C'mon, people. Are you really having trouble determining whether this is a comedy or not? From beginning to end, it's filled with hysterical and whimsical (if sometimes troubling) situations, wickedly funny bits of dialogue, and sight gags. There are way too many to mention here, but the highlights would include the trial of the foul-mouthed gentleman, the helicopter ride, the defendant eating the lottery tickets, Arthur and Gail's Chinese dinner, the ethics committee hearing, Carl and the prostitute and, of course, the "opening statement" in the courtroom. An important subplot runs through all this -- Arthur trying to hold his sanity and legal practice together, while sparking up his love live -- along with some of the tragedy he witnesses. He is, after all, a budget-priced criminal defense lawyer in a large Eastern city, so I wouldn't expect everything to be pretty and tidy, even in a comedy. Contrary to some of the comments below, this movie is highly pedigreed. Thought the script was weak? Barry Levinson co-wrote it. And what's all this bellyaching about the music? This movie was released during the disco craze and the score was performed by a jailhouse ensemble. What did you expect the music to sound like, Tangerine Dream? Porter Wagoner? Beethoven? It was written by Dave Grusin, who has been nominated for seven Oscars (he won in 1988 for "The Milagro Beanfield War") and also has collected seven Grammys over the years. Of course, it was directed by Norman Jewison, who has shown good, if occasional, aptitude for comedy ("The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming," "Moonstruck," "Other People's Money"). Also, if you look at Pacino's performance with a critical eye, you may decide it was one of the best of his career -- especially compared with some of the more contrived (if popular) portrayals subsequent to this movie ("Scarface," "Scent of a Woman"). Try to remember the context in which a movie was released while watching with that critical eye and it's generally apparent if it stands the test of time. I'd say this one does -- beautifully.

Attempts to alternate between comedy and drama, handling neither one incompetently, but also not excelling at either task.

An ethical Baltimore defense lawyer (Al Pacino) disgusted with rampant legal corruption is asked to defend a judge he despises (John Forsythe) in a rape trial. But if he does not do it, the judge will have him disbarred.

Roger Ebert says of this film that "it's not a statement, it's an anthology." And that is absolutely right. The plot above, and a similar plot on the back of the movie's case, only cover about one quarter of what goes on in this film. We have a crazy attorney, a prison riot, a suicidal judge (played expertly by Jack Warden)... the rape trial actually turns out to be such a small part.

But that is a good thing, because we get to see Al Pacino being a little bit excited in a variety of different circumstances. And the tone is incredible -- some parts are deadly serious (rape, murder and suicide have to be to some degree) while much of the movie is a very, very dark comedy. And it is incredible.