How can a jury disregard what it has already heard? They can't, Lieutenant. They can't.

Really impressive legal drama that doesn't give any easy answers. The first hour is a lot of set-up and exposition, I kinda wanted it to show the stuff that's being talked about but looking back in hindsight it was a good decision not to. The movie plays with this idea of framing, sentiment and smokescreens being the most powerful argumentative tool, so we don't need to know the whole truth of what happened. It certainly hints at more complexity (just how violent is he? just how much of a flirt is she?) and that only makes the characters more interesting for us as viewers. The scenes at the courtroom do a great job at building tension through all of the excellent performances and writing. It's very much written like a tennis match where the pendulum constantly swings back and forth, but besides that it's fairly light on cheese. The directing makes a real commitment to authenticity, and because of that it'll probably bore a lot of people. I was very impressed by it, however, especially the courtroom scenes which are a masterclass in blocking, editing and pacing. There's so much attention to detail when it comes to the rhythm and pace of the dialogue that it almost makes you overlook how abrupt and rushed the actual ending is. Loved the crime jazz score by Duke Ellington lending the film a noir feel, I kinda wish there was more of it. 8.5/10

Anatomy of a Murder is a classic courtroom drama. James Stewart is fantastic. However, the story would benefit from some dismemberment, as the poster suggests.

The script was really good but the acting really made it. It was nominated for several Oscars but the same year of "Ben Hur". It did take Best Soundtrack, which was done by Duke Ellington. The main character the defendant's attorney played by Jimmy Stewart was a huge jazz fan, at the time of racial and socal strife as the country was addressing segregation and other inequities. Kinda poetic. The ending is anti climatic, but lots of movies of the 50s were similar. Even now courtroom dramas in the movies tend to end similarly. The best part of the movie is definitely Jimmy Stewart. Worth the watch.

This was…fine? For me there’s only so much you can do with courtroom movies, but this does do as well as you can expect. Really appreciated Jimmy Stewart’s performance and the way he displayed this subtle undercurrent of seediness–especially with Lee Remick’s enigma of a victim. Little shades here and there of his Vertigo persona, and I dug it. This movie felt ahead of its time in terms of subject matter–I was certainly surprised to hear such frank discussions of rape and for “panties” to play such a major role. Strange jazz score that didn’t age well, but also that’s perhaps because I hate jazz.