Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

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.

Like others, I have not seen this since it's original run. In 1974 I was a HS senior and the subsequent years have drastically changed my opinion.Having worked in law firms and other businesses the courtroom scenes seem so untrue. Even allowing for differences between American and British courts, it is hard to believe a barrister would allow his client to testify at the end of a trial without a delay to review the journals. I understand for dramatic effect it makes sense to do it the way it was written but it's just not realistic. Actually, Kelno's barrister was pretty ineffective from the beginning.From the beginning it was telegraphed how the story would go and how it would end. It's kind of hard to write a good story if Kelno had been innocent of the what was written in the book. But Kelno's barrister had to have known there were people he had operated on that survived and would be brought in to testify. Too much testimony and evidence of what Kelno did while in the camp was going to come out during the trial. Even assuming Kelno was not entirely truthful with his barrister, the solicitor will have have done some due diligence on what the evidence against a client will be. That is what they do. And for Cady, the change from jerk to heroic advocate after his father's death is really hard to believe. Going to school in the Midwest during the '70's even I was aware of the horrors of the Holocaust and the meaning of "Never Again".And just as Kelno's representation was weak, it is unbelievable Cady would take off to Poland in the middle of the trial. Again, trained investigators would be sent to Poland (if they were actually allowed) to dig up facts and evidence. Even assuming the Communist government would allow such investigation in Poland, it was really hard to believe a woman would turn from defiance to acquiescence in minutes because Cady made her aware of God.Kelno knew the facts and had he been honest with his counsel even a middling barrister would have been able to account for opposing testimony and evidence. For a story revolving around court proceedings, the story seemed dumbed down for the audience.Now I know this is a story and not meant to document what a real trial would look like (just as the crimes on Law & Order are solved and the perps convicted in 60 minutes is unrealistic) but what seemed powerfully dramatic to a teenager loses a lot after more than 40 years.If you are are looking for a realistic courtroom drama, this is below the normal Law & Order episode (almost every L&O episode has evidence suppressed by a judge when real defense attorneys will tell you they have never won a suppression hearing in decades of practice). For realism you are better off watching an episode of Rake. I wish this courtroom drama dealing with the horrors of the Holocaust had done a better job of demonstrating the difficulty of proving the culpability of the numerous cogs of the final solution.

The lives of two men, vastly different in their beliefs and in their lifestyles, come head to head in this sprawling mini-series, the first, in fact, of the "television events" that had their heyday in the 1970's and early 1980's. This one was based on a novel by (and real life event in the life of) Leon Uris. Hopkins plays a doctor and former concentration camp prisoner who, while in captivity, was compelled to aid the Nazis in operations related to their horrific human experiments. He is briefly charged with willing compliance in war atrocities, but is found innocent. He then takes his wife (Caron) and baby boy to Kuwait where he works tirelessly to make a difference in the world of the less fortunate. Eventually, he is knighted for his efforts. Meanwhile, Gazzara plays an American Jew who volunteers in the RAF and is gunned down. He courts his nurse (Mills), eventually marrying her, and becomes a celebrated writer. Before long, he is a jaded, wealthy hack who cheats on Mills and lives at odds with his heritage. Eventually, though, he finds that he is compelled to write about the Holocaust and when he does, his reference to Hopkins in the book sparks a libel suit from the now-decorated doctor. The climax of the film is a tense and agonizing court trial at Queen's Bench Seven (hence, the title) as Gazzara tries to prove that Hopkins is guilty while Hopkins strives to keep his name clean. This film set the pace for all mini-series to come (until budgets and tastes changed in the 1990's) and contains many of the characteristics which would mark the format (episodic story arcs, endless star cameos, dubious age make-up, etc...) The story takes a looonnng time to pick up speed with sporadically interesting periods done in by the common (at the time) practice of setting each scene with excruciating shots of buildings, cars pulling up, characters walking to buildings, etc... while Jerry Goldsmith's "Exodus"-flavored score blares and a hopelessly campy narrator butts in. There is, however, some good location work throughout. Fortunately, once the pre-history of the men is finally established, the courtroom scenes make up for the tedium and soapiness of the early sections. Hopkins is wonderful. He invests the character with a wealth of expression and mystery, especially as the case wears on. Gazzara is often wooden, but comes across nicely several times. Caron gets very little to do except fret under layers of age make-up and a grey wig. Mills won an Emmy for her sensitive, appealing work. The film gets a huge shot of class and talent from the excellent Remick (though her role peters out as the film continues) and from the appearances of several renowned British character actors, notably Quayle and Evans. It's a memorable mini-series due to the striking nature of the case, it's place in TV history and the work of Hopkins and a few others. Some of the sequences alluded to and shown are just as unsettling and horrifying in today's "seen-it-all" world as they must have been in 1974, with the tour of the actual camp and the visit to a Holocaust memorial particularly vivid (even if the same cheesy narrator of the mini-series is used, with an accent, to narrate the memorial's documentary!!) Many viewers will be put off by the pace of the scenes in the mid-section, but those who stick with it will find value in the courtroom climax.

A saintly doctor, Kelno (Anthony Hopkins) is accused of being a collobroator with the nazis by a Jewish writer, Cady (Ben Gazzara), and the two 'duel' in a courtroom, Queens Bench VII (hence the title). Kelno stoutly defends his character but the past catches up to him. I wish the movie could have explored how Dr Kelno--clearly a morally admirable doctor, helping the poor and defying the powerful--changed; or was he always a saint...except when dealing with the Jews? The opposing counsels, played by John Gielgud and Anthony Quayle, are the show. Frankly, I fast forwarded through the first half to watch the courtroom part, which is superb, very British, elegant and fascinating, especially as the Anthony Quayle barrister finally pins down the frantic Kelno, while Kelno's lawyer watches helplessly ("My Lord...!") Highly recommended. A terrific slap at communists early ('You spoke well of Dr --.' 'That was before he defected. Now I say he is guilty'. 'Guilty of what?' 'Of whatever you are charging him with.')

Strong acting and a blistering courtroom drama unfold in this six hour mini-series.Ben Gazzara and Anthony Hopkins are fantastic and the make-up job on Anthony Hopkins is phenomenal as the artist has him look the way he does now and the show is 25 years old.Very good entertainment that moves along at a rapid pace.