James Stewart, George C. Scott, Ben Gazzara. The film could bore me silly just as long as these three titans share the screen together, I'd be happy. That this is one of the sharpest written court room dramas in existence is a golden bonus.

This powerful courtroom drama from Otto Preminger was lengthier than I expected, but uses its runtime effectively to let a powerful courtroom argument unfold and lay all the tiniest details out on the table. And stunningly, it never becomes boring for a moment. James Stewart's turn as the passionate defence lawyer is typical Stewart: absolutely brilliant. Also, the film has touches of humour you don't often find so openly in films of its kind, and is thrilling up to its conclusion through its long, emotional courtroom sequences.

Reviewed for Adapted April Challenge as a free choice.

I have some ambivalent feelings toward this film. On the one hand, it is quite dated and quaint in its presentation of rape and murder. There is one protracted scene where the judge and three lawyers pause the trial to confer on the best term to describe panties, turns out it's "panties". On the other hand it is a charming and entertaining film, and clearly a blueprint for practically every other courtroom drama to follow.

In the end Jimmy Stewart charms you over, as he always does, but without his presence I'd probably give it a full star less and be recommending any of a dozen other courtroom dramas instead. Certainly doesn't hold up as well as 12 Angry Men.

very good cast leading a brilliant opening sequence and soundtrack, the movie is a little confused

Apart from "Witness for the Prosecution," this is the best courtroom drama I have ever seen. As Charles Laughton's character elevated that film, so Jimmy's Stewart's and George C. Scott's elevate this one. They take a solid premise and make it into a memorable dramatic experience.

James Stewart er en demoralisert, jazzdiggende, fluefiskende bygdeadvokat som får sjansen til å redde sin avsporede karriere når han haler i land forsvarerrollen i en kontroversiell lokal drapssak.

Et lavmælt teksturdribdlende soundtrack av Duke Ellington og en modernistisk tittelsekvens av Saul Bass setter rammene for en film som forblir frisk, lettbeint (og ikke for selvhøytelig) gjennom en spilletid på 160 min - inkludert minst 90 min. med hardcore rettssalsaction.

Stewart er like eksentriskonkel-karismatisk som alltid, og han får bra motstand fra George C. Scott i rollen som en ultra-usympatisk, closetalkende hotshot-aktor fra storbyen.

Det blir raskt klart at Stewarts klient (og hans muligens voldtatte kone) har klare skyggesider, men Stewart bulldoser ufortrødent videre med en kombinasjon av hvasse jus-manøvreringer og rettsalsdemagogeri av jeg-er-bare-en-landsens-gutt-skolen. Det blir stadig mer usikkert hva som egentlig skjedde drapsnatten, og en av filmens store styrker er at den ikke serverer oss noen klare fasitsvar.

There's a lot I admire about Anatomy of a Murder. James Stewart is perfectly cast, the film is very frank about rape and sexuality, and the movie's sense of humour keeps it from being too stuffy. But at the same time, I never really cared about the story and the film goes too long. There's also an undercurrent that things may not be what they seem but that never goes anywhere. Not a bad film, but I was underwhelmed.

Reviewed for Adapted April Challenge as a free choice.

I have some ambivalent feelings toward this film. On the one hand, it is quite dated and quaint in its presentation of rape and murder. There is one protracted scene where the judge and three lawyers pause the trial to confer on the best term to describe panties, turns out it's "panties". On the other hand it is a charming and entertaining film, and clearly a blueprint for practically every other courtroom drama to follow.

In the end Jimmy Stewart charms you over, as he always does, but without his presence I'd probably give it a full star less and be recommending any of a dozen other courtroom dramas instead. Certainly doesn't hold up as well as 12 Angry Men.

James Stewart gives a fantastic performance in this film and as a courtroom drama this is very entertaining in the courtroom scenes, with a lot of snappy back and forths between the warring attorneys. I enjoyed the film in general but I didnt really care or connect with any of the characters so, while everything was done well enough, the impact was not as emphatic as it could have been.

Pitch-perfect, not a hair out of place. It really flys by, too.

Just as the title of the film says - this movie is exactly an anatomy of a murder trial process, right from the hiring of the defense attorney to the execution of the jury's decision. And what a process that was! The murder and the parties involved were already established, the question was how to present the case to the jury in order to clear (or condemn) the murderer of the culpability. In today's lawyer tv shows we would know the answer for certain, but the '50s were different times and the methods and results might not be what we would expect. Beside the intriguing story, the casting and the on-screen chemistry between them were absolutely brilliant, from the minor roles to the biggest ones. Ah... The classic with the reason.