A bank robbery ends up with casualties and the three robbers are out there as the evidence available isn't enough to pin them. A disgraced investigator is given an opportunity to solve this case while working with a prosecutor and he is one tough cop who goes by the book. On the other hand, the antagonist is the one who wants to stay out of prison no matter what. He is a by the book criminal who brings in the known tricks to escape. The cop has to nab this criminal in 15 days and what transpires in that period, forms the story.

This Polish investigative drama rather than a thriller sticks to it's template. I wouldn't call it a thriller as there is no suspense in who is the culprit and the steps he takes to save himself aren't surprising either. What does work though is the whole set up and the performances. There are no over the top action scenes, the writing does push towards the obvious and the backstory to the villain is not as effective. The serious cop played by Olaf Lubaszenko is the main highlight and he brings in the right amount of intensity in his performance. Two of the confrontational scenes between Olaf Lubaszenko and Jedrzej Hycnar who plays the antagonist were well executed. Overall, Justice is a one time watch at best and offers nothing new. It is the performances that drive the film.

It's a decent crime/thriller filmed in a minimalistic style, focusing on human emotions and expressions rather than on special effects and fast-paced action. If you like that type of movie, it's worthwhile to watch. The acting is excellent, especially the main cop. Tadeusz Gadacz is portrayed as a highly-skilled investigator with a murky past, and the plot weaves in political elements, such as the privatization of large banks, adding layers of tension. This movie truly shines if you are Polish, or maybe you understand Poland's political and social context in the 90s, where the film is set, and subtle jokes or references are made. That's how you'd make most of this movie, I'd say. Then it's 8/10 for sure.

The prologue explains that the movie is partially based on factual events, which show throughout the film.

... about an hour in, when the lead killer in a deadly bank heist contracts a crime boss to murder the lead cop. The crime boss tells the killer he'll leave the cop trussed up like Christmas goose but the killer must be the one to pull the trigger. And it's all going great, the killer finds the cop apparently bound and alone at a construction site. He whips out his piece and (after basically admitting he did the bank heist) pulls the trigger, only to realize his gun is empty and the cop is not actually restrained. It turns out the crime boss and cop are old pals and the whole thing was a set-up. The cop proceeds to throat-punch the killer and then walks away, telling the killer he'll definitely be caught for the heist sooner or later.

Ummm ... what? You've got the killer on attempted murder of a cop right now. That's a life sentence and it's leverage to get the killer to confess and rat out his accomplices. You're telling me that in the time it took to drive the cop to a construction site, set the scene, then alert the killer, give him an empty gun, etc., no one thought to hide a camera to catch the killer in the act of attempted murdering the cop and/or confessing to the heist? Or bug the place? Or hide junior lady cop in the shadows to be a corroborating witness?

This was otherwise well-acted, well-directed, and well-paced thriller but there's just no way to suspend disbelief enough to stay invested after that one bizarre (and totally unnecessary) plot point.