the ending ? (did anyone want a twist?)

The lacking of a twist was the big twist in my viewing experience. I loved the way it is left ambiguous what really happened. Pay close attention to the very ominous ending. The remark of the deputy that "she was crying", the bottle of gin. After the seemingly happy resolution it goes back to the image of the cut up body from the titles. And on the soundtrack the high pitched shriek of the trumped keeps ringing like doubt in the back of your head. I think the ending is amazing!

I agree I thought there should have been a twist. When Jimmy Stewart was on his way to collect his payment from the Manions I thought Lee Remick would be found battered and bruised, kind of verifying what the felon in court had said, that Manion said to him that after the trial he was going to beat his wife up. This would sort of show that Manion WAS guilty. This is a long though well-made film, and I felt the ending was sort of abrupt and should have been more challenging.

I was also expecting something more from the ending. When it didn't come, I realized the entire movie was a disappointment. I kept waiting for it to get meaty, but it never happened. A chapter in the life of a humble country lawyer, ho hum.
When you compare it two years earlier to Witness for the Prosecution, you see how flat it falls.
Like a joke, poem, book, or movie - we need an impact at the end.
Also, we never really got to know the characters, just their facade, except Manion, we know what Manion was about.

that's exactly what I was hoping for. when I read the plot synopsis on netflix, it was there would be more to the case than meets the eye, but nothing exciting happened. I was rather disappointed with the ending, considering the film is 2 hours and 40 minutes long. all that build up for nothing.

"You can't break something that's already broken."
--Dr. Becker, The Jacket

It's interesting how people think this lack of plot twists lessens the movie, when it is exactly what makes it the best courtroom film I've ever seen.

We have become too accostumed to the "John Grisham plot twist" at the end of EVERY court film. In fact, I think most major court films that came out in the last couple of decades where adapted from or at least very influenced by the works of John Grisham; and while that really works as a way to build a good thriller, it does not work as a way to build a good portraial of the justice system and the work of an attorney.

The reason why this film is so good is exactly that it gives no satisfying answers. We never see a flashback to the actual murder. All we have is hearsay from the people who, in one way or another, were affected by the crime. From there, we are to build our own view of what happened, without ever receiving confirmation that we are 100% correct. That is exactly how the justice system works, and this is the only accurate portrayal of it I've ever seen in movies (in fact, if anybody could recommend something similar to me, I'd be very thankful).

There is no black-and-white in this. We sort of root for James Stewart because, well, he's James Stewart, and we're always supposed to root for him, right? Except not really. He's not the sort of "paladin lawyer working against the cruel system to bring justice" that we are so used to see as the protagonist in courtroom films; he's just a lawyer doing his job, and being damn good at it.

WTF!!!

There is NO TWIST?! When I read that some psychologist are convinced that the average IQ in America is dropping at an alarming rate I was convinced they were looking at the wrong people. Well, you have convinced me.

The client was guilty as hell and played the system. The lawyer suspected it early on, but made it clear that he did not want to know the facts. If the lawyer asks the client and the client admits it, he must defend the client accordingly. The less the lawyer knows about the truth from the point of view of the client the more freedom he has to develop a defense.

This was not a "who dunnit" mystery a la Perry Mason. And it was not a "suspect fools the defense lawyer (barrister), too," a la "Witness for the Prosecution." This was a legal procedural, like "Law and Order," but from the position of the defense and probably a lot more honest.

The twist was there and explained in the dialogue. Clearly the film makers of the 1950's did not realize how dense people would become in the 21st century. Maybe, now you will tell me that you are also baby boomers. If that is the case, then you have no excuse at all.

I half expected them to find out that Alphonse Paquette actually murdered Barney Quill to get closer to his daughter.

I don't want twist. It's not that kind of courtroom drama. It's suppose to be more realistic. I think this is great movie. The ending is perfect.