Anatomy of a Murder (1959)

Undescribable Perfection

Absolutely the worst movie.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

I have been duped into watching this twice, having forgotten its plot from the first viewing, seeing the incredibly high rating on IMDB and viewing it again. Even during my second viewing, before recollection hit, I expected something genius, satisfying and powerful like Witness for the Prosecution. What I got was of course a drama too ambitious for its current capabilities that feels sometimes cheap and sometimes offensive.It should not be too much to expect a courtroom drama to be able to put together a coherent opening and closing statement. However, neither the defense or the prosecution are able to summarize their arguments in the beginning or the end. The beginning is especially important, as it leaves us guessing as to why the prosecution is hellbent on hiding the rape, and leads to more than one loud outbursts from James Stewart. At some point you think it is all done to build up to some great reveal or genuis law trick but its not. It just sort of fizzles every now then in a row between the benches. Coherence is really the main flaw of this not-so-little drama. It is never certain if the point of contention is whether the rape really happened or whether they seriously want to consider if Remick was too drunk and sleazy to even be 'rapeable'. This is now offensive territory. It was sort of unnerving watching a whole room of ADULT men and women snickering when the judge refers to the 'panties' of the raped woman, and the judge chastisizing them because the panties are connected to the fate of two MEN. Not unlike this scene, the whole movie lacks a noble ambition, a moral highground, a sense of comfort if not in the system then in the judgement of the protagonist. James Stewart's role in this movie of an attorney who quite blatantly doesn't care about setting a guilty man free feels like a betrayal of sorts. And this is not in appearance an artsy film that is meant to convey cynicism or bare-bones chaos. It is shot as a well put together, serious drama that has a brilliant story to tell. The story is not so brilliant however. The same dead horse is beaten for a good 160 minutes. Gazzara is vaguely a violent man. Remick is definitely a tempting woman. The victim's honor has to be defended fiercely by the prosecution for some reason, and they fail to see that he was the other half of that bingo date. At some point it feels like they could not possibly be going on about if for so long without making a point about the injustice of justifying rape, but no, the raped wife says she will be happy to have her arse kicked to kingdom come by her husband once he gets off. I mean why make me sit through scene after scene of undermining Remick for that line? Maybe housewives in the 50's loved every minute of the then saucy drama, but I would rather sit through almost three hours of an actual class on anatomy. It would both be more enjoyable and useful.Some antiquated films are still indispensible cinema to this day. Others are just mediocre. All that's black and white isn't gold.

Fascinating true story that you are introduced to that easily become one of the top five movie court scenes for entertainment and enjoyment. Good acting and directing plus memorable scenes all contribute to convince us that not everything we see and hear is true unless we experienced it for ourselves. That is what courtroom drama is all about. A story told in legal terms that can be slanted either way leaving one hesitant and doubtful as to what really happened. This be the case here and it is done well. I must say I enjoyed the Judge who rules with mastery while keeping his calm and profession at its highest. Good role model for judges to be sure. Jimmy Stewart goes all out for his client while the prosecution could use a refresher course but does keep up and do some damage. Enjoy the characters, the story, the drama and suspense and heads-up on this subject of underwear. It comes up in detail and was considered controversial for its time. Boy have we come a long way (worse). Enjoy all the personalities as you discover the....

Greetings from Lithuania."Anatomy of a Murder" (1959) is the reason why i love great court room dramas and great movies in a first place. It is amazingly written, directed and acted movie. Script is a first rate as well directing - at running time 2 h 40 min this movie does not drag for s second and is highly involving from start till finish. James Stewart and George C. Scott shine in this movie about a Lt. Frederick Manion - a decorated war hero who shoots a man who raped his wife. There are multiple people who saw it, so his guilt in unquestionable. But maybe it is possible that he did it and still can avoid punishment? It is all in the hands of James Stewart's hands. Overall, "Anatomy of a Murder" is true gem for those who love court room movies (i love them). It is suspenseful and highly interestingly told story. Can't as for movie, truly a great movie.

One night in 1959, Laura Manion (Lee Remick) returns home and tells her husband that she's been raped. Enraged, he husband grabs a gun and kills the man she accused of the crime. When arrested, Frederick Manion (Ben Gazzara) claims that he didn't remember any of it, but nobody really believes his story. His wife turns to a relatively unknown country lawyer for help, and after meeting with the Manion's, Paul Biegler (Jimmy Stewart) agrees to take the case. It's never clear whether or not even he believes his client's story, but either way, Biegler is determined to get the man exonerated. Many law professors consider this film to be the most accurate depiction of a trial ever fictionalized on film. Likewise, the Academy was also very impressed, giving Anatomy of A Murder seven Oscar nominations, but does the film really stand the test of time? For 1959, the Manion's were as promiscuous and dysfunctional a couple as could be on film, however in 2015, they are rather tame. That's not the only thing that gets lost in time, as the laws surrounding the insanity defense have also changed, making the whole premise around this trial more than somewhat outdated. This film simply doesn't have the impact in 2015, that it did in 1959, but that doesn't mean it's not entertaining. Jimmy Stewart stars as Defense Attorney, Paul Biegler, who unfortunately isn't the most interesting man in the world. He's a very bland character, without much depth, but he is an intelligent lawyer, who finds every trick and loophole in the book to defend his client. Jimmy Stewart was a tall lanky man with a strange voice, who I thought was a natural when it came to physical comedy, but Stewart preferred to play a more intelligent character, especially later in his career, and Paul Biegler is a textbook example of that. Anatomy of A Murder is on almost every top 100 list you can find, and in it's time it absolutely belonged there, but by 2015 standards, it's very long, tame, and outdated, despite the excellent story and depiction of a courtroom.