Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

ThrillMessage There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

TheLittleSongbird The book is marvellous and the 1963 Orson Welles film is every bit as good, even if less faithful than this version from 1993. 'The Trial' does follow the book closely in detail, but what makes the book and the previous film so powerful is lost in translation in an adaptation that is perhaps somewhat too faithful.By all means, 'The Trial' is not irredeemable. It looks great, being very beautifully photographed and with settings that are both attractive and atmospheric. It's sensitively scored too, without being too intrusive or low-key. There are also a few good performances, Anthony Hopkins steals the film (even if his screen time is rather brief), Juliet Stevenson is wonderfully authoritative and Jason Robards gives energy.However, Kyle MacLachlan is very bland, the character is not very interesting here but MacLachlan is lacking in screen presence and charisma. The rest of the cast don't stand out.Other big problems are some really leaden pacing that fails to give the film much life and a story that never ignites fire, lacking the crucial darkness, emotional power (emotionally 'The Trial' is incredibly distant) and is too academic, disjointed and not always having cohesion. The script is also dull, awkward and heavy handed. The direction is too staid.In conclusion while following the book closely it's a case that's not really a good thing and it just feels bland. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Nakul Dev This is by far the most wired,bizarre and strange movie I have ever seen, during the movie I convinced that it was some sort of dream sequence and the protagonist will wake up at some point and unlike the most of the viewers I haven't read the novel it is based on,so to me whole movie seemed illogical,like a dream where some bits and pieces make some sense but otherwise its just jumbled and random, I even thought that it might turn out to be a psychological thriller and towards the end I'll see the main character sitting in a mental asylum,the film would've made much more sense then,at least to me, I watched the movie because of Anthony Hopkins as I am a big fan of his but I was sad to see him only towards the end of the movie and that too only for 5-6 minutes,to me this whole movie seemed metaphorical,as if its meant to show the confusion one goes through after getting entangled with legal matters or the corruption which runs rampant in the bureaucracy,anyways before watching the movie I thought that Anthony Hopkins must have been playing the role of an Advocate who is defending a man who has been charged with a crime but he have not been told what his crime is and,boy was i wrong.

Per_Klingberg When a novel is to be translated to the silver screen, the director will immediately face a dilemma. How will he approach the translation? Will he try to be as faithful to the original piece of work as possible, avoid to give his own interpretation of the novel, not risking the wrath of devoted readers?Or will he try to see to what he believes to be the true spirit of the work, and express it in a new way? After all, books and films are different medias and thinking of how much is lost without the author's special language and distinct style - for an example -, shouldn't a director try to make up for that loss by adding something unique for film?I would go for the latter. Otherwise your filmversion of an essential piece of literary work will be just that: a version of an essential book, not an essential film in itself.Of course this can cause a lot of controversy, and there's no doubt that some directors have managed to completely ruin an excellent book when trying to make 'their own' version of it. BUT, look for an example at 'A Clockwork Orange'. Burgess intricate play with language and manipulation of the reader - slowly taking him into Alex's world and way of thinking - simply will not be translated into film. So instead Kubrick used the unique opportunities of film and managed to combine the use of audio and vision to stunning effects. Kubrick managed to make something own out of it, no question about it.And that's what I feel is missing in 'The Trial'. Yes, it is a perfectly well-done job. I couldn't think of a more suitable actor for Josef K than Kyle 'Agent Dale Cooper' MacLachlan: that's EXACTLY the way I envisioned him when reading the novel! Also the settings in Prague provides the movie with beautiful and suitable backgrounds. Though some scenes, for lengths sake, has been cut short it also stays true to the events in the novel and manages to catch some of the atmosphere in the novel. The movie is carried through very competent, the actors are talented and there's a a nice 'Godfather'-esque grainish color on top of it all. No, this isn't a bad movie. On the contrary!But why shouldn't I rather read on the novel myself? Because what is really comes down to is this: if a translation from one media to another is to be successful, it can never be just a translation. It has to stand on it's own legs.And that's where this film fails. We aren't offered any new perspectives or different ideas on Josef K and his torments. Quite simply, it's an enjoyable watch but probably holds appeal mostly to those who don't have the time or interest to read the novel instead. 6/10

caelx Filmed in Prague, this film has some of the best Old World urban scenery ever put on film. "Amadeus" came to mind.The screenplay follows Kafka's novel well in text and feel. Well enough, if fact, that reading the novel will offer little more than this film's relating of the story of Joseph K. and his trial. And that is the best that a film version of a novel can possibly hope for.