Do you think it deserves very high review?

Yes you are missing a great deal, and yes, the movie deserves the high rating. I agree with you that Citizen Kane, Third Man and North by Northwest are all awesome movies. Anatomy of a Murder is a movie about the subtle, things that make a great deal of difference in life, even though they go under the radar of most people. IMHO this is a reality show I find very gripping, where one's life can literally change forever based on something initially seemingly inconsequential. Jimmy Stewart does a great job of playing the financially and morally flexible lawyer who seemingly lands a good job of defending a man accused of murder of the man who his wife says raped her. As the case progresses we find many things are not what they initially seem to be, and the people are not what we initially judged them to be. All the world is indeed a stage, and we find that all are playing roles. So, who is really guilty, and who is innocent. And what really matters anyway? Like a street thug who can play the violin, the movie challenges us to question our conclusions, to open our minds. The music by Ellington, who makes a cameo as "Pie Eye," is perfect with bebop jazz playing discordantly, and sometimes in your face, yetcompelling. stranglely compelling. Making it in black and white was inspired, as it shows us all the shades of grey of life better than any other movie I can think of. Real art is a slice of life, and this is a tasty morsel!

Just watched it from Netflix. I enjoy classic courtroom/legal dramas: 12 Angry Men, Inherit the Wind, To Kill a Mockingbird etc. I agree with the OP--I have no idea why this is considered such a classic. It drags on and on (one other poster said "pokey", that's a good word). It could have shortened it by almost an hour and not lost any plot points. Very little in the way of memorable drama or dialogue. If not for the groundbreaking subject matter, I doubt it would have the rating that it does.

Dragging the thread back from the dead, I agree that this doesn't rise to any kind of great movie. The direction is uninteresting, the photography is bland, the dialog is unremarkable, the supporting performances are weak or worse, and the attempts at humor make me feel sorry for the actors.

Add to that, the only two characters that are even remotely engaging are played by Stewart and Remick. Although Scott's always fun to watch, the rest of the characters are underdeveloped. Halfway through, I forgot Parnell was even in the movie until he crashed his car. Eve Arden got fifth billing and she was barely more than a prop. And even with Stewart and Remick, it's their own natural appeal that's engaging, not the characters.

Despite breaking new ground in subject matter, it has dated badly in a way Citizen Kane, Casablanca or Psycho or other true classics have not. In fact, the ground-breaking subject matter just contrasts how outdated it is as a work of film. It's like how Logan's Run feels so much older than Star Wars and Close Encounters.

It's a mostly well-constructed, enjoyable movie, but there's no real style or art to it. Good movie, not Great.

Yes, this movie is very interesting and great fun.

Yes, you are missing a lot.

I think that North by Northwest is a boring, silly chase film. If the leading man was anyone other than Cary Grant I would find it unwatchable. Cary Grant's screen presence makes it difficult not to watch to see what happens next, even when I know what happens next because I've seen it before.

The first time I watched this I found it very realistic and Jimmy Stewart's character frustrating. "How could he do that?" I would ask myself. As I've gotten older and the realism of the movie became more and more plain to me, the more fascinating I found it. To see that a great director was seeing the reality of human beings way back in "Leave it to Beaver" days and made a movie that way. Yet we still BS ourselves routinely.

I found it to be an average or slightly better than average film but I had the advantage of not seeing it in 1959.

This is an excellent film. Perhaps I am biased because I am a lawyer, but what I loved most about it was how accurate its portrayal of law was at the time (and in many ways it is still like that). The courtroom scenes are more realistic than the law-based movies I see today.

Nope, this movie is truly bad, although not quite as bad as Citizen Kane.

There is more to a film than just "surprise" or "mystery". Here is why this is a great film:

- Perfect screenplay (with exception that I would add a few more seconds and perhaps a sentence or two at the end)

- Wonderful dialogues, especially for such an old film. I would put it right up there with Pulp Fiction: "OK, skirmish over..." or the whole bit about "undergarment"

- Perfect performances all around, especially George C. Scott and James Stewart

- Excellent pace, great rhythm

- Above all, the film is not trying to seduce us with a plot or mystery but is showing the complexities of truth, justice, all of that interspersed with private lives of protagonists, especially the defense team.

You get to feel the same way as James Stewart: you want to win this case, no matter what. You want to win it even more when George C. Scot shows up. And you also understand that he wants to win it too. For the first time I felt how easy it is to forget what is right and what is wrong, because your ego gets in the way...

In a word - brilliant.