Roman J. Israel, Esq.

I found this to be some of the best work Denzel has done. I thought he hit the nail on the head in terms of helping his viewers feel empathy for the character. I have to be honest here. I strongly believe that if you are in your sixties and of African-American heritage this may really hit home on many levels. In general it is a film about holding on to our core values, then forgetting them to join the rest of societal madness only to realize that you were not alone in your view of the world. Restoring your original core only to pay the price of deserting it in the first place. Everyday we see people forfeit family,love and life for materialistic gains and other power trips. This is also about the change of values from one generation to another in today's world. This is a film with a message that has and will go over a lot of heads judging by some of the bad reviews I've read. Awesome sound track consisting of 60's and 70's soul and rock. Excellent character portrayals by all bar none.

Denzel Washington stars as Roman J. Israel, Esq. a mildly savant criminal defense attorney whose life is turned upside down when his longtime law partner passes away. Suddenly the passionate civil rights attorney who thanks to his fiery demeanor should stay far away from an actual courtroom, is left looking for a job. He is forced to settle for working for George Pierce (Colin Farrell) a successful defense attorney, whom Roman views as a profiteer who doesn't care about his clients. The entire ordeal breaks Roman, who sells out his ideals and loses sight of who he was.

Denzel gives a good performance as the extremely passionate and slightly eccentric Roman J. Israel Esq., but Roman's penchant for long rambling speeches made for tedious viewing. Colin Farrell's Pierce develops into a much deeper character than he originally appears to be and is utilized well. However, while Roman's struggle to find his identity is the core of the film it never really is able to captivate. Ultimately the film settles in as an interesting character study that struggles to come together as anything more than that. While many would be content with that, it is a disappointing follow up for Dan Gilroy after his excellent debut with Nightcrawler.

For a split second there, you are watching "Q&A" or any of the other political dramas Sidney Lumet was famous for. Despite what reviewers have said here, this is mature movie that exists in a different time. And it is tragic that it is lost in the dummies of 2017 society.

The story is of a lawyer whose past convictions of social injustices get called to task when his partner suffers a heart attack. Roman is thrust into reality of facing the people who he left a long time ago to be the shadow autistic man content to vomit all sorts of facts without a shred of...personality tolerable to anyone. Everyone who has worked in an office knows this guy. He's aggravating because he only understands a brand of logic that lacks...spirit. He laughs at the wrong moments. And when put in social situations...he will anger you. However, he possesses massive commitment to a social cause. There's a line in the movie where an admirer defends Roman as "we stand on his shoulders." In other words, despite his annoyance...he has contributed to the cause. What cause is the question. The answer? It doesn't matter. The cause is ambiguous other than Black crime and rights. Which isn't the point it's trying to make. I would guess, it means to be anything we have convictions of and lose sight of will ultimately destroy us. Is that a digestible concept. Not to this world. In all honesty, when Roman starts to slip, we are actually much more comfortable. Because we all sell out when times get rough. This is a wonderful film that will be discovered years later. Much like a Sidney Lumet film (can you even name one). I will say, people will watch it and feel shame they didn't seek it out later. Denzel Washington should get nominated here.

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

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.