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.

But is there a man alive in Michigan's Upper Peninsula who hasn't seen them?The success of this film is the result of its outstanding cast and, for me, its authentic location in the area where the true story actually occurred, the remote and unique Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The location was genuine to the extent that the bar where much of the movie's action occurred was the same place where the original murder was committed in 1952.I am very thankful that director Otto Preminger refused to allow Lana Turner to model her fancy gowns as Laura Manion and that he had the insight to choose a much more appealing newcomer, Lee Remick, instead. Gowns in a trailer camp? That would be ridiculous, Lana. With her usual stiffness and self-consciousness, Turner would have significantly weakened the action while Remick's natural impertinence, radiant beauty, and simmering sexuality lured me into a script that I might otherwise have found to be dull and lifeless. Beyond her very pleasing physical appearance, Remick's smooth acting ability was established beyond a doubt here and her performance in this film launched her career, which peaked only a few years later in her Oscar nominated role as Kirsten Arnesen Clay in "The Days of Wine and Roses" (1962). When Lee Remick died at the young age of 55, it was a very sad day for Hollywood and for all of us "out here in the dark" who truly loved her and still love her.In addition to Remick's lively portrayal as Laura Manion, the wife of the accused and the supposed victim of the alleged rape that triggered the murder in the first place, we are treated to top notch performances by James Stewart as Paul Biegler, her husband's embittered defense attorney, Ben Gazzara as Lt. Frederic Manion, the accused husband, and George C. Scott as the visiting prosecutor from the state capital of Lansing. Add to that dynamic list an always entertaining, wise-cracking Eve Arden ("Mildred Pierce, "Our Miss Brooks") as Biegler's loyal legal administrator and a lovely Kathryn Grant Crosby ("The Phenix City Story", "Seven Voyages of Sinbad", and several Bing Crosby Christmas TV specials) as a miscast but still very attractive Mary Pilant, who plays a critical role in the film's final outcome. Also among the very entertaining cast is Arthur O'Connell in his Oscar nominated role as an endearing Parnell McCarthy, Biegler's devoted but alcoholic sidekick. As to Laura Manion's panties, the intimate article of clothing that played such a pivotal role in her husband's trial, the fast living wife of the murder suspect struck me as a woman who often lost track of her panties, so you'll have to decide on your own whether Barney Quill actually raped her or whether she was rather a willing, consensual partner. While the Manions may appear to be a very engaging couple at first glance, we should know to approach them with an abundance of caution. Watch this one for the outstanding cast, the intriguing, authentic locale, the quirky, interesting characterizations, and that classic and very cool 1949 Pontiac Silver Streak convertible in which Stewart and O'Connell tool around town. It takes a special breed to ride through the UP of Michigan with the top down at any time of the year.

I watched The Anatomy of Murder on TCM for the first time and was tremendously impressed with the characters and cast as well as the overall entertainment value. Shot in 1959 in northern Michigan, the on-location shooting has, over time taken on a period look that further enhances the movie and the story also has the realism of mid-20th century America. Jazz music with a cameo by Duke Ellington is a cool touch from the era. Leading man James Stewart as lawyer Paul Biegler, returns from a fishing trip to his home-based office where he gets by on divorce cases and whatever else comes along to pay his bills. His friend and confidante Parnell McCarthy tells him about an upcoming case that McCarthy feels he should take up. The case involves characters in conflicts involving love, romance, jealousy, and revenge. The courtroom drama was particularly well performed with Stewart and George C. Scott as out-of-town prosecuting attorney Claude Dancer on opposing sides of a murder case, using every trick and strategy to win over the jury. Ben Gazzara and Lee Remick are Lieut. Manion and his wife Laura Manion, who are the centre of the case, with Gazzara, as a Korean War veteran, charged with the murder of a bar employee who allegedly raped Gazzara's wife. Laura is a free spirit who likes male companionship. It is the murder charge, however, that the court must decide. Arthur O'Connell, as Parnell McCarthy, plays a down-on-his-luck lawyer who assists Jimmy Stewart in the leg work and research. Eve Arden is Maida Rutledge, Biegler's secretary, who also fetches beer and keeps track of his personal finances. The courtroom drama is ruled over by the homespun Judge Weaver, played by Joseph Welch, who keeps the courtroom under tight control and makes quick decisions on the line of questioning. The two lawyers engage in a verbal sparring match that must be one of the most dynamic courtroom confrontations ever filmed. A very satisfying movie that never lags despite its length, I would recommend it without hesitation. Full value to director Otto Preminger, one of Hollywood's great directors.

"Anatomy of a Murder" is a mystery movie in which we have a murder trial of a man who killed an another man who raped his wife. The defendant of him supports all his defense in the psychiatrist result which was that the killer is suffered of temporary insanity at the time that he did the crime. On the other hand the prosecution supports that the killer was fine when he did the crime and they avoid to talk about his raped wife.I liked this movie because of the plot and the storyline because it was full of swifts and had much of suspense. I also liked this movie because of the direction of the Otto Preminger who I believe did a great job on it. About the interpretation I have to admit that James Stewart who played as Paul Biegler was simply outstanding for one more time and I also liked the interpretation of Lee Remick who played as Laura Manion. Another interpretation that has to be mentioned is Ben Gazzara's who played as Lt. Frederick Manion and he was really good at it.Finally I have to say that "Anatomy of a Murder" is a great movie to watch because it has plenty of scenes in which you can not expect what will come up and how this will change the whole plot of the movie. This I believe is the most important thing that this movie has and makes it so good, I strongly recommend it.