Very disappointed :(

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

I consider myself well-educated but had never heard of this story until now. I had no idea that the right to have an attorney even if you cannot afford one was established so recently in 1963. I had heard of the attorney Abe Fortas, but didn't know his role in this story. The name that should be more well-known is Clarence Gideon, the man to thank for pursuing his right to a court-appointed attorney. The film simplifies the events that took place over more than two years, but it really holds your attention and shows the injustice of trials where the defendant could not afford an attorney and was often convicted without proper pursuit of the truth.

Found sitting in a bar drinking a beer with a ton of loose change in his pocket, the dour Henry Fonda is arrested and charged with a robbery in another bar where a pinball machine and pool table were emptied of its cash. He is not given an attorney and as a result, defends himself, quickly bringing in a guilty verdict. Incarcerated, Fonda spends every waking moment in the prison library studying the law, and every prisoner watches and waits as he handwrites a letter to the state supreme court to have the verdict overturned. What happens then is the turn around of laws, showing that on occasion, a man in a loosing situation can be the winner.Just a year before his spectacular Oscar Winning performance in "On Golden Pond", Fonda gave another bravura performance, showing that like many other great actors throughout history, giving a great performance can look extremely easy. While this television film looks liked a filmed stage play, it is certainly never stagey, and that is because you really are interested in seeing how justice is done, even if you are never sure of his guilt or innocence. Fonda is surrounded by a brilliant cast, including Jose Ferrer, Fay Wray, Dolph Sweet, Dolph Sweet, Sam Jaffe and Dean Jagger. Like other great trial dramas (most notably, Fonda's 1956 classic "The Wrong Man"), this is not about finding the guilty party, but simply seeing justice done as the American constitution has promised it would be.

Unfortunately, many will miss knowing about this if they just check on the actor's filmography on this site. It is not explicitly listed. You will have to look for it under Hallmark Hall of Fame.It is one of Fonda's finest performances reminiscing and rivaling his portrayal of an innocent accused in The Wrong Man. Here, at age 75 he portrays Clarence Gideon who was actually only 53 at the time of the trial in 1963. Obviously, not in health when this was filmed, Henry Fonda's age and frailty adds authenticity and pathos to the character's situation.It is a landmark movie (for TV) that celebrates a landmark Supreme Court decision that added protection to the rights of the accused by ensuring that they are provided proper legal counsel.

I wouldn't define this movie as being great. It was good, but not great. It was interesting though. I had to watch this for my criminal justice class, and I was riveted to it. I learned a lot about how our courts worked and how reforms in them were made so people who couldn't afford an attorney still had the right to have one. Based on a true story, Clarence Gideon was convicted of a crime he did not commit. But the movie centers around how he was deprived of his right to an attorney, and how he fought in prison to make clear that he did not have a fair trial. I thought it was well done, and Henry Fonda was very good in the role of Clarence Gideon. Only drawback, this should have been released in theaters. The camerawork of the courtroom and the long shots of Clarence Gideon confessing his history are great. The opening shot is the best scene of the film, which is seen in it's entireity later. Henry Fonda looks right into the camera, right at you, and as Clarence Gideon, he gives you his background. Ingenious. I wish there could be more movies with scenes as subtle and as profound as this. The other scene I liked was when Gideon is retried with an experienced lawyer, and when the first witness falsely claims Clarence Gideon is the culprit, the lawyer cuts him down with words and facts. This movie is good, but it's not a monumental achievement. I would highly recommend it to you though. It's got the qualities a good film should have: a good story and good acting. And lawyers or people involved in law alike will find it very interesting.