Anschauen Advocate


Advocate is a movie starring Mahmoud Abbas, Udi Adiv, and Hanan Ashrawi. A look at the life and work of Jewish-Israeli lawyer Lea Tsemel who has represented political prisoners for nearly 50 years.

Other Titles
Lea Tsemel, Anwältin, Oikeudenpalvelija, Advokat i Israel, Eldsjälen, 魔鬼辯護人, Defensora, Lea Tsemel, avocate, Lea Tsemel, Orehet Din, Adwokatka
Running Time
1 hours 54 minutes
480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Rachel Leah Jones, Philippe Bellaiche
Rachel Leah Jones
Mahmoud Abbas, Tareq Barghout, Hanan Ashrawi, Udi Adiv
Canada, Switzerland, Israel
Audio Languages
Deutsch, English, Français, Italiano, Español, Svenska, Gaeilge, Nederlands
日本語, Čeština, Tiếng Việt, Português, 한국어, Australia, Filipino, हिन्दी

A look at the life and work of Jewish-Israeli lawyer Lea Tsemel who has represented political prisoners for nearly 50 years.

Comments about documentary «Advocate» (25)

Emily Stone photo
Emily Stone

Frequent audiences are often informed that movie critics who "like movies", and that "it's better to like the director than the movie itself". To me this is the most patronizing statement that I have ever heard. Why is that? Is it because I like "the director" because of his/her "approach"? This is simply not the case. A good movie does not need an "approach". You need to like the movie itself, and the director's ideas, to enjoy it. Or, is it because I think that the "approach" that the critic/fan "likes" is superior to the movie itself? I don't know. The only thing I can tell you is that I enjoyed "Tears of the Sun" very much, and the critics hated it, so it's not really worth your time to look for the answers to the following questions: Why does the critic dislike a movie? And, how does the director/star like a movie? I have been watching movies, trying to figure out what made them good, and this movie did not change my mind. Perhaps, it made it better. But, I think that a movie should be able to do that, and this movie was not able to do that.

Dorothy photo

This documentary, produced by the National Wildlife Federation and the Audubon Society, is a good starting point for a lot of people, especially those who have some familiarity with wildlife and the wildlife industry. The narration is interesting and engaging, the images of wildlife on screen are extremely vivid, and there are some great scientific observations. However, the filmmakers make several errors, and the results of this documentary are far too optimistic. For example, the filmmakers do not point out that there is no way to monitor or study large animals in the wild. They ignore that there is a real need to use science to inform conservation and management decisions, and they ignore the fact that the solution is often a combination of multiple approaches, such as monitoring of habitat and a combination of predator control, monitoring of feeding grounds, or reintroduction of wildlife. Moreover, the filmmakers point out that predator control is not the only option available to farmers. They ignore that crop-raiding for subsistence is an important way to generate income and that if a farmer chooses to do so, he should be allowed to do so, as long as the livestock or wild animals are not being slaughtered. Finally, the filmmakers do not address the potential for corruption that occurs in wildlife-based businesses. As a result, they miss the point that some wildlife-based businesses can be enormously profitable and that any reduction in the overall market is bound to affect wildlife conservation, and that the more that is saved, the less that is lost. They do not take the opportunity to point out the harmful environmental impact of wildlife-based businesses. Finally, the filmmakers fail to point out that the natural environment is a protected resource, and that the protection of wildlife-based businesses is only one element of protecting the environment. They are also not able to provide a fair analysis of how a market-based approach to wildlife conservation can work. The narrative of the film is well crafted, and the discussions are interesting, but the conclusion is somewhat optimistic. In the end, the best thing I can say about this film is that it is a good starting point, and that it is informative, but it is not a very good documentary.

Sandra photo

This is one of the best documentaries I have ever seen. The film is based on the work of forensic psychologist Dr. Vincent Di Maio who has spent the last decade trying to solve the murder of a black man in the Bronx who was brutally attacked and brutally mutilated. In this film, Di Maio takes us through the evidence in the case and lets us see the evidence, and talk to the witnesses and the police, and examine all of the physical evidence that was brought to the scene of the crime. The film was so much better than I thought it would be because there was so much evidence. It really is a gripping, thought provoking documentary, and I highly recommend it.

Jerry M. photo
Jerry M.

Some people might find this movie boring. It was to me. I found it to be very depressing, although some of the quotes that were quoted to me were very accurate. I can't say that I agree with what the filmmakers were saying, and I would say that they are not being completely honest. However, I did not see that in the movie. They are not calling them out. I felt that the filmmakers were trying to educate the viewer on a very serious issue, and that was a good thing. I don't think that the people that are going to get this movie are going to like it, and I can't blame them. I can, however, see why they would hate it. I would not recommend this movie to anybody, but I don't think that it would be as bad as some people are making it out to be. There are a lot of really disturbing things that were said in the movie, but I don't think that it was all that accurate. However, I did not think that it was very bad. If you want to see this movie, go and see it. You will not be disappointed.

Benjamin H. photo
Benjamin H.

I went to this film with low expectations, but was really pleasantly surprised by the film. It's not a great documentary, and doesn't have the quality of other documentaries about Scientology, but it is good and is a great insight into how Scientology works. My only complaint is that it starts out with an introduction to some of the people involved in the church. It really did an excellent job of showing the initial issues that many people had with Scientology, but it just didn't cover the whole story. The movie needed more of an introduction to the early days of the church, and more of a story of how Scientology started. It could have been so much more if they had more of an introduction to the early people who were involved in the church. They do give some insight into the early people involved, but it really should have been more about how Scientology started. My biggest problem with the film is the way the interviews are done. It's hard to see who is really talking to who, and it doesn't really help the movie when you realize that someone in the movie is speaking about something that you already know is going to happen, and it's actually happening in the real world. I also think that the interviews are edited a little bit too much. It's not that they are bad, but it's not like you really get to know the people that much. Overall, this is a really good documentary that will probably go down as one of my all time favorite documentaries. I would definitely recommend this to anyone who has an interest in Scientology or Scientology's history.

Timothy G. photo
Timothy G.

This is an interesting look at the troubles faced by Faisal (Pauly Shore), a Muslim, living in London. He's been taught that Islam is a religion of peace and nonviolence. He has a great deal of respect for those who choose to live as Muslims and as followers of the Quran. However, he's taught that a child who has an abortion is to be executed. This is clearly a "bigot" viewpoint, so this is an important film to see if you're interested in that aspect of Islam. The fact that he can't change his beliefs is why I think the title is "Advocate". In fact, it's a very brave film because it's quite clear that Pauly Shore is not a proponent of this position. It's also clear that he is not a fan of those who advocate such policies. Yet he feels compelled to express his opinions on the topic. Shore was nominated for an Oscar for this film. In the film, he doesn't voice an opinion, he expresses his own. He's very clear in his own views. He's a young man, who lives in the same age bracket as most of us, who is affected by the issues that the film explores. I think the film would have been better with more of Shore's views. The film itself is compelling. It is an important film, but Shore is much better than this. The film is quite interesting, and worth seeing. However, Shore is a great candidate for an Oscar nomination. He is a strong candidate, and deserves the accolades he gets.

Karen Young photo
Karen Young

I knew nothing about this documentary and it is exactly the kind of doc I enjoy and would recommend to others. It is an inspiring story of a woman who was kicked out of her home and now lives with her dog in an apartment complex. She does not have a job, is supported by her landlord and her sister, and seems to be growing to love her dogs. The documentary is interesting and informative, but the narration is a bit of a drag. It could have been better, though, and I would not mind if it were a shorter length. There is a great scene where the sister tells the dogs "let me see you pee" and the dogs open their mouth and start peeing. I do not think that this is a great example of a dog doing something like that. It is an amusing moment, but it is certainly not the whole story. The narration also makes some statements that the narrator seems to want to challenge, but fails to do so. For example, when the sister explains the dog "spending" and it is clear that she is not sure whether it is eating, or sleeping, or drinking, or urinating, she might have thought it was being productive. The narrator says, "Yeah, but she's feeding it." (and the answer is no) and then she says, "It's eating." (and the answer is no). I do not think it is right to say that this is the wrong thing to say. It might be one example of a true positive, but I do not think that is the whole story. The documentary is about a woman who is struggling to overcome her challenges, and that is what I found most fascinating about it. I did not find the narration to be that interesting, though, and I did not find the film to be that inspiring.

Raymond B. photo
Raymond B.

This documentary was made at the request of a concerned citizen who felt the title should be "Jezebel". And if there's anyone who's actually read the magazine, it's easy to see why. The documentary was made in an effort to honor J.J. Johnson, one of the best-selling writers in the history of the world. Mr. Johnson was a true humanist who, as one of his friends put it, gave his entire life to writing. One of the most fascinating things about the documentary is the subtle differences between the media and the people who come to see it. It's impossible to discuss it without including the media and you can't discuss it without talking about the people who came to see it. On the surface, they're all the same: jezebel readers. But the media-as-preacher or in this case, as "preacher" as the media are-is actually not. Most of the people who go to see the film are not aware of what the media really are. I know that when I see a movie, I have to listen to what the movie is trying to say. It's almost impossible to find out the facts on a documentary. I don't know why people think that. You see the media with a big heart, but what they are really saying is nothing. What they're saying is just words with a little grain of truth added. And that's what this movie is trying to show. Even the "jezebel" stuff isn't what it's made out to be. We're not shown the best writers, or the greatest poets. It's just the people who have written the best things in their lives. What we're seeing is what those people are. The point of the documentary is to let us know that people are people, and we're going to all of them to find out the truth. The only people who can't see that are people who can't see the truth. The truth is not what the media and jezebel and the people think it is. The truth is that there is a great world out there, and it's waiting for you. You just have to find it. I know that sounds very simple, but there's more to it than that. There's a lot more to it than that. It's about finding the truth. And there's so many people out there who can't see that. If you're one of them, go see this movie. I guarantee that you'll enjoy it. As always, "If I Don't See It Before You Do"

Nathan Bishop photo
Nathan Bishop

This film does exactly what it says on the tin. A film of good intentions gone bad. It starts out by suggesting a simple film about a 'common man' who was abused and killed by a family of power-brokers. As the film progresses, however, we are shown how the woman who 'lives in a fog' by the power-brokers was actually a poor black woman, living in the slums of London, a very different place to the one we were led to believe the film was about. The film is definitely worth a watch, but it is far too long and you will tire of it by the time it is over. But, if you are in the mood for a good film about the exploitation of black women, then I would recommend this.

Louis photo

This is a great documentary about the man that invented the world's first successful, large-scale broadcast television network in the United States. While it is fascinating to watch the man himself, it is even more fascinating to watch him speak and explain his ideas. The man was a genius and deserves a place in history as a national hero. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did.

Juan Matthews photo
Juan Matthews

Michael Moore is one of the most controversial people to ever get a serious amount of publicity, but he's the one person who actually deserves it. He has a knack for bringing out the true reality of what is happening to the country, and he was able to have a major influence on the political climate in the last election cycle. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences deserves his 5 nominations for The Donald and The Big Lebowski, and his documentary, Moore, got him a lot of attention and a lot of people. There is no doubt that he has brought out a lot of emotion in his viewers, which is a good thing. However, his documentaries, The New York Times, Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 911, and now this documentary, The Advocate, really showcase his best and most raw sides. Not only is he bringing out the truth, he's making people think about it. He knows that he needs to be watched, and the people need to know how their government is operating. He also needs to know that most of the people are sick and tired of hearing about how bad they have it, and it's going to take some action to get it changed. He is very famous for his arguments, but he also is known for making people listen to his opinions and then making people think about it. I can see the criticism he is getting, but I also think he's doing the right thing, and I think the best way to show people the truth is to make them think about it. I'm glad I decided to watch this film, and I'm glad I watched it, because it's going to change me, and I'm going to be a better person for it. I would recommend this documentary to everyone, it's not going to get people to get out and vote, but it's going to give them the facts and opinions they need to make their own decision. And I'm glad I was able to watch it, because I'm going to be sure to see it again.

Gary P. photo
Gary P.

Dennis Rader (of "Terrance and Phillip") does a terrific job with this look at two high school students who make a movie of their student film festival. He explains how they got involved in the film, the process of how they were able to get financing for their project and the industry that has come out of it. If you enjoy this, you may enjoy "The Art of Being Straight".

Joan W. photo
Joan W.

We watched this movie about a year and a half ago and we are still trying to get the words out of our mouths about it. The entire movie is just amazing and we never get tired of it. It is great to watch a movie that is both entertaining and informative at the same time. This movie is a great movie to see at the theater as well. I really hope that this movie gets the attention it deserves. It is definitely worth your time to see it. I would say that this movie is definitely worth watching, but that is just my opinion. If you haven't seen this movie yet, go out and get it now. I am sure that you will love it.

Lawrence M. photo
Lawrence M.

This is a wonderful documentary about a leading scientist whose life was saved by a cancer diagnosis. It is fascinating to see the scientist at work, working with the government on a project and, at the same time, trying to raise money for his cancer research. It's hard to believe that cancer research is so heavily funded by the government. In the beginning, we see how the scientist's work is making the people's lives better and how his research is helping people. This is a great documentary. I loved the interview with the scientist's wife, and I loved the interview with the scientist's son. I liked the way that the scientist's research is portrayed in the documentary. It's interesting to see how the scientist is dealing with his illness, and how he is using the cancer research as a platform for personal growth. I especially liked how he said in the documentary that the cancer research is "the first step" toward a cure. I would recommend this documentary to anyone.

Harry photo

If you have seen Mr. & Mrs. Smith, you've seen this film. That being said, it was a fun film to watch. It was more than that, as there were great performances by the actors. The director also does a great job at keeping the story going. I would have liked a bit more drama but it was a good movie. The cinematography was great and there were a few scenes that were great. It had a few good scenes and a few bad scenes. It was also a little predictable in some parts but overall, it was a great movie. Definitely worth watching.

Lawrence R. photo
Lawrence R.

The Advocate is a great documentary about the roots of the AIDS epidemic. It is based on a series of interviews with some of the people who were directly affected by the disease, and the people who are now fighting to keep it alive. The main focus is on the three main AIDS organizations - the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization and the American Red Cross. The organizations all gave great, powerful speeches, and some of them are still fighting for their rights, even though their fight has been won. The interviewees talk about what they would like to change about AIDS, and how they have tried to change their organizations' policies. The Advocate is a great documentary about the AIDS epidemic, and it shows how the three organizations fought to keep it alive.

Roger L. photo
Roger L.

The topic of the documentary is controversial and it is always interesting to hear what people have to say about it. I think the film is really good. It's a rare film that actually shows the facts of the issue in a way that is balanced and shows both sides of the issue. I think that the film makes it very clear that the child abuse is a very serious issue and that child abusers should be punished but it also shows how innocent victims of child abuse are being treated in many states. The documentary shows that the child abuse is a very serious issue but it also shows how innocent victims of child abuse are being treated in many states. I think that the film is really good.

Juan photo

I had a chance to see this film at the Sundance Film Festival, and I am really glad I got to see it. It was interesting and compelling. I really enjoyed the acting, the directing, and the editing. It's a good look at the issues around the issue of AIDS in the US. This is a good story that is worth telling. There are many good points to the film, but I think the best aspect of the film is the acting. The actors did a great job. I would definitely recommend seeing this film.

Jacqueline Butler photo
Jacqueline Butler

I don't know why I haven't seen this film before. It's the second film I've watched from Don Cheadle's company, and the first of his as a leading man. After his role as the character, "Phil Donahue" in the "Napoleon Dynamite" TV series, I'm curious to see how he's going to do. I think it's his best film yet, and I was surprised by how well he acted in this film. I would recommend this film to everyone, especially if you like Don Cheadle's films.

Lawrence photo

This is an excellent documentary about the most controversial figure in American history, Ronald Reagan. The film follows a number of Reagan's advisers as they reflect on their time in office. The film gives a balanced view of what the President did and how it shaped America. It also gives the viewer insight into how Reagan transformed the nation, and how his policies were embraced by the public and the media. The film is well-produced and well-edited. It is a great documentary for all Reagan fans. It should be shown as often as possible.

George Graham photo
George Graham

First of all, if you have been following the news, this film is a must-see. Second, you have been given a clue of a missing film. The character portrayed is indeed "twisted" in that it is a strange family, with the exception of the mother, who is obviously not a very happy person. You have heard that the film's director is Sam Mendes. I believe he has directed many good films, but this one is a little different. The father is not dead, and the mother is actually really good. It is an interesting idea to present the father, because, in the film, he has his own issues, and you don't really know who he is. In addition, the father is a very good actor. He is not a great actor, but he is good. I think the father is really well cast, and he is actually more in touch with the "weirdness" of his family. This is actually not a typical Mendes film, but it is a good film. It is not going to make you feel like you are missing a good film, but it is a good film. If you have not seen it yet, see it now. You will not regret it.

Jose H. photo
Jose H.

I was very pleasantly surprised by this documentary. It is true that the economy of the state of Michigan is in a mess and Governor Snyder has done the best he can with the situation. The state has a staggering deficit and the growth in the state has been negative for over 30 years. The state has lost an average of $15,000 per person per year due to the recession and the largest city has been losing 10% of its population every year. It is also true that the state is losing money on every sport it participates in and the revenue coming in is not enough to cover the costs. The problem is that there is no balance in the budget and all the revenue from the state's TV contracts are spent. The state has not had enough revenue to meet the costs of their pensions, education and public safety and it is clear that the pension funds will not be covered by the pension funds. The truth is that the pensions will not be paid off unless the state is able to bring in another $300 million a year. The people of Michigan have become so frustrated that they have decided to call the Legislature and demand that they balance the budget by the time of the 2012 election. This is a real problem for the state and not just a political problem. The problem is that the General Assembly is not doing its job and the General Assembly is doing its job and that is to balance the budget. This is not the first time that this has happened. This year it is happening again and there is no way to stop it. The real solution to the problem is to make the people of Michigan realize that the citizens are the ones that pay the taxes. They are the ones who pay for the pensions and the services that go to those people. There is a lot of talk about how this budget will be the worst in the history of Michigan. It is going to be. If the Governor can just get the legislature to work together to come up with a balanced budget and not have to rely on Washington to come up with money he can spend on services and education that he needs, he can get back on track. And the people of Michigan are tired of politicians who are not doing their job and have no intention of doing their job. We know that if we put people into jobs that people will go out and start working and we can have a strong economy that is not just the nation's economy. The problem is that it is too late and we will be paying a lot of money for services that we will not receive. Governor Snyder has tried to make a good situation worse. He is not doing enough to help the people of Michigan. He has not met the needs of the people of Michigan and he has made the situation worse by not doing his job. It is

Larry M. photo
Larry M.

A film that is accessible to all and is a wonderful contribution to the careers of director Richard Benjamin and actor David Strathairn. It is a film that I can watch again and again. The characters are well developed, the dialogue is believable, and the acting is superb. The film has a wonderful story of how a man named Charles Fulford tried to turn his life around and failed. The film also has the opportunity to show how a talented man can lose everything, and still try to work hard and try to do the right thing. I can't recommend this film enough. It is one of the best films of the year.

Samantha Munoz photo
Samantha Munoz

This is a great documentary about the South African apartheid. The filmmaker is the young lawyer who was directly affected by the ban and he shows the harsh reality of the situation. He also shows the "legal" and "justice" system, and it's the worst. The documentary is very slow and very interesting. The director has a good point of view and he is very honest. He shows the lives of the people who were arrested, the "legal" and "justice" system, and it's the worst. The documentary is very funny and it's very interesting. I recommend it to anyone who wants to see the reality of the South African apartheid.

Jacob Ferguson photo
Jacob Ferguson

This is a good documentary. The purpose of this film is to show what a choice women have in their own lives. It is not a pro-abortion film. It's pro-choice, but not pro-abortion. The documentary is not about abortion or pro-abortion. It is about choosing to have children. It is a film about women who have children and want to have children. It's about choosing to have a child. If you are pro-abortion or pro-life, you will not like this film. But if you are pro-choice, you will like this film. It's a good film about choosing to have a child. If you are pro-choice, you will like this film. But if you are pro-abortion, you will not like this film.