Rating: 
Summary: From a lawyer's perspective, a top lawyer movie.
Review: Not only are the courtroom scenes realistic (although Stewart's dramatic courtroom conduct, is unnecessary in today's films, it fit into the time-period for the film), but also the "lawyering" was especially honest and well portrayed. This film is frequently listed by State Bar Associations as top rate and recommended to lawyers for viewing, being listed way above the "lawyer" films that have been released over the past 15 years.
Rating: 
Summary: not recommended
Review: if i were to recommend a filmn from 1959 to anyone, especially someone too young to remember that time, I woulkd definetely not recommend this waste of time. I would instead offer north by northwest or odds against tomorrow. these films hold up much better and are of much more interest. They keep viewers awake and interested
Rating:
Summary: three hour bore
Review: anatomy of a murder wallows in boredum and repetition for nearly three hours. This is a good movie if you want to fall asleep to. Some frank references to certain acts do little to enliven this waste of time. Watch North by northwest, Ben hur Odds against tommorow or tarzan's greatest adventure if you seek truly memorable movies released during 1959
Rating:
Summary: One of the Best
Review: Anyone who says this drama is too long, tedious or overblown either does not understand the relevancy of its day or the small town setting. Preminger does a marvelous job sticking to the plotline laid out in Voelker's precisely written novel to a tee. This movie should have been included in the 100-best of all time. It's definitely one of the best courtroom depictions... after all the author was a state supreme court judge and the novel is based on a real incident.
Rating: 
Summary: To quote a critic, "This long but tiny film...."
Review: With the lone exception of "Laura," (which was really based on another director's vision), Otto Preminger excercises in all of his films an infuriatingly self-indulgant, pretentious, clumsy directorial style. This grossly overlong, overblown, and over-praised melodrama is no exception. With no sense of either incisiveness or cohesion, the issues raised often seem to steer uncertainly between social comment and tabloid sensation; thus, not standing a firm ground in either, one is left with a puzzlement over just what the film is trying to say? Indeed, one suspects that here Preminger is playing the yellow journalist. He sees to it that the so-called "controversial words" are repeated endlessly and reduntantly, to make sure all the world gets the idea that this film is some kind of milestone; and to obscure the plot inadequacies. A talented cast is also left floundering. Stewart was so commonly identified as the "All-American boy", that directors often took delight in casting him in "daring" parts. That is certainly the case here, as the role does not give him room to display all of his talents; but rather to play the box-office draw. Even so, he survives the project better than Scott, whose performance--though important to him as a career move--is overblown. Really, the effort is there--all actors pull their weight--but the equivocal treatment often gives no direction. If you don't give a damn about the narrative line, then the performances may entertain solidly for a while; but best do it on a lazy weekend night!
Rating:
Summary: A legendary film
Review: Otto Preminger was one of the most creative and brave directors of the american cinema in the fifties and sixties.
His works were loaded with a ravishing realism , they were very expilict , challenging and disturbing .
Imagine what it means the plot around the adultery commited by the wife of an officer in that age . You can reply me with From here to the eternity but this film is more shocking , and overcomes in dramatic punch to From here ...The other examples you may think is Baby doll and Dial M for murder in the fifties, but this one wins the match.
The powerful sequence in the Court has only a serious match in The Nuremberg judgement . Never before there was not a previous film so disturbing like this that film who explicitly turned around the bitter and awful consequences about the adultery .
The plot is overwhelming , magnificient built , without any hole . The cast is incredible . Consider these giants actors as Ben Gazzara , George C. Scott , Arthur O'Donell, James Stewart and Lee Remick in her screen debut .
This film was nominated as the best film but was unlucky , because Ben Hur literally won all the prizes and somehow that fact stroke the undeniable virtues of that superb work.
However the time seems to set in the right place this picture.
Acquire this one.
One of the most remarkable films in the american cinema story.
If I could give this film ten thousand stars , I 'd do it .
Rating:
Summary: Think of it as a Courtroom Film Noir
Review: The excellence is Anatomy of a Murder lies is how it doesn't try to cram itself down your throat. The movie takes its own sweet time telling an intelligent and challenging story. There really aren't any good guys here and there are no easy answers. That's the point of film noir. Everyone is bad in some way, everyone has motives, and happy endings rarely take place in real life. Very direct for a movie made in the late 50's. A woman's alleged rape and the murder of her alleged rapist by her husband is described repeatedly and in detail. James Stewart is surprisingly effective as a weary cynic who takes the case not because he thinks the accused is innocent or a swell guy but because he thinks he can win and get the guy off. After Stewart returned from the horrors of WWII, he turned away from the cheerful harmless fare of his younger days. It can be fairly said that he had two careers. His post war career is much more serious and mature. Introspective characters. Deeply troubled men. Obsessed men. Men of dubious morality and hard bitten practical values. Stewart never made a WWII movie. He didn't need to, he lived it.
Rating:
Summary: Good Movie, But DVD Issue
Review: This movie had a theatrical aspect ratio of 1.85:1, while the DVD aspect ratio is 4:3. This means that one of the following two things is likely to be fact about this DVD: (1) the movie is presented in an "Unmatted Full-Screen" format, or (2) the movie is presented in a "Pan&Scan" format. If the movie is presented in an "Unmatted Full-Screen" format, then the film negative aspect ratio was probably 1.37:1 (almost 4:3), and almost none of the original theatrical image has been removed for exhibition on a 4:3 television screen. For theatrical exhibition, the image would have been "matted" (partially covered from the top down and bottom up) to produce a 1.85:1 image. For exhibition on a 4:3 television screen, the "mattes" would simply be removed. So the DVD exhibition would actually show 25.9 percent more image than the theatrical exhibition. The movie may have been filmed this way so that the theatrical image wouldn't be butchered on television by the "Pan&Scan" process, and because the filmmakers didn't foresee the current state of the home video market (which didn't really exist in 1959), where consumers prefer movies presented in their theatrical aspect ratio, rather than in a ratio in which the image will fill up their 4:3 television screen (if there is a difference). Or, it may be that the filmmakers didn't want to work with anamorphic lenses. As an "Unmatted Full-Screen" formatted DVD, this DVD would present the movie in the aspect ratio in which the filmmakers wanted people to see it on a 4:3 television, but it would not present the movie in the aspect ratio in which the filmmakers wanted people to see it in a movie theater (for that, the DVD would have to present the movie in a "matted widescreen" format). On the other hand, if this movie was shot in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio, then 27.9 percent of the original theatrical image has been removed for the DVD exhibition, so that the DVD image fills your entire 4:3 television screen (theatrical aspect ratio - 1.85:1; DVD aspect ratio - 4:3). If you're okay with either scenario, enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: Anatomy of a classic film
Review: Anatomy of a classic film: (1)Excellent opening title sequence by the great Saul Bass. (2)Music scored by jazz legend Duke Ellington, who even has a cameo. (3)A strong lead performance by James Stewart as the defense attorney that is direct and wholesome but has an undercurrent of complexity which is often sly and evasive. (4)Excellent supporting performances from all but special kudos to Ben Gazzara as the short fused soldier accused of 1st degree murder; Lee Remick, the incredibly sexy and alluring trailer trash wife of the soldier who may or may not have been raped by the murder victim; and Joseph Welch as the substitute Judge Weaver, affable and homespun, but very much in control of his courtroom. (5)A well-crafted script that builds in complexity and rarely disappoints in the dialog department, which is often loaded with innuendo and racy subtext. (6)Taught direction by Otto Preminger that carefully, but often daringly orchestrates all of the above seamlessly into a courtroom drama that is nothing short of brilliant.
Rating:
Summary: "I beg the court...let me cut into the apple"
Review: This film hooks you in the first minute with Saul Bass' brilliant titles and Duke Ellington's music, and then has you caught for the duration in the next few scenes; the dialogue is sharp and intelligent, and at the age of 50, Jimmy Stewart gives one of the best performances of his illustrious career, as Paul Biegler, an attorney who would rather be fishing than getting fees for his work. Stewart is so natural, so real, and so immensely likable. He's the kind of guy you wish you could have in your family, but wily enough to argue a good defense in court.Lee Remick has just the right amount of provocative sensuality as Laura Manion to make one wonder what exactly happened on the "fateful night" in question.
After playing Southern belles in both "A Face in the Crowd" (1957) and "The Long Hot Summer" (1958), Remick was offered the role of Laura because Lana Turner, who was supposed to play the part, refused to wear an "off-the-rack" wardrobe, and wanted dresses designed by Jean Louis (hardly what a Army wife would be wearing). It was a big break for Remick, and she makes the most of it. The entire supporting cast is superb: Ben Gazzara as the intense Lt. Manion, Arthur O'Connell as Biegler's assistant and friend, Eve Arden as Biegler's loyal secretary. George C. Scott is Dancer, the Assistant State Attorney, and Joseph N. Welch, who gained fame for being the Special Counsel for the Army in the Army-McCarthy Congressional hearings, is a delight as Judge Weaver. Duke Ellington makes a cameo appearance as Pie Eye, and even Muffy the beer drinking dog does a great job. Otto Preminger's direction flows at a lovely pace, with a balance between the dramatic tension and thoughtful scenes tinged with humor. There were Oscar nominations for Best Actor, Supporting Actor (both O'Connell and Scott), Picture, and Editing (all losing to "Ben Hur"), as well as Sam Leavitt's beautiful b&w cinematography (lost to "The Diary of Anne Frank") and Wendell Mayes marvelous screenplay adaptation of the Robert Traver best-seller (lost to "Room at the Top"), proving that 1959 was a great year at the movies.
I love courtroom dramas, and this is one of the best ever made; it's unpredictable, with a very authentic feel to it, perhaps because the author, using the pen name of "Robert Traver", was actually Michigan Supreme Court Justice John D. Voelker.
Total running time is 160 minutes.
|
