dgz78 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.

Ric-7 It was too long, and Anthony Hopkins telegraphed the fact that he had something to hide from the very beginning.I read the book before I saw the miniseries when both were new. I again watched the miniseries, and though my memory of the book has faded, it could only be much better than what made it to television. Maybe my familiarity with the book helped fill in the gaps when I first watched the series.It would have been very interesting to explore Kelno's motivations--a need to atone? A death wish? Did he really hate Jews, as opposed to simply being a coward who collaborated? Anthony Hopkins certainly conveyed a troubled individual. It would have been interesting to find out why.And Cady--he was a total louse in the first half, and then was suddenly redeemed and transformed by his father's death. Not believable. And wasn't that Juliet Mills as the first Mrs Cady? A totally wasted part.I don't regret watching it again. A seventies miniseries was not usually created or edited to be compelling and concise, but to furnish enough material to surround a sufficient number of commercials.

canuckteach This was a land-breaking mini-series -- fine actors, quality cinematography, and superb production values. Anthony Quayle, Ben Gazzara, Jack Hawkins, Lee Remick and Anthony Hopkins are outstanding. TV was challenging the Hollywood film industry at the time in producing serious extended drama, and this time they scored. Note that some real survivors of the Holocaust (the actual atrocities of the real-life doctor on which the story is based) appeared in minor parts. Jack Hawkins had undergone surgery on his throat, and played his role struggling with a disability. Also, some extended courtroom dialog was shot in one take, since the actors (most notably Anthony Quayle) were so pumped about the roles they were playing.Many may have forgotten this outstanding (early) performance (as the hapless Adam Kelno) by Anthony Hopkins (who just doesn't seem to age!), who also appeared in a fine mini-series in this era about the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. Hopkins played Bruno Hauptmann, the man who was convicted for the kidnapping and murder.

MartinHafer This was a fascinating mini-series based on the Leon Uris novel of the same name, and it helped to launch the mini-series genre. It is VERY fortunate that the producers were able to get such gifted stars as Ben Gazzara and Anthony Hopkins for the leads. Writing, acting, music and exotic locales make this a must-see.The plot is based on a real-life lawsuit against Uris following the publication of his novel EXODUS. Dr. Adam Kelno is a very well-respected medical doctor who was knighted for his humanitarian work. However, the writer Abe Cady writes a novel that names Kelno, among others, as having committed was crimes while working for the Nazis many years earlier. The central questions of the series are DID Kelno work for the Nazis and IF he did, was he the benevolent man he claims to have been or a monster who was NOT forced to commit atrocities.