Roman J. Israel, Esq.

I initially wanted to condemn the film as reverse racist after the flag pin remark but I decided to give it a bit more time and ended up watching it to the end. Some say they were disappointed at a slow plodding film that misused the talented Denzel and slapped them with a crappy ending. We were not watching the same film. Here Denzel portrays a man with every possible thing against him: he's a black man with a presumed Muslim last name, who has an almost autistic nature because of his savant abilities which has repressed his ability to be financially successful because he has no real interest in money and prefers to pursue truth instead. Once scene depicts him well when he appears to be rambling and then slaps us with the conclusion bringing it all together: there is no way to retain purity. Bam. We are hit with Roman's plight.

It is these savant abilities that drive him mad in his own mind while his simplistic brilliance is overlooked and mocked. As he struggles with his predicament after losing his purpose, he makes a fatal error. But in the end we see it was really the people who looked down on him who made the error by misjudging what Roman had to offer.

In the most subtle way, the film also asks us to review how we've treated people who seem strange to us and who we have mocked for thinking or sounding different then what we believe people should sound like.

A profound character study that studies not only him impact but those who impact him.

I tried to edit my initial review but didn't see any way to do that since it wasn't published yet.

This film was Dan Gilroy's second directorial debut, and although his forte of experience is writing, he failed that department, and did better in his directing (camera work, but not his choice of editing).

The problem with the writing is the dragged out mumbo-jumbo Denzel Washington had to say to express his savant mentality, most of it not making any sense or philosophically unnecessary, and it extended into 2+ hours of doing so. Denzel carried his role so exceptionally well, that had this film been edited down to 80 or 90 mins by getting rid of the convoluted and unnecessary dialogue, it would have been dramatized much better.

Then there's the premise to the film; standing all this time for a cause, then slipping to the other side, then going back. What was the point? What was the message?

This film is nothing extraordinary, but nevertheless, Denzel and Colin Farrell's great acting were the only reason this film has as high (6.3) of a rating as it does, and would have been much lower with any sub-A list actors, or higher with better writing.

It's a generous 7/10 from me

It was a good movie, but a tad confusing. DW is just as good as ever, it's worth watching. The movie was a little slow, but still not bad. If your a Hard core DW fan its worth a watch, but for a casual movie fan id say you can pass on it.

What we have here is a portrait of an idealistic lawyer with autism, played by Denzel Washington. The lawyer loses his sheltered job and is now forced to take care of himself despite his huge autism handicap. Will he survive or will he break down?

"Roman J. Israel" is a thoughtful, intelligent and fascinating movie. But not suited for those without patience and understanding of people with autism. It is acted very well, but is unlike any other Denzel Washington movie I have ever seen. If you were only interested in Denzel's actionmovies before, then I strongly advise you to walk away, because this is a slowburner. Nothing much happens. Slow tempo.The dynamic of this movie mimics autistic characteristics: the movie itself becomes void of big emotions, just like the main autistic character played by Denzel Washington. The story meanders a bit, which can be confusing. But then again Denzels life as a lawyer is confusing and chaotic as well. The story follows the characters mindset, which is all over the place. Had difficulty understanding WHAT kind of film this was, because I didnt knew beforehand that Denzel played a lawyer with autistic tendencies.

Is it still any good? Yes, but it is probably only suited for a smaller arthouse audience, with an open mind for people with mental disabilities. Puzzling, intelligent portrait of an idealistic lawyer with autism, with an ending that comes close to feel good, but with some questions left open. I have never been so puzzled before by any Denzel movie as with this one...

At an end note: Mind you, look at the poster, what do you see? He looks away, you dont see his face. That's unheard of. But done deliberatedly. Autistic people fear communication with others. They look away. Avoid (eye) contact. Misinterpret other people's meanings. That is what this movie is about. And it is also about the positvie characteristics. It is also about idealism and the typical characteristics that make autistic people special and admirable. Very delicate and confusing movie. Fascinating nonetheless...

This is a BRILLIANT journey from the perspective of someone utterly detached from any personal connection to those around him.

The story is told and presented in such a way that you, the viewer, feel as detached as Roman is, but compelled to follow his journey to the end. For although he has difficulty with human interaction, and detached from humanity on a personal level, he feels a strong responsibility for humanity itself.

Denzel, as Roman, is a behind the scenes lawyer, a legal savant with some mental complications (I'm no doctor) which many brilliant people, especially savants, often face.

Colin Ferrell is a successful lawyer who finds himself perplexed by Roman's behaviors while increasingly inspired to adopt Roman's mission in life as he is reminded of the reasons he went into law himself.

As the story unfolds, you find a detached sympathy for Roman in the same way he would feel for you. How uncanny that we can be so manipulated in the acting and direction process, while some viewers leave disappointed with the movie as "flat" or bad because they couldn't get emotionally involved with Roman, silly gooses, that was supposed to happen.

Roman's emotions are absent, or sometimes buried, as in the way he continually failed to express a normal response to the health predicaments of his former legal partner, something presented from the beginning of the movie and throughout.

It's a story which moves fast but isn't an action movie, it has no needless scenes or dialogue. In addition to the story of Roman, it tells the story of one particular concern within our legal system. It certainly deserves much more than the 6.4 rating it currently has. I would give it a solid 7.5 which is quite respectable at IMDb.