Very poor direction

[deleted]

That's nice to know, but it doesn't change my opinion of the film. It's still overly-long, too much time is spent on local color and the jazz score is inappropriate. Many films are "based" on truth or actual events, but that doesn't necesarily give them any more credibility or make for a a better film. Having someone play themselves can seem more like a stunt than an artistic necesity

Fascinating, how many people don't get this movie.

No one mentioned those "points" because they have nothing to do with "bad direction."

The story is the story. Nothing to do with the director. The girl is a victim but also a tease and a drunk. If she wasn't a tease then there would be no exploration of whether she "asked for it"...which was a major point in the courtroom scene. You are not supposed to love her...the film goes out of its way to create sympathy for her, then she shows up drunk at the end and tries to give Stewart her girdle. She has learned nothing for the experience...she;ll probably end up in a similar situation in the next town she moves to.

Stewart is a smart man but also an underachiever who let his career slide, and his home and bank account reflect this. He buys an outboard motor rather than paying his secretary. He manipulates the court with the dog episode and his country lawyer aw-shucks b.s. Yet Stewart is such a good actor he creates great sympathy for the guy.

A judge can't be eccentric? Why? (I imagine you must HATE Charles Dickens, where everyone is an eccentric).

O'Connell's character drove without a license...because he drove without a license. The guy is an alcoholic....why would he let the lack of a license stop him? That is sort of the point, isn't it? That he is both very smart and totally irresponsible? Whats interesting about a dull, sober, responsible character going to gather evidence?

The "comedy" was dark humor. That's life. There is often levity even in serious situations. Really smart films often make you laugh in spite of gruesome subject matter (watch almost every Hitchcock movie...)

People are flawed. Rooms are dirty. Motivations sometimes make no sense. Characters do things that irritate the audience. This is called realism. Life is not tidy. It has loose ends.

The theory that all of this was somehow just sloppy, haphazard filmmaking is just...bizarre.

You have to understand certain audiences today don't have the power of very deep thought, understand dark humor, or appreciate realism in film. They've been raised on formulaic tripe like the vastly overrated courtroom drama "A Few Good Men," that is nothing more than dumb one-liners and Jack Nicholson chewing up the scenery in his usual mugging fashion, and Tom Cruise, who can't act at all. Anatomy of a Murder is so far ahead of any of these recent attempts to re-do it, and very few directors today can equal Otto. Possibly the Cohen Brothers and one or two either. The state of literature is even worse. It is the outcome of a total mass consumerism that has reduced people to their component parts. Even though it is the 21st century, we've never been dumber.