why the movie rated so high? - Anatomy of a Murder (1959) Discussion

[–] pvilleguy 18 years ago

Because a pretty substantial majority of the 5,337 who have voted evidently thought it was better than you did.

reply

[–] lasttimeisaw 18 years ago

yes, that's obvious, but you didn't answer my question, i think you cannot actually.

i just curious why they rate the film so high? excellent performance, but too overrated.

tons of better movie there with a lower rate.

reply

[–] crash_into_me420 18 years ago

i agree. this is one over-rated movie. The sight of Lee Remick is reason enough to watch it, along with a few other notable elements, but I mean really... come on... Top 250 treatment this film does not deserve. The film has perhaps the most anti-climactic ending ever. It felt almost cobbled together to me. Definitely over-rated

reply

[–] pvilleguy 18 years ago

How could anyone be expected to explain why other people do something? To me the question is just a glib, rhetorical question, hence the glib answer. You would have to actually seek out someone who gave it a 9 or 10 rating and ask them why. Seems to me perfectly obvious that it's a matter of taste.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ChuckHestonFan 11 years ago

This is the best courtroom drama I've ever seen. James Stewart was brilliant in it. Overrated? No way.

Join the Charlton Heston forum: http://charltonhestonforums.freeforums.org/index.php

reply

[–] RobboNL 18 years ago

I agree. My opinion is that Top 250 movies should be timeless.

This movie was probably very good at it´s day. It probably set a benchmark for courtbases movies, but that just does not cut it in 2006.

reply

[–] cuttingedgenyc 18 years ago

I agree that this movie is very overrated. As I said in another thread, I thought To Kill A Mockingbird was a much better courtroom movie.

reply

[–] birdbrain1066 18 years ago

I thought this movie was pretty good but a very different kind of movie from To Kill a Mocking Bird. It is the ambiguity and layers that make it interesting.

The husband was a violent and jealous man and right to almost the end you are left wondering if perhaps the wife wasn’t raped, but beaten up by her husband in a jealous rage after which he killed her lover. Even though the rape is eventually proved, it is highly doubtful that the husband was acting anything other than deliberately when he killed the rapist. The lawyers didn’t come out of it all that well either.

An unusually complex treatment of a difficult subject and I thought it stood up pretty well today.

reply

[–] tommcgahon 17 years ago

I think It is Definitely fair to say that, as great as this movie was in 1959 it just doesnt give anything new to viewers of current universal affairs!

The movie was obviously shocking at its time of release, gaining an X rating in the UK! But since has gone down to a 12 rating! I think that is clear evidence of the movies deterioration with age!

With that said, it is a fine movie and can be accepted as a landmark of its era!

reply

[–] nextwooden 18 years ago

I know you posted this a while back so my reply might be moot, but I'll still explain why I think the movie is rated so high.

I just finished it and loved it. I haven't had this much fun during a movie for awhile. I think the thing I loved the most is the characterations that are present: The simple county lawyer, his drunk friend, and loyal secretary all defending a gorgeous young flirty wife and her stern husband who could blow his top at any time vs. a county lawyer doing Jimmy's old job and the hot shot lawyer with an unfamiliar judge. (Is that really a sentence or should I have broken that up?)

I loved the dialogue. I loved the situations that each character found them in. I loved the "God bless juries" speech. I loved Jimmy Stewart. I loved trying to figure out what really happened.

Though I didn't like the ending. It felt a little rushed to me; my final score is 9/10.

Certainly not overrated in my opinion.

"Do you like apples?"
GWH

reply

[–] arsenalmejordelmundo 17 years ago

groundbreaking film maybe!?

reply

[–] csnoble-1 18 years ago

You think this movie is overrated because you have only learned to watch movies, not to see them.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MovieMan0283part2 18 years ago

"did you want Stewart riding off into the sunset with Remick after having a showdown with Gazzara?"

Methinks there may be some happy medium between that absurdity and an ending which doesn't really resolve anything, particularly after leading us to believe there's more to what we're seeing throughout.

reply

[–] OFG-Movie 18 years ago

The ending is enigmatic which is perfect for this film. You're left wondering if the defense was a put on by the Lt. Manion or if he really did have an irresistible impulse. In the end it is a story of laws, lawyers and the courtroom; the client’s guilt or innocence is secondary.
I saw this movie for the first time about fifteen years ago. I thought it was one of the best movies I’d seen then and still think so. Personally, I think it should rate in the top 100 of all movies

reply

[–] maverick-149 18 years ago

It's a complex plot. Some people can't follow it.

reply

[–] rsbrandt 12 years ago

Likewise, I always feel its absence from Best 100 Films lists is a rather conspicuous oversight. I never tire of watching it.

reply

[–] stebwood79 18 years ago

I'm currently watching this movie and trying to scrap book. I'm more interested in the movie, and that tells a lot. I really like this movie and find it disturbing on so many levels. I mean where is the premise and the conclusion...you just do not know! It it a great suspense movie so far!

reply

[–] abchulett 18 years ago

Possibly lawyers and such would rate this exceptionally higher than most of us because it gets the nuts and bolts of a jury trial more matter-of-fact than the typical Hollywood production. It doesn't use music cues and overdramatization of dialogue etc. While it's dated in some ways, the trial scenes really feel like a trial, not a movie of a trial. If your profession is presented more realistically than usual, the professional tends to really appreciate that.

reply

[–] bmusler-1 18 years ago

Possibly, but I don't think profession has anything to do with it. The writing (dialogue) is superb. Jimmy Stewart's delivery only adds to it. George C. Scott did his job to a tee. I think what's confusing people is that it's actually ABOUT something other than's Lee Remick's (fall off you chair) beauty and Ben Gazzara's jealousy.

I do agree with you that it's wonderful there are no "drama for dummies" music queues or very many flights of purple prose (until the passage unfortunately quoted by IMDB here) but ultimately the trial presented is a fascinating story. The title, "Anatomy for a Murder" indicates one does have to have a certain tolerance for tribulation and analysis however.

My testimony is this. I was flipping channels, was amused by the phone call for help in the beginning and two hours and forty minutes later was glued to my seat. I wasn't looking to watch a black and white movie made before I was born...I just couldn't help it. It's THAT good.

reply

[–] dmlundquist 18 years ago

bmusler, you have hit the nail on the head. Your analysis of the performances sums up my feelings as well. I have seen this movie at least a half a dozen times over the years and it still holds my interest. The down-home wit of Stewart, the biting statements of Scott and of course the visual heaven of Remick in the tight dress all make for a memorable viewing experience.

reply

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]