2/5 Dated and Overrated
  by P. Stempski
Anatomy of a Murder is an interesting period piece, however I was stunned to learn that the period in question was 1959. The sexist attitudes in the film literally made me feel ill. The most stunning moment is when the entire courtroom brakes into full-throated laughter at the mention of the "panties" that are missing evidence in the alleged rape.
This movie does not stand the test of time. It seems like an overly long endorsement of those ancient falsehoods that good women don't get raped and bad women lie about it. Beyond that, the courtroom antics are a bit over the top and the judge unbelievabley lenient about it all.


5/5 A good watch
  by Cheryl J. Davis (Cornland, IL USA)
Visited the little town in the U.P. were this movie was made and were the actual murder took place. Great movie!!














































5/5 Anatomy of a movie
  by Stanley (Seattle, WA USA)
This movie kind of snuck up on me and by the ending I felt as if I had been baited and hooked. Preminger was teasing us all along by taking advantage of the fact that we all aproach a movie by early on picking out the bad guys and the good guys. Naturally we all see Jimmy Stewart as the good guy hero who we prepare to root for from beginning to end. But during the last few scenes, in which a drunken Lee Remick chases Jimmy up a law house stairway with a girdle in hand and then the very last shot where Jimmy finds Lee's shoes in a garbage can, it is then I realize that I have been conned. I was aware of the fact that Lee and her murdering husband Ben Gazarra were somewhat unsympathetic from the very start but I felt certain that somehow they would exhibit redeeming qualities at movies end, but no way! Preminger only reinforced how truely awful they really were and Jimmy is only a scheming lawyer out to revive his career with a drunken sidekick who proves very helpful. When you think about it, this is how the law and the world really do work - OJ Simson case in point. Who would have thought that in 1959 a movie this cynical, which doesn't really even feel cynical, would pack such a real world punch as this one does?
Call me a naive country bumkin but this movie really amazed me and I can't believe that more people aren't taken aback the way I was. Preminger really plays with your head and hides his true intentions until by movies end you really feel like a fool for not having suspected what he was really up too. Can we have more discussion about this or are we all so jaded that nothing surprises us anymore?


5/5 Anatomy of a Murder...great courtoom drama!
  by PATRICK J.POWERS (Duncombe,IA)
In 1959 moviegoers were on the edge of their seats to watch Jimmy Stewart,George C.Scott, Ben Gazzara, Lee Remick and Arthur O'Connell in one of the classic courtroom dramas, Anatomy of a Murder. Let me see the drama still has a loyal following 50 years later. The performances are first rate plus you have the direction of Otto Preminger and the music of the legendary Duke Ellington. It's two and a half hours of pure drama. A film worth enjoying again and again!

4/5 A very well done courtroom drama...
  by Andrew Ellington (Mulholland Drive)
Risqué for its time, and certainly profound and entertaining; `Anatomy of a Murder' is a very well done courtroom drama with some excellent performances. What's exceedingly nice about this film is that it ages very well, despite the change in times. Sure, some of the court outbursts seem rather humorous to us today (beings that `panties' is a word only immature frat boys find funny) but the entirety of the film still rings very true, and the entertainment value has not diminished over the years.

The film tells of small-town lawyer Paul Biegler who takes on the case of defending an army lieutenant who is accused of murdering a man he believes attacked his wife. As Paul gets to know the victim, Laura Manion, he realizes that she may not be being entirely truthful; but his attraction to her and his desire to win the case cloud his better judgment.

Let's talk a little bit about Lee Remick. I just kind of laid into her acting a bit on my review for `Days of Wine and Roses', where I found her to be awkward and unconvincing. I had seen this movie first and so I was really anticipating her performance alongside Lemmon. The fact is, I thought she was marvelous here. She really nails her character. Some have balked at her being unbelievable as a victim, but that is entirely the point. We are supposed to second guess her motives, and right from the very beginning she appears to be a young girl who screwed up and is trying to act her way out of her mistake. She captures the ambiguity rather well, playing to her strengths by trying to seduce others into believing her.

James Stewart is very good here, but he is outshone by Remick and a very seedy George C. Scott (can you say one of the best supporting actors of the late 50's, early 60's).

`Anatomy of a Murder' is a very rewarding cinematic experience, rich with character development (I love the way Stewart is able to create a complete internal change within Paul) and realistic story progression. The end result is something very entertaining. I have to say this, it is not as brilliant as some have laid claim to, nor is it something truly groundbreaking; but it is very, very good. The acting is all spot on and the ending in particular is appropriate and adds a nice layer of intrigue as our perceptions of the truth are either confirmed or completely turned on their heads.

I'm not a huge fan of these courtroom type films, but this one sold me, so major props for that. It also made me really want to read the novel by John D. Voelker. I'd recommend this without any hesitation.