Opiniones de usuarios

Courtroom-based dramas aren't all created equal. Chances are you can think of a few timeless ones that stand the test of time (perhaps 'To Kill a Mockingbird,' 'A Few Good Men,' 'The Pelican Brief'). In Justine Triet's 'Anatomy of a Fall,' we can get to see the French judicial system on display in a tale of the struggle to decide when it's difficult to see the truth through a forest of hearsay.

There are a few aspects of 'Fall' that hold the audience's attention more so than other films in this genre. The way the story unfolds from the initial events to the verdict and aftermath is riveting, which makes it easy to understand how it earned an Oscar for best original screenplay. The performance of Sandra Hüller is exceptional, as she convincingly plays a conflicted writer who loves her half-blind son, Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner), yet must defend herself against an accusation of murder.

There are a few scenes in 'Fall' that are masterclass, including the recreation of an argument between Hüller and her onscreen husband, Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis). This scene is intense, agonizing and feels completely authentic, and both actors deliver A+ work. Machado-Graner also does a superb job across the board, including an emotional testimony as a witness in the trial. Oh, and anyone who watches this movie will never be able to think of 50 Cent's "P. I. M. P." the same way again.

For such a simple premise, 'Anatomy of a Fall' manages to showcase the complexity of human nature and the importance of seeing both sides of a situation.

This film is a glorious exception to the rule that if a movie attempts to do too many things in its two hour time span then it will be disappointing. Not only is this film a gripping courtroom drama, the best I've seen since that previous "Anatomy", directed by Preminger, it is also a most acute examination of a miserable marriage as well as an uneasy mother/son relationship. That co writer and director Justine Triet manages to give moving, convincing renditions of each of these three subjects without putting undue strain upon my patience (I was never close to being bored) heralds, in my opinion, a most promising career. I definitely look forward to the next film by Ms. Triet and will, hopefully, be able to view her prior ones. And the lead actor, Sandra Huller, just may swoop in and make off with the Oscar.

It also has, thrown in free of charge, the best dog performance in a film since "Sounder". Give it an A.

PS...Remind me to never get arrested in France. Its legal system is, if this film can be trusted, more than a bit on the chaotic side. With an alarming tolerance for speculation. To mention nothing of witnesses viewing the trial!

A lonely chalet in the French Alps. A dead man laying in the snow in front of it. Apparently he fell out of the third floor window under the roof.

Was it an accident? Suicide? Or a murderess attack? Whoever expects a conventional crime thriller with a final simple solution will be badly disappointed by this complex psychological drama about a female author fighting for her independence, dignity and her own truth in the courtroom, where she stands under suspicion to have killed her husband. But beware: truth has different aspects and different sides, depending on whoever tries to catch it. It comes in disguises, often invisible, always subjective.

In the end it's up to the viewer to make up his own mind about the case. While the investigation is unfolded Triets movie proudly walks in the footsteps of Ingmar Bergman, a classic analyst of complicated couple relationships and she truly succeeds in doing so.

Anatomy of a Fall is a French film that explores the ambiguity of how we create notions of the truth through complexity of a criminal case. The film refuses to answer the question of guilt or innocence, but rather examines how people construct their own narratives based on partial and biased information. The film shows how gender, media, and personal motives influence the interpretation of the facts. The son of the accused, who is the only witness, admits that he does not know what really happened, and that he has to make a choice about what to believe. The prosecutor, who seems to have a personal vendetta against the accused, also relies on assumptions and speculations rather than solid evidence. The film is a compelling and nuanced study of human psychology and social dynamics. The film is well-acted and directed, but it could have been shorter. Some scenes in the courtroom are repetitive and drag on for too long.

Anatomy of a Fall is an engrossing courtroom drama that packs a miniseries' worth of story in two and a half hours. I totally see why it garnered so much acclaim from the festival circuit! It is exactly the kind of legal drama I've wanted to see for years. THIS is the standard of crime genre that all other films now have to live up to. Thoughtful, intricate and emotional. The writing is phenomenal - it takes a lot of guts to do two hours of court proceedings but wow, it's enthralling; so meticulously plotted and presented, with such intricate explorations of the complexities of relationships. It's the kind of thought-provoking procedural where the truth is never certain and the power is granted to the audience to determine its true outcome. Sandra Hüller is extraordinary in a cant-look-away performance that will grip you from beginning to end, but if I'm being honest, everyone here is incredible. It has one of the best child performances I've ever seen in a film. Even the dog put in a performance of a lifetime! Taut, suspenseful and compelling until the final moment, the film progresses like a heady puzzle that tackles the messiness of existence and the often elusive nature of truth itself. Anatomy of a Fall is truly all-around exceptional filmmaking!

There are so many things I got from this after watching it. So many subtle little thing that throw shade over both characters, thus showing such complex humans with flaws and virtues.

Technically it does not stand out but it's servicable for the themes and story. Was this the perfect long-game psychological crime? That last scene speaks volumes. The last courtroom scene with the kid was devestating and conclusive, even if that lawyer tried to flip it. Even him knew the conclusion at that moment. It was cathartic.

It was a very devastating and powerful film. I would very much like to see it again so I can absorb that excellent dialogue all over again.

It's a great movie, without a doubt. Excellently directed with the best handling of the shots and the cameras of the year. The acting of Sandra Huller and the boy (whose name I'm forgetting) are impressive, worthy of award nominations. Not in vain the actress was in two of the best movies of the year. Her handling of languages and how she makes each dialogue credible is fascinating.

It's a hard and pure trial movie, in my opinion it has 2-25 minutes left over and I lack a soundtrack. In the end it leaves me wanting more because I was expecting a plot twist that would surprise. For the rest, highly recommended.

The prestigious "Palme d'Or" had raised expectations, the trailers ignited my interest, and the premise held enough promise for me to be genuinely curious and wait for the right opportunity (and chance) to see this, which I finally did, but regrettably, my presumed sense of satisfaction is nowhere to be found; instead, a sense of discontent looms over me.

I have never been a fancier of Courtroom dramas, not that I straight up renounce them, I do like to attend to some if their stories exude enough flavour but that is rare and happens in selective instances.

You must be wondering, how did I end up here then?

Well, I thought the courtroom aspect would just be a part of the narrative, not the primary focus, but as you can tell I was terribly mistaken, had I known it prior, I would have set my expectations accordingly.

Nevertheless, despite the script's earnest insistence on encouraging socially relevant discussion regarding Marital Issues and power dynamics in a relationship, most of it appeared surface level, lacking depth and substance, at least not on par with the promises that were set in the initial stage.

The writing here tends to shine the brightest whenever the story moves outside of the courtroom. All thanks to a grippy screenplay and some terrific acts delivered by the whole ensemble, particularly Sandra Hüller, she was fantastic.

This movie runs 150 minutes, but I was never bored or distracted. The script is taught, the direction intriguing. Certain scenes, like when the boy is being questioned by two opposing lawyers at the same time, so that he is constantly turning his head back and forth to look at each in turn, are very clever.

Almost half this movie is in English, so even people who don't like subtitles should give it a try.

I haven't seen Anatomy of a Murder in years, so I can't say if there are any references to it. I do remember, however, that I didn't think it was a great movie.

This, however, has greatness written all over it.

The beauty of the film truly lies in how delicately it's paced throughout. Even when it takes the shape of a courtroom drama with great attention to detail, it still rests firmly on the emotional bonding between the lead characters - in this case, a mother (Sandra), her son (Daniel), and their dog. That never takes a backseat, despite the film turning into a murder mystery (of sorts) at several points. I absolutely loved the performances here, be it Sandra Hüller, Swann Arlaud, Milo Machado Graner, and Samuel Theis. And for all it's worth, the standout here is Snoop (the dog), and his presence not only drives the story forward at a pivotal juncture, but this wonderful canine also takes the audience's perspective in the beginning and at the end of the film. He's travelling with these characters just like us, while also playing the role of an unconditional guardian angel to Daniel.

When the writing digs deep into the intricacies of a marriage, it is poignant, relatable, and hard-hitting. Both the husband and the wife are writers essentially, and that makes their struggles and little victories all the more accessible. The changing dynamics in their relationship is brought to light through superbly shot flashbacks (just as their audio recordings are being played in court), and we as audiences, understand what each half of the couple is going through. The journey is dramatic alright, but since the outcome determines whether the mother gets to reunite with her son after a long, drawn-out trial, it always remains riveting to watch. The "lesser" moments - like a scene that depicts Sandra and her lawyer friend drinking together, are also beautifully staged.

I love Sandra Hüller ever since Requiem and I'm at a stage in my life where couple dynamics is very relevant, so I was pretty excited about this one. Sadly, it didn't deliver. I support the message that people's relations are too complex to be easily judged and Hüller's performance is masterful, but it's not enough to save it all. The story is quite standard (with the addition of the obligatory non-traditional roles and sexualities), so we have two and a half hours to dedicate fully to the psychological depths. There is only a brush on the surface though. The kid character is unnecessary and unbelievable: he is allowed and able to make a philosophical argument in a courtroom, for crying out loud. I would never say "no" to a dog, but the truth is we don't need it either. All in all, a decent entertainment for when you feel under the season, but nothing more.

The first 20 minutes of the movie are great but the rest of the movie feels long and boring. Acting by the lead actors is phenomenal and keeps you from walking out. The movie is pretty weak other than the acting and the screenplay. Have seen a lot of movies with similar premise that are better. This movie tried to marry relationship and court room drama into one but failed.

If it's going for relationship issues then Ingmar Bergman, Rossellini and Antonioni has made much better movies covering the subject. If it's going for mystery the South Korean movie Burning has a lot more going on. If it's going for courtroom drama I suggest Japanese movie I Just Didn't Do It.

It's an ok movie. Wished it was shorter.

Watched this recent French film last night; the winner of this year's Palme d'Or, which says something about the level of competition in the world of film today.

It's an excellently acted and well-shot story of a wife on trial for the possible murder of her husband, who is found fallen from the highest window of their alpine home, but at 2½ hours, it's a good 40 or 50 minutes too long for such a small and relatively simple tale. There are endless courtroom scenes that don't progress the narrative or lead to any shocking twists, which could have easily been compressed or pared down in more competent hands.

It's an extremely - and frustratingly - female film, in its wallowing in subjectivity and its repeated assertion that what one feels is actual reality, rather than the facts of the matter, and as a result, there is no clear ending to the film, the message being that you can choose to believe whatever the hell you like. But of course this is silly nonsense: either one human being pushed another human being out of a window or they didn't, and in a murder trial, that should be all that matters.

So yes, it's a strange thing to rate: on a moment-by-moment basis, it's well-observed and often engrossing, but the substance of the story itself is flimsy and, in the final analysis, almost non-existent, so the most I can generously give it is 6/10.

Did she do it? That's the question that kept my eyes wide open and made me so hyped throughout this entire enthralling courtroom drama. In fact, I was challenged to do the work along with the jury and perceive exactly what Daniel felt. This film's realism really connected with me. It was so accurate and stressful that I forgot I was watching a film. I felt like I was watching a true story or the news or something. That is why it was very skillfully executed and well acted, as we have seen a brilliant performance from the leading actress, Sandra Hüller, who convincingly conveyed a dynamic variety of emotions.

And the Oscar goes to... Messi (the dog's real name). Feels ironic, right? Haha.

I went into the Cannes premiere not knowing what to expect. The movie instantly hooked me and kept me captivated the entire time. The dialogues were some of the best I've ever gotten to watch in a film. There are spins and turns. Some very beautiful lines that resonate. The writing showed understanding of the intricacies of multicultural relationships. Some moments were intense and made me cry.

To summarize, I came into this movie with no expectations, and was mesmerized and left feeling like this is a perfect film, perfectly crafted. It deserves to win some awards and I will make sure to watch the director's other films.