Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

zkonedog In what could only be interpreted in a cosmic sort of irony, I watched "Anatomy of a Murder" shortly after serving a stint of jury duty. Thus, I was in the right frame of mind for this kind of film. Unfortunately, it doesn't rise above being a strict courtroom drama.For a basic plot summary, this movie sees country lawyer Paul Biegler (James Stewart) defending soldier Frederick Manion (Ben Gazzara) for murdering a man who had supposedly raped his wife Laura Manion (Lee Remick). During the long trial, Biegler runs into hot-shot city lawyer Claude Dancer (George C. Scott), who engages him in a battle of wits right up to the very end of the case.If you view this movie strictly by what goes on inside the courtroom, you would probably have to give it a higher star rating. The sparring between Stewart/Scott is tremendous and produces the best scenes of the entire film. There is also a feeling a tension that the courtroom brings, as with each new witness comes a new wrinkle to the case.The trouble with "Anatomy of A Murder", though, is that the experience actually doesn't differ all that much from what I was supposed to do during my jury duty: disregard anything outside of the court proceedings. The film just fails to capture any other semblance of emotion outside the courtroom. Besides Stewart/Scott, the acting is quite pedestrian, and there are certain character arcs that seem interesting at first but (due to the 2:40 runtime) run out of gas by the conclusion. Even the case that is being debated should have had a bigger finale than it did (instead, it left me feeling a bit frustrated that "all that time" was spent for such a generic finale).Overall, I am surprised that "Anatomy of a Murder" gets such generally high marks. I supposed if one idolizes Jimmy Stewart or really, really is entranced by courtroom dramas it will be better, but I couldn't give it any more than the "okay" ranking. There just wasn't enough happening "outside the court" to sustain my whole interest.

elvircorhodzic ANATOMY OF A MURDER is a mystery courtroom drama, which, in one explicit manner, deals with issues of sex and rape. The film was based on the 1958 novel of the same name by Michigan Supreme Court Justice John D. Voelker.One former local prosecutor has taken a peculiar case. Specifically, an army lieutenant has confessed to killing his wife's rapist. The lieutenant, with the help of his new defense attorney, claims that he does not remember the murder. The main feature of the defendant is temporary mental incapacity. However, some visible facts are not on his side....The story is interesting and somewhat realistic. It was complemented with a sharp dialogue and explicit themes. Mr. Preminger has presented a dramatic, but a proper and comprehensive judicial process. He has pointed, through some notable scenes, the difference between law and justice. The protagonists are shifty characters in an uncertain courtroom drama. The conflict is reduced to a battle between prosecutors and defense counsel, through comic theatricality and mutual insinuations.James Stewart as Paul Biegler is a clever and resourceful lawyer. The protagonist who, with his petty bourgeois, regularly draws aces from the hole. Mr. Stewart has offered, as usual, very good performance. Lee Remick as Laura Manion is rather unconvincing as a faithful and flirty wife at the same time. The complexity is perhaps the biggest flaw of her character. However, I think that Mr. Preminger has wanted to provoke an ironic attitude towards her character by the audience. George C. Scott as Claude Dancer is a skilled and consistent prosecutor, who has become a sort of antagonist. Ben Gazzara as Lt. Frederick Manion is a cold and nervous defendant. Joseph N. Welch as Judge Weaver, despite his sporadic cynicism, is too stereotypical character.This is a bit tiring, but very interesting trial, which, through ironic and cynical attitudes, solves the mystery.

faterson Let's mention the few positives about the movie first. Duke Ellington's score is wonderful. The black-and-white cinematography by Sam Leavitt is mesmerizing. The director Preminger's steadfast refusal to use the trite narrative device of "flashbacks" is admirable. And the movie may have been bold in its treatment of certain topics, and even in its language, in its own era. Which by itself, however, does not make the movie any more enjoyable when viewed in 2016. To illustrate, that was a time when the word "panties" was considered dirty. Oh, my.Other than those considerations, the movie is a bloated dud, and excruciating to watch. I only managed to do it in three sittings, because it failed to hold my attention for even a few scenes. The movie is not just boring, but positively annoying to watch, and that's mainly due to uniformly bad performances by all actors. Whenever such is the case in a movie, it is, of course, the director that is to be blamed. And so, I'm afraid that Otto Preminger is the main culprit here.Sorry, but I expect characters in a movie to behave and talk like people in real life behave and talk. I just detest theatrical movies in which all the actors are telegraphing, with every word they utter, ànd with every gesture or facial expression they make, the following: "Hey, this is a movie! You're watching a movie! Now, look here, I'm gonna show you what an angry person looks like!" (Now think back of George C. Scott as the prosecutor.) "And now I'm gonna show you what a guy looks like who thinks a woman is attractive but can't really say so openly." (Think back of James Stewart and all his mannerisms when facing Lee Remick one-on-one.) "And now I'm gonna show you what a guy looks like when he makes a joke!" (Think back of the old judge.)Sorry, I'm not buying this type of movie-making. I don't wish to observe obvious theatrical puppets for almost 3 hours. No "this looks like X, Y, or Z" for me, please! I'd like to behold X, Y, and Z *directly* – not merely their theatrical representations. Give me the real thing, please. When I watch a movie, I'd like to believe that these are real persons and real-life situations I'm watching. But while watching _Anatomy of a Murder_, all I could see was an all-star ensemble putting on a show. Admittedly, realistic movies aren't the only type of movies that exists; but what's really objectionable is for a movie to *pretend* it's realistic when in reality, it's only theatrical.Don't get me wrong – I'm a big-time James Stewart fan and to me, no movie is finer than _Vertigo_ or _It's a Wonderful Life_, but I just couldn't stand Stewart here. He was *playacting* here throughout, and I didn't believe for a second that whom I was observing was some failed small-time lawyer enamoured of fishing.The movie also contains quite a few despicable elements, such as the old lawyer pal extolling the jury system as almost a godsent, supremely dignified institution (are you kidding me?!), or the defendant getting away with what looks like an obvious murder; the trial's verdict seems unjust or random. Now, taking into account how "jingoistic", "pro- army" public opinion in the US can often be, the assumption cannot be far that if the defendant were anyone other than a "war hero", the outcome of the trial might have been very different. Given that the movie is based on a book written by a defence attorney who liberated just such a defendant in a real-life trial, this leaves a really bad taste in the viewer's mouth. It seems as if the author was boasting of the outcome of the trial, when in reality, it's embarrassing. This movie struck me as a celebration of the woefully erratic judicial system, particularly when it's based on a 12-person jury of "common Joes and Janes" and on odd precedents dating back to previous centuries.

SnoopyStyle Paul Biegler (James Stewart) is a former district attorney who lost his re-election. He spends his days fishing and talking to his alcoholic friend Parnell McCarthy (Arthur O'Connell) and his secretary Maida Rutledge (Eve Arden). Army lieutenant Frederick Manion (Ben Gazzara) is arrested for the murder of bartender Barney Quill who supposedly raped his wife Laura (Lee Remick). Biegler leads him to claim insanity. Laura is flirty and Fred is jealous. Assistant DA Claude Dancer (George C. Scott) from the capital Lansing comes to co-chair the prosecution. James Stewart is impeccably solid. The acting is generally terrific. Ben Gazzara is filled with intensity and Lee Remick is acting through her sweater. The plot is a bit long-winded and it's a bit slower than the modern legal procedural. The movie has some of the minutia of court procedures. However this is still a great classic courtroom drama.