Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

whitesheik One word sums it up - terrible. I don't know what's more shocking - the silly "reviewers" here who have never seen or read any iteration of Witness for the Prosecution, i.e. the people who like this monstrosity because they have no history and don't even know what the story, play, or subsequent film versions were about, or the fact that legitimate British reviewers heaped praise on this thing.So, let's just start at the beginning. You want to have the chutzpah to call something Agatha Christie's The Witness for the Prosecution, then don't make up the majority of the movie so that it has nothing to do with Agatha Christie. Sarah Phelps, shame on you - Ms. Christie doesn't need your dreary help and you can't even walk in her footsteps let alone her shoes. The teleplay is dreadful - all the additions are moronic. You know, I have no problem with this soap opera story but don't call it Agatha Christie or The Witness for the Prosecution just because you keep Ms. Christie's central plot element. This isn't going back to the short story, this is a whole NEW story and it's not a good story at that. The only thing that works is the twenty minutes or so of the trial. It just goes on and on, one dreadfully dull scene after another, filled with whispery acting and the awful coughing of Toby Jones (bronchitis we finally learn) - I don't blame him for coughing, mind you, given the amount of smoke they're pumping into every single shot and scene. It's not the 90s anymore, kids. And yes, the green - it's like watching Saw or something. Agatha Christie didn't write horror stories, you know. It's so dark and ugly and ineptly directed. Kim Cattrall is embarrassing in this as is her character, which has little to do with Ms. Christie's Emily French. The big finish doesn't happen where it should, the courtroom, because once the verdict happens the film goes on and on for yet another thirty minutes. The big finish occurs in France and then after that the film goes on and on for another fifteen minutes because this movie isn't about Leonard Vole or Emily French or Romaine Vole, it's about John Mayhew - sorry, does not compute, I don't care about the character and all his and his wife's angst - this is not Agatha Christie, this is Days of our Lives. I got the Blu-ray of this because of the reviews - fool me once, but never again.

William Porter Here's a little test that will help you decide whether to watch this flick or not.Say you're a screenwriter. One night you lie awake in bed thinking about the classic film 'Witness for the Prosecution' with the plot by Agatha Christie, starring Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich, Tyrone Power, Elsa Lanchester and John Williams — and of course directed by Billy Wilder. You are thinking something was missing from that film, but you can't figure out what it was. Then it hits you: SEX. And not just sex, but sex and degradation. That's the ticket! A remake with more sex and degradation. That's what the world needs now. So the next day you wake up and you make this film. Was this a good idea, or a bad idea?If the correct answer is not obvious to you, there's a chance that you'll enjoy this movie.

s_imdb-623 In many parts it is 9/10, but in others 2/10.I haven't read the book and, though I'm sure I have, I don't remember seeing other versions. Firstly and primarily this very very slow and plodding. The story is there, watchable and interesting but the scenes are so overly stretched out that they've gone beyond art and into boredom. So, if you like slow moving stories steeped with brilliantly astute and deep vignettes on life, garnished with an excellent but dark period drama, you will love this.The acting is generally very good as is the period feel. The cold reality of life, especially due to the war, imparts the darkness. The twists and turns of the plot are very good, except the final twist of the crime story, which leaves you feeling the whole rest of the story was just 'camera tricks' (as in magic shows) to mislead us. It felt like a big con. The whodunnit part is maintained well throughout.The poignant imprints of war on life are genius, especially the generational statement at the end, but the time spent on them turns parts of this more into an Alan Bennett play than a crime thriller.

tr91 I haven't read the original from Agatha Christie, nor have I seen any other adaptations there might have been before this so I had no idea how the story was going to play out. Following the success last year of And Then There Were None, I was very much looking forward to this years BBC adaptation. I find that when shows like this are shown over consecutive nights rather than weeks, it's much easier to follow. It's easier to get more involved in the world on screen whereas sometimes when a show is weekly you may forget key parts (especially, if like me you watch a large variety of different things). I had read a few reviews and comments from various sources of social media and there seems to be a lot of complaints about the sex scene and also the green mist, with people claiming they struggled to see what was going on. I personally found the picture to be perfect and the green mist gave the show a real gloomy atmosphere. The story was intriguing with plenty of twists and turns over the two episodes. The acting from all the cast was very strong also, Andrea Riseborough in particular was impressive yet again. The 1st episode was excellent and really set up the 2nd episode nicely. It kept me guessing all the way through. There was a slight lull in the 2nd episode but towards the end when the main reveal happened I was left satisfied with how it all turned out. Overall a strong mini series that is well worth catching up on if you missed it. Highly recommend and I'm hoping that there is more of this type of drama to come in the near future.