of cause but also for the love of the finer things.

I liked the film a great deal. To be certain I was lost as to bits of the history and who some people were, but at the same time the film isn't about the history, so much as Verges moving through it. This is the story of the man, his causes and to some degree his women. What exactly are we to make of Verges? I don't know, but I sure do think that he and his life make for a compelling tale. I loved that my idea of what Verges is changed. I loved that I was completely confused at the end as to what I thought, confused in a way that only a film that forces you to think can do. In the end I don't know what I think of Verges, and I love that I will have to sit and reflect on what transpired on screen and in the man's life for a good long while.

Certainly one of the better feature length theatrical documentaries to come down the pike in a while.

See it...probably more than once. See it and then discuss it, it will get the gray cells of your brain working.

8 out of 10.