This is an interesting one, where my perception of the movie has improved quite a bit from my initial viewing. I went in expecting a murder mystery/legal thriller. And I don't think that is what this movie is. It's a bit dry, a bit overlong, and slow. However, that is not to say it is a bad thing, just very different from what I was expecting. I will highlight that I don't think this is an exploration on the subjective nature of truth a la Rashomon or anything. Instead, it's a very well acted movie (especially from the dog) that examines a failing marriage and utilizes the trial format to explore what is left unsaid in these types of relationships. This theme is something I've seen movies become more interested in recently, and I find it fascinating. It does such a good job of exploring this marriage from so many different angles and perspectives that I now really respect how the movie puts the actual viewer on trial in addition to the characters.
That was a lot, i mean a lot of talking! Dialogues never ending, people always speaking. for two hours and 30 minutes. Interesting drama, mystery very low key. Too much of a story telling but acting was goog. A mediocre movie.Not for everyone.
I'm a sucker for an open ended narrative, and Anatomy of a Fall gives us so many breadcrumbs to work with it's hard not to get lost in how we feel once the credits roll. It's been amazing to read multiple interpretations throughout the days following my viewing, and I'm still not sure where I land on the ultimate conclusion of the plot. What I can say for certainty is that Anatomy of a Fall is a glorious peek inside the life of a delightfully nuanced couple. Their interactions are raw and real, arguments feel clumsy and looped, realistic and believable. It asks us to question our perception and interpretation of others; seeing relationships for brief moments and coming to grandiose conclusions about their infinite nuances without ever truly knowing these people and the dynamics that push and pull between them. I'll continue to return to this movie in my head for weeks to come, as another minute detail bubbles up and questions the narrative I've built in my head about these people and what transpired between them. Maybe I should watch it again, I can't imagine what a second viewing will unearth. Fantastic film, I expect a lot of award season love for this one.
Anatomy of a Fall is a clever and compelling drama about a woman who must prove her innocence after the unexpected death of her husband.
It's not quite a mystery/why whodunnit, or a full-blown courtroom drama. And it's not a foreign movie either, as it slips in and out of English and French. It’s a movie about the complications of a situation and the language barrier to get information across, both literal, as our main character has some trouble speaking French, as she is originally from Germany, and metaphorical with trying to communicate what we are feeling and saying to people who don’t seem to listen.
We slowly learn what type of relationship it was between her and her husband during the trial, as she shares personal information to prove her innocence or a secretly recorded audio during a heated moment that gives you a better idea of their relationship.
Sandra Hüller's performance was fantastic, and her character is complex. One scene is when she delivers a fiery monologue, and it holds you in your place. I was unaware of her work beforehand, but after this film - she is on my radar. I cannot wait to see her in the Auschwitz film The Zone of Interest.
There is a stellar child performance from Milo Machado Graner and a challenging part, especially for his age, but he blew me away. The final speech he delivers towards the end is both beautiful and devastating.
All the acting from the cast was superb. Even the family dog was fantastic.
The directing and camera work was superb, and every shot was well thought out and presented effectively. The script was tremendous, as the dialogue and plot were terrific, but it also gave the actors a lot to work with.
My only issue with the film is the courtroom stuff, which slowed the pacing. While those scenes weren’t awful, they just got repetitive after a while.
Overall rating: Anatomy of a Fall is a gripping drama that keeps you guessing. Both while you are watching the movie and long after it’s over.
Today, it is often not at all important what exactly happened, what matters most is how it was perceived, what can be learned. Moral standards are being wasted, honesty and justice are no longer cake. Well, the jury in Cannes, for the second year, is giving us a notch. Neither what happened, and what was best for him, even a blind and still completely innocent boy understood
Wow, I don’t usually rate movies this low, but this didn’t do it for me at all. I realize it’s about the relationship between the main characters rather than about the actual outcome of the trial, but with main characters as unlikable as these I really could not care less; not about their relationship, not about the outcome of the trial. This was a waste of time for me…
I just finished watching this, and while I expect I will want to watch it a few more times to make sure, for now it has leaped provisionally into the ranks of my top 10 movies ever (and I have been watching movies for almost 40 years). All of the main actors gave standout performances - Sandra Huller in particular I had never seen but was just brilliant, even though she was almost every scene, often in close-up. The score was brilliant. And crucially the screenplay was never less than totally engaging throughout. Somehow, while the whole film was clearly crafted meticulously, the dialogue managed to feel much more true to life than any script I can remember.
If you don't like talky subtitled middle class movies where "nothing happens" and there are few characters you can identify with, clearly you won't like this (but if you knew you were like that why go to this movie in the first place?). I also have to acknowledge that it is not subtle about hammering home its focus on ambiguity and interpretation, which it approaches through language, through a courtroom drama, through a failing marriage...
But what it delivers, it delivers in spades - a compelling study of the desire for and impossibility of narrative closure which time and again had me feeling as if I would finally be comfortable knowing where I "stood" only to have the rug yanked out from under my feet once again. I could have discussed how it made me think and feel for hours after, and I can't wait to watch it again and see if my impressions of it and of the people and their stories change again on second viewing...
You choose to sit on the sidelines because you're afraid.
Because your pride makes your head explode before it can come up with a little germ of an idea.
And now you wake up and you're 40 and you need someone to blame and you're the one to blame.
You're petrified by your own fucking standards and your fear of failure.
This is the truth.
You're smart. I know you know I'm right.
I SEE TOO MUCH OF MYSELF IN THIS AND I DON'T LIKE IT ONE BIT
Man these people sure eat a lot of noodles
This is a movie for people who are into Woody Allen type stuff, it reminded me of Marriage Story in particular. The dialogue and acting are definitely the main driving force here, and Sandra Hüller delivers a pretty great performance. The core ideas that the movie gets at about relationships, guilt and justice are compelling, but it’s not always told in the most efficient way. The pieces ultimately click into place in an unexpected way, but it takes a clunky, elaborate set-up to get there. Tightening up the beginning and very end would’ve improved the experience a lot for me, mostly because I wouldn’t have to hear that stupid 50 Cent song 80 times. Moreover, due to the story structure and constraints of a legal drama, the movie suffers from an overabundance of exposition. There are so many scenes where I wish they’d just cut to whatever the characters are talking about, instead of a boring close-up with someone reminiscing over a memory. I’m also not the biggest fan of how the courtroom scenes were staged, some elements are on the cheesy side. The prosecutor in particular felt like a Suits character, he doesn’t work for me in this more realistic context. Finally, the technical aspects of this movie are just fine. As is often the case with movies like this, the cinematography is competent but lacking in style or vision, nor is the score very noteworthy. All in all, it’s adequate but the accolades are completely overblown.
6/10
Marriage Story but better.
The first hour was a bit unfocused, but I think that was by choice, in order to be as objective as possible, so the audience can form their own presumptions of the events. While in the second half, we get to discover more and more the subjective nuances of the family's relationships. I empathized with the relatable issues it explored, regarding Samuel's character, like guilt, shame, self-loathing, self-sacrifice, fragile narcissism, perfectionism, fear of failure, procrastination etc.
Can someone please explain what I am missing with this movie? I am the first person to say that I love "talkie" dramas. But where was the drama? I spent much of the movie trying to figure out how I should be consuming this movie. Was it the mystery? Ultimately it seemed that the point was the unravelling of the marriage, but it took more than two hours to get to that point. Why? Nothing else was really that interesting. I've seen this topic done much better in movies like Marriage Story and Blue Valentine.
follow me at https://IHATEBadMovies.com or facebook IHateBadMovies
Did she do it? Was it an accident? Or perhaps suicide? These are all questions that "Anatomy of a Fall" is not too interested in answering. Instead, this legal drama is more about dissecting a couple's complicated relationship in the course of a trial. The viewer takes on the role of a juror and must ultimately decide for themselves whether the main character Sandra (Sandra Hüller) is responsible for the death of her husband.
Although the film is quite long (151 minutes) and extremely dialog-heavy, you hardly ever notice its length. The strong performances are a major reason for this, as Hüller is truly fantastic and young actor Milo Machado Graner is also a revelation. Furthermore, the tension is constantly sustained, with the courtroom confrontations being varied and intelligent. But the clear highlight is a flashback to a lengthy argument between Sandra and her husband near the end of the trial, the escalation of which should have everyone on the edge of their seats.
Ultimately, it's fair to say that there have been thousands of legal dramas in the past, but "Anatomy of a Fall" effortlessly places itself in the top tier of this sub-genre. Carried by Sandra Hüller's strong performance, this film is a must-see this awards season.
"I just want you to know that I'm not that monster, you know. Everything you hear in the trial it's just.. it's twisted."
While at times it does feel slow and we go in circles with the court drama, it is well done. Can't help but feel that if it were in another country, the lawyers would of eaten the prosecutor alive in court. Some of the long shots are beautiful and I truly hope that the kid Milo goes places because he stole the show.
It is not surprising that this film won the Oscar and BAFTA for BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY, the PALME d‘OR at Cannes, plus a variety of other awards (99 award wins & 182 nominations). This almost redefines the genre of Crime Mystery, as it meticulously winds its way through the lives and emotions of a family experiencing a tragic loss while under the threat of indictment. Sandra Hüller, who was nominated for her performance, plays her character with such transparency and complexity that it is almost impossible to determine her guilt or innocence. Milo Machado-Graner gives a performance that defies his youth. The story is skillfully woven, the acting is solid, and the mystery takes you though all the possibilities until the final scenes. Although the movie is long (2h 31m) there are pivotal scenes that pull you back into it, time and time again. In an interview with Sabra Hüller and the director, I was intrigued by the how they felt the conclusions that the audience members came to were more based on who those individuals were, than on who the script pointed to. I give this film a 9 (brilliantly executed) out of 10. [Crime Mystery]
This feels similar to Marriage Story in that it shows how a family deals with separating from each other, but instead of divorcing one of them dies. Also, the dog's acting was so good, bestest boy.
Captivating. It's long, but I was engaged throughout. The manipulations of various facts throughout the trial to assist both sides really plays with our perception of events. Triet directed (and co-wrote) this wonderfully and Hüller was fantastic. Strong 8.5 here.
What an intriguing mystery. Love that it’s a movie that gets people talking. The acting is so amazing from the leads, to the kid, and even the dog! The dialogue in this script also stood out. Some well deserved Oscar nominations!
yes it can be dragging, mostly in its first hour but the second half made it worth it. sandra huller is amazing
what an act ... this one of the best movies i recently watched ...
Fascinating study of the probative value of subjective evidence of character as it relates to pursuit of truth vs procedural fairness and rights. Can I prove what happened by who you are or what you said? Provides a contrast to the exclusionary rules in the American legal system. Intense, high stakes, emotional drama. Sandra Huller is magnificent. Legitimate Best Picture contender.
french courts go hard dude.
In-fucking-credible. Loved that it kept scenes lengthy; makes them last longer, literally and figuratively.
My 2nd favourite of the year as of right now (only Scorsese's latest tops it).
Anatomy of a Fall is a brilliant film. Its setting is a courtroom; its focus is the death of a man; but its message is about the fall of relationships. Sandra Huller is magnificent. #betterthanMarriageStory
Absolutely enjoyed this.
- The Oscar for the Best performance by an Animal goes to Snoop.
- Watching those courtroom scenes is about as close I’m gonna get to be in one someday. Honestly theres a perfect 2hr movie in there especially when there was a few electric sequences were often followed by quieter scenes which dragged a little bit.
Incredibly boring and annoying. It’s the kind of film where they take pride in having bored and annoyed the audience on purpose. Plus all the characters are super unappealing - on purpose again I’m sure… Gosh I really dislike French cinema - except for comedies. As a testament to how terrible French cinema can be, movie theaters in France are required by law to play French movies (otherwise most of the time they probably wouldn’t).
Definitely not for everyone, but if you don't mind a 'slow burn' like me it's an outstanding movie.
Another heavily courtroom-based drama/investigation and while I enjoyed the others that were released in the last several weeks, this one I think will stand out a bit more and receive more widespread praise as a film.
Basic premise, but infinitely more complex as it brings the characters to life with more detail as the story tells itself. Not afraid to leave things messy with ambiguity, but intentionally so to reflect on how trials, investigations and relationships work as opposed to poor filmmaking/writing.
I expect this movie to show up on a few top lists at the end of the year, and feature on way more "top movies you might have missed" lists. So if you enjoyed the other recent courtroom dramas, The Burial and The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial, I would expect you to enjoy this one significantly more, although I could see some people being a bit put off but the ambiguity throughout the movie, so fair warning on that if you think that might be you.
Also I'll not at all be surprised if I see Sandra Hüller floating around for performance awards at the end of the year.
My comment for me only：太平淡了，我果然不适合看文艺片
Watched this with my friend without any context, he liked it. I love the plot that give a space for its viewers to think
Great acting, for sure. Otherwise, it looks like a made for French TV movie, the story is ....meh, and my god how can it be 2 and a half hours? Not a bad movie, but certainly not worth the hype to me
I wanted to like this film, but it got boring real fast and tedious to swim through the exhausting details the film has just recap with the family. This would have been better as a book, since visually there was nothing interesting going on.
I fell robbed of 150 minutes or my life. What a pointless effort that flick was.
I'm not sure what this movie is trying to be. Is it a character drama with intricate and complex characters? Or is it a whodunnit murder mystery?
Without choosing a direction, it fails to be both, and so I can only give it a 6/10. The synopsis also mentions a moral dilemma that Daniel has to work through, but I didn't witness any moral dilemma.
The cinematography is great. The characters are complex and interesting and acting is outstanding. The initial plot is interesting, but then it just tapers off.
Venturing into minor spoiler territory, we spend much of the film just watching people talking about things that happened, which I find a very dull way to tell a story through film. There is only one scene where we actually see a flashback. I wanted more of the storytelling to be like that.
And (into major spoiler territory now) we never really find out what happened by the end, so it's left completely ambiguous. Too ambiguous to make the character drama pay off because we never get confirmation of whether the subtle things we may have noticed during the great acting were truth or lies.
The ambiguity also resulted in me not particularly liking or rooting for any of the characters, or rooting against them for that matter. WIthout any resolution to the characters, their words are just... words.
And on a surface level, we don't get the satisfaction of solving the murder mystery. I was hoping for some kind of big revelation, like Daniel being involved in the death (intentionally or accidentally), or Maleski framing Sandra with his suicide.
it's amazing to read the comments about these 'unlikeable characters' as I didn't think anyone was unlikeable. I mean they all had flaws and acted badly, but isn't that part of living?
I really loved the way it asked so many questions, and the fact that it says right up there it doesn't matter what the truth is, just what people believe. I'm not sure I agree entirely with that, in some cases the truth is a fact, but it works for this film
The last best picture nominee I had left to watch and perhaps my favorite. The writing and performances are brilliant. Even before finishing the movie, I already wanted to revisit certain scenes to look for missed details and appreciate all the little nuances (definitely the flashback/recording scene, which was a highlight, but several courtroom exchanges as well). I really enjoyed the interplay between languages and how those types of elements might affect the judge/jurors. In the same way that it's difficult to judge a performance in a language you don't speak, I imagine it's also difficult to judge credibility. I was worried about how things would end, as these kind of stories can struggle to stick the landing (e.g., I was disappointed in HBO's The Undoing), but they made it work.
Sandra's dilemma lies in either killing her husband out of hatred or her husband losing confidence in life and marriage and choosing to commit suicide. She had no easy way out. The audience is like a jury, what matters is not the truth, but what they choose to believe.
If animals received Oscar’s for performance, Snoopy would surely win one!
The premise of this one seemed pretty great. I can also see why Tomatoscore is at 96%. However, there is so much dialog for a movie that goes on for over 2.5 hours. If you like your slow burn courtroom dramas, this one is easy to fully recommend. However, this one was a bit too long and slow for me to want to revisit. Objectively, it is good, but something is holding it back for personal preference.
Rating: 3/5 - 75% - Worth Watching
It's the smartest film of the year, but that doesn't mean it's the most interesting or fun. This film will be the last Oscar film I see (I'm referring to the big ones, just missing Oppenheimer, I'll leave that one out for a few years).
The use of court as a form of narrative to question society is very old, but the way it is composed is truly innovative. The merit is in the editing and in the script that manages to bring cinema with a framework in people's faces and in ours. Playing, with spectators creating a metalanguage layer, bringing interest and doubt. Are we judging someone? Or are they acting?
This is another way of seeing the film and one of the layers that the film brings. In general terms, this is a film that discusses everything, but doesn't delve into anything - gains and losses. The most peculiar issue is the author's decision to put her son's feelings as a priority. And the best quality of the film is how subtly the film turns into something else.
Good film, I recommend it! I gave one point just for the actress Sandra Huller.
Honestly, "The Staircase" (HBO) came to mind, a possible murder suspect (or simply an accident, although the possibility of suicide is added here), the suspect has bisexual tendencies, and in the end, there were even more doubts ( For me, there were open questions about the mark on the head).
Coincidentally, in both stories, there is something related to artists, France and Germany.
It could be said that to a certain extent it is predictable, but still, the intrigue of wanting to know how far the characters are going to go.
It hooked me.
Too many kids with short attention spans spouting off nonsense in here to handle. For everyone else, this is a must watch and you already know this.
That was definitely ... a movie ... that I watched
Cinematography and acting were okay, but the story is not so interesting and the film is too long for what it offers.
A brilliant idea to dissect the ins and outs of a family, literally put on trial. Which is actually consistent with Justine Triet's other looks at tempestuous family dynamics in films like "La bataille de Solférino" (2013). But in this case she perfects the writing to offer different versions of the "truth" that can be derived from the external observation of a subjective reality. And it benefits from an ambiguity that is precisely expressed in Sandra Hüller's performing, the main thrust of a story that could have fallen into banality.
The performance of the actors is great and the best parts of the film are the court scenes. Although I don't think it lives up to the hype, it isn't life-changing
The fight scene reminded me of "Marriage Story." Brilliant performances.
waited for a plot twist that never came.
I liked it less than most. The plot is undoubtedly interesting, but the directing was somewhat unstable. I even fell asleep for a pair of minutes. What I liked was that this is one of those movies that ends without giving you the answer: did she or did she not do it? But you, as an spectator, do not feel scammed because it was a good story.
In the anatomy of a fall, the essence of the movie lies in the scene where the husband falls flat on the snow, killed, with his wife and son standing beside his lifeless body, embracing in grief. It's about the complexity of human emotions and relationships, not about solving the murder case. We might never know the truth, but we must decide what to believe. The great acting, perfect cinematography, and directing, along with the unforgettable ambiance of the French Alps, elevate the film.
Rated a Connor 0, normal 3
A compelling courtroom drama that skillfully navigates through ambiguity and plays with biased assumptions, providing a viewing experience that may vary in interpretations depending on the audience's perspective. The film is expertly crafted to immerse the audience in the characters' authenticity, as their flaws and private lives are laid bare in the public eye.
Sometimes, the prosecutor went a little overboard with strangely hilarious results, but the well-paced dialogues and strong performances -yes, even from the dog!!- manage to keep everything gripping and believable throughout. I am not completely sure if the final reveal and subsequent twist in the narrative really had any impact on the trial, but I found it a little out of place and slightly unrealistic for my taste. That would be the only flaw in an otherwise solid film.
This level of quality should be the standard for mainstream movies, but unfortunately, it seems to be a rarity.
trying to sit through the first 10 minutes with that awful music over the top of the conversation... almost didn't make it
Outstanding performance by Sandra Hüller although the story is a bit ponderous in places.
I know a lot of people think the story is ambiguous - did she or didn’t she? For me there was no ambiguity in it at all… the father killed himself to spite his wife because he is a destructive narcissist. I’d be surprised if that case made it to court in real life.
best actress 2024 winner easily. easily.
I was kind of whatever through most of the movie, really impressive performances, then I found myself crying at the end.
A rough start for me, I thought it was overly melodramatic too early and I laughed at the movie and how simplistic the mystery was (they do these in 40 min episodes usually). I don't know why I kept going but I did and the movie slowly grew on me. I started enjoying it in the courtroom scenes, analysing the facts and becoming a jury yourself is the best thing about this movie, in fact it's the whole point. So much talking, so much tension, the debate keeps pulling you from one side to the other. Thankfully it didn't give us any answers by the end. I could rewatch this and have a different opinion on what really happened.
The performances were excellent, Sandra Hüller especially but I was also surprised by the son (Milo Machado-Graner). The characters are so complex and fun to analyse, they're basically in the grey area the whole movie you just don't know who's good and who's bad. The flashback arguement scene was peak, such good acting and I felt like I was about to enter the argument myself.
It was definitely too long. I got bored in some scenes. Thought it was going to end multiple times but it wouldn't. The ending is ambiguous but man they got so close to breaking that ambiguity—too close? Also, I don't ever want to hear that 50 Cent song again!
Like a serious discussion: it can be good without being fun, even if you don't always appreciate the subject.
As someone who deplores the abundance of family dramas filling our eye-holes like maize in a sated duck, I appreciated how the courtroom drama and the intrigue was raised by the director's keen touch.
I love it when the movie is over and you just know it will stay with you for days after. Brilliant writing that's scary realistic at times, delivered by outstanding performances. Can't recommend it enough!
Shout by zxkiBlockedParent2024-01-04T09:02:19Z
The acting. I need to start at the acting before anything. Every single person on that screen was every inch of believable. Even that dog, the dog, amazed me with its acting skills.
Next up is the cinematography, it was filmed almost like a documentary and I think that's what makes this different from most movies for sure. I loved feeling like these characters were real.
The story and the dialogue are both top-notch, and the ending is very controversial, I'd say. Also, the soundtrack is both soothing and chaotic. I love it.
The only reason I'm not giving it a higher level is because I didn't feel connected enough to any of the characters to care enough. The case itself is interesting, but the answers are too thin.