I don't think this movie is very interesting. There is no surprise and mystery in it. I don't understand why it gets high review. Don't get it wrong, I do like old movies and I am a fan of James Stewart. Citizen Kane, The Third Man and North by North West are awesome but not this movie. Am I missing something?
shareAnatomy of a Murder is not simply the story of the murder and trial, it's the story of the professional and personal redemption of former DA Biegler (Stewart) and boozy McCarthy (Arthur O'Connell). It's the layers of story and character, and the rich location and courtroom atmosphere, that make this one of the top-notch dramas of the 1950s, and an engrossing film to this day. The film deserves all its accolades.
"Fortunately, I keep my feathers numbered for just such an emergency."
It's pokey and dated. What may have seemed grounbreaking then is now standard fodder. The local color and folksy humor remind me of TV's Murder, She Wrote. Even in it's time it was overrated: it was nominated for Best Picture in 1959, but North, By Northwest and Some Like It Hot weren't!
shareThe movie's strange in that it casts likeable everyman Jimmy Stewart in a role that's essential immoral or selectively so, rape's wrong but murder is excusable. It builds up a likeable rapport between himself, the drunk and the secretary but he's essentially egocentric and well, evil. The army guy is regularly shown as aggressive and jealous, Stewart knows this and tests it but still initiates the fabrication of temporary insanity which leads to the guy roaming the world as a free (and dangerous) man. It's an alarm bell on the justice system being centred on personality and the gullibility of the American jury and attempts the same trick with the audience in casting affable Jimmy Stewart. There's a lot going on in this movie, the themes are fairly timeless, so yeah it's worth the rating. A fairly similar movie but played by a very smug legal team is Reversal of Fortune with Jeremy Irons.
shareI think the movie does not surprise at all. It's too predicatble. And apart from discussing interesting themes, it's not done in an interesting way. Not to say, that characters' behavior and many of their actions are not well motivated.
It's not a bad movie but I also think it's a bit overrated.
____________
www.reviewmaze.com
As an attorney (albeit one who rarely sees a courtroom), I found the back and forth between the prosecution and defense to be about as realitic as any I've ever seen from Hollywood. I thought it was well cast (Remick was outstanding) and well acted. This movie would easily keep the attention of a mature, marginally gifted viewer all the way to the end. I rated it 9 out of 10 and it's only the 3rd movie on IMDB for which I have done so. So, yes, I definitely do think it deserves the composite rating it has earned here.
Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?
I understand the impact it had at the time which probably bumps the rating up a bit. I found it interesting but not riveting and it started to lose me as it ran on a little too long. There's no great reveal or one scene that stands out to me like some other great courtroom dramas like To Kill a Mockingbird or The Rainmaker or A Few Good Men. I rated it a 7.
shareYes, I think it deserves its high review, for all the reasons mentioned repeatedly above.
HOWEVER,
I also think that this is one of those really well-done movies that is not as entertaining as people expect or want it to be.
I have found in a lot of cases, that the movies I enjoy watching time and again...may not be the most highly crafted. I mean, Citizen Kane is very highly acclaimed, one of the best movies of all time, etc....but if I had to chose one film to take with me to a deserted island...that wouldn't be it. I think Anatomy is one of those movies. It's not a film you want to watch 100 times.
Also, it's very slowly paced and the people who you are rooting for (James Stewart and co.) don't really turn out to be the "good guys." It's a very morally ambiguous film...and I think with courtroom drama/trial films, people automatically prefer "black and white" situations, where there is an obvious good vs. bad. People want to leave the film feeling satisfied that justice was done...or if not, that we at least fully realize that it wasn't done. Anatomy's ending is just as ambiguous as the player's morals.
But, it is a very very realistic film. Most trials are not exciting...if you want John Grisham, you'll be disappointed.
So, totally not my favorite Stewart film...b/c its not as entertaining as say, Rear Window or Harvey or many others...but still a very fine, well-done movie.
On a side note:
One of my alltime favorite movies is Witness for the Prosecution, with Tyrone Power, Charles Laughton and Marlene Dietrich. It's definitely not as realistic but it's extremely entertaining, humorous and has a twist at the end. If you're looking for something more entertaining (but still well-done) I recommend that.
Sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here.
Different strokes for different folks. I could probably watch this movie a million times. Every time I might pick up on something that escaped me or that I've forgotten since the last time; like, this most recent time, the way Stewart keeps prodding Gazarra in his cell until he comes up with the idea of insanity.
shareGrolaw made excellent points, but somehow I found the film less than the sum of its parts. I like most of the actors, but it just didn't hold my interest. It was not the film's quietness; I don't require any special effects to hold my attention and generally prefer their not being used. I'm not sure what the problem was. I'm going to hunt for more of Lee Remick's films, though. She was terrific in this. Just imagine originally-cast Lana Turner emoting in her designer duds--ugh!!
shareI believe there is no better courtroom scenes in a movie, even if Witness for the Prosecution is the best movie based upon a trial.
share
Sorry to jump in so late but it is one of my favorites. Read through the posts and lots of good points made but there are two things that should be added. Number one would be that this was a movie that introduced a bit a naturalism into the presentation/acting process. Kind of tough to articulate but it came out a more "normal" than alot of movies that covered this area before.
There was alot of movement to "the method" in acting but this one took a middle road that strikes the viewere as "real" in ways other movies didn't.
and the second point would be Duke Ellington!
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?1=10126182
"Am I missing something?"
Yeah, about 160 minutes of film. The movie IS spectacular!! One of the best courtroom dramas of ALL time!!
"You can't HANDLE the truth!" Jack Nicholson, "A Few Good Men."