One of cinema's greatest courtroom dramas, Anatomy of a Murder is tense, thought-provoking, and brilliantly acted, with great performances from James Stewart and George C. Scott. Read critic reviews
Play all videos
What to know
You might also like
See More
Shadow of a Doubt
The Battle of Algiers
The Long Good Friday
Dial M for Murder
Persona
Where to watch
Rate And Review
-
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
You're almost there! Just confirm how you got your ticket.
What did you think of the movie? (optional)
How did you buy your ticket?
-
Fandango
-
AMCTheatres.com or AMC AppNew
-
Cinemark Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Regal Coming Soon
We won’t be able to verify your ticket today, but it’s great to know for the future.
-
Theater box office or somewhere else
Anatomy of a Murder videos
Anatomy of a Murder: Trailer 1
Anatomy of a Murder: Official Clip - Pliant's Testimony
Anatomy of a Murder: Official Clip - Think of an Answer
Anatomy of a Murder: Official Clip - He Was a Wolf
Anatomy of a Murder: Official Clip - I Beg the Court!
Anatomy of a Murder: Official Clip - Questioning Laura
Anatomy of a Murder: Official Clip - Reason To Be Jealous
Anatomy of a Murder: Official Clip - This is Not a High School Debate!
Anatomy of a Murder: Official Clip - A Felon on the Stand
Anatomy of a Murder: Official Clip - Panties?
Anatomy of a Murder: Official Clip - Four Ways to Defend Murder
Anatomy of a Murder Photos
Movie Info
Semi-retired Michigan lawyer Paul Biegler (James Stewart) takes the case of Army Lt. Manion (Ben Gazzara), who murdered a local innkeeper after his wife (Lee Remick) claimed that he raped her. Over the course of an extensive trial, Biegler parries with District Attorney Lodwick (Brooks West) and out-of-town prosecutor Claude Dancer (George C. Scott) to set his client free, but his case rests on the victim's mysterious business partner (Kathryn Grant), who's hiding a dark secret.
-
Genre: Crime, Drama, Mystery & thriller
-
Original Language: English
-
Director: Otto Preminger
-
Producer: Otto Preminger
-
Writer: John D. Voelker, Wendell Mayes
-
Release Date (Theaters): original
-
Release Date (Streaming):
-
Runtime:
-
Distributor: Columbia Pictures
-
Production Co: Carlyle Productions, Columbia Pictures Corporation
-
Sound Mix: Mono
-
Aspect Ratio: Flat (1.85:1)
Cast & Crew
News & Interviews for Anatomy of a Murder
Critic Reviews for Anatomy of a Murder
Audience Reviews for Anatomy of a Murder
-
Classic crime, courtroom drama that's delivers a verdict of being flawless.
-
Warning, this review contains spoilers... Fantastic acting, excellent shots on location in Michigan, entertaining courtroom scenes, but a flawed script, and a little overrated. The premise is simple. A former prosecutor (Jimmy Stewart) is convinced to come out of retirement to defend a man (Ben Gazzara) accused of murder. There really isn't any doubt he's done it, since he's confessed. After some encouragement from Stewart, his plea is not guilty by reason of temporary insanity, that he simply 'lost it' after finding out that his wife (Lee Remick) was raped, and went out and killed the guy. Stewart turns in an outstanding performance, effortlessly combining intelligence and wit, and sparring with the prosecutor brought in from Lansing (George C. Scott). The scene where he questions his own client after a surprise piece of evidence is introduced by another inmate, real doubt in his eyes, is wonderful. Scott is also brilliant, sharp and reptilian, quickly surpassing the local prosecutor. The scene where he deliberately moves back and forth to obscure Stewart's view of a witness is great, and well shot by director Otto Preminger. Joseph N. Welch as the judge is also strong and such a natural, in one scene appearing in the background with this arm wrapped around his head so that his hand rests on his opposite cheek as he listens intently. It was also nice to hear jazz from Duke Ellington, and in one scene to see him playing briefly with Jimmy Stewart, though I'm not sure the music always fits. The trouble is, even if this is based on a real case, legally and morally, it's a mess. I certainly didn't want Stewart as protagonist in the role of the defense attorney, where it feels he's in the wrong, starting with him nudging the guy to claim he was temporarily insane. It's apparent that the only real question is whether that was true, and yet, most of the trial revolves around whether his wife was actually raped, and worse yet, what her possible culpability was in that. Was she wearing clothing that was too suggestive, was she promiscuous, etc. Even if you can get past the misogyny of attacking a rape victim, which is a disturbing reality, it's absurd to me that it became so central to the trial, Stewart's 'apple core' argument notwithstanding. Also, her missing panties get far too much attention throughout the movie, including the dramatic find at the end, when they're irrelevant. In tone, there are several aspects that didn't ring true. Remick's playfulness and flirtation with Stewart a short while after being brutally beaten and raped, and with her husband charged with murder. The victim's daughter (played unconvincingly by a constantly wide-eyed Kathryn Grant) remotely considering helping the defense. The level of levity in the courtroom for a trial involving rape and murder. In one absurd sidebar, the judge and attorneys sidebar to discuss what panties should be referred to as. With a very serious look on his face, Scott says "When I was overseas during the war, Your Honor, I learned a French word. I'm afraid that might be slightly suggestive", to which the Welch replies "Most French words are". The courtroom then cracks up when he announces that the garment in question will be referred to as panties. More than once, one attorney or another is surprised by a witness being produced, without having had a chance to independently interview them. More than once, an attorney will ask a question that he clearly doesn't know the answer to, one that he has no business asking. Most likely, Preminger amplified all of these theatrics - the jokes, the obsession with Remick and her panties, the banter between attorneys, the little doggie inexplicably being brought into the trial so he can jump up into Stewart's arms - all for entertainment value. The central theme of what justice should be doesn't get explored enough. Perhaps that's Preminger's point, that in the circus of a trial with sharp minds on both sides, circling each other like sharks, the system of justice is fallible. If it was though, the ending doesn't bear that out. During the 160 minute run time, I kept hoping for a plot twist that never came. That the guy doesn't just skip out on his bill at the end, he kills his wife in a rage, and calmly deadpans that he did that one too because of an "irresistible impulse". That the wife reveals she was never raped that night, and manipulated her husband into killing. That either the fellow bartender or the victim's daughter were somehow involved in a setup, for the money. Nope. As it is, Stewart's a hero, and if anyone has any qualms about it, they try to pin a happy face on the whole thing by saying his next case is going to be helping the victim's daughter with her estate. Oh, wow, well that makes it all right then, and let's all leave the theater happy. The film is still worth seeing for the performances - Stewart at 51 is still quite an actor, and endearing as well - but prepare to be conflicted, and a little irritated.
-
With a fantastic cinematography and superb direction, this superlative courtroom procedural unfolds in an unhurried fashion, daring to make outspoken use of sexual terminology (something unthinkable at the time it was made) and presenting a brilliantly complex script centered on a fiery, breathtaking rhetorical combat of the highest quality.
-
Though this adaptation of a best-selling novel may not seem like it now, it was quite a groundbreaking big deal when it came out. The story, a stirring courtroom drama, follows an alcoholic, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants small town lawyer (Jimmy Stewart going against type), defending a man who openly admits to murdering someone, but only because said individual raped his wife, who, admittedly, is kinda a floozy. Stewart's character understandably has a lot going against him, and that's not including the fact that the prosecution is made up of some slick, hard-cased big city guys led by George C. Scott. Like I said, this was a big deal at the time, mostly due to the subject matter, and how director Otto Preminger dealt with it. He did a great job of dealing with stuff that, until then, hadn't really been covered in cinema. Yeah, like I said, some of the impact has diminished, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it's still a powerful and engaging piece of work. The opening titles by Saul Bass are the stuff of legend, the score by Duke Ellington is a jazz classic, and the performances, as one may expect, are quite good. I mean, there's Stewart, Scott, and Lee Remick as the floozy wife, all of whom are quite great. Oh yeah, and Ben Gazzara as the man on trial. This one kinda set the standard for a lot of courtroom dramas to come, and it is quite realistic, accurate, and does a fine job of trying to show things in a pretty down to Earth way. So yeah, I dig the film a lot, but I'll admit that the running time could be cut down a bit, and some of the pacing trimmed as well. It's quite engaging, but once in a while it gets slightly boring, but not enough to really derail things. While I don't feel like a lot of people do, I still think this is a fine film worth seeing, even if I don't regard it as a masterpiece like a lot of others do.
Verified