diff --git "a/data/json_IMDB/commentaires_Anatomy of a Fall.json" "b/data/json_IMDB/commentaires_Anatomy of a Fall.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/data/json_IMDB/commentaires_Anatomy of a Fall.json" @@ -0,0 +1,114 @@ +{ + "0": "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.", + "1": "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.", + "2": "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.", + "3": "Amazing script, wonderful acting (Sandra Hüller is absolutely fantastic!), subtle music and skillful camera work: the film is interesting to watch, the twists are unpredictable and every next moment it digs deeper into the intricacies and imperfections in the relationship of a wealthy intellectual middle-aged couple. One of the partners appears emotionally stronger than the other, so they get over their family dramas and tragedies in different ways, to such an extent that it ends up with one of the partners dead and the other in court, charged with murder. This is how we are gradually exposed to the skeletons in their cupboards and feel free to recognize some of them as our own. Gives a lot of food for thought and discussion. Fantastic movie!", + "4": "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.", + "5": "First of all, the movie was incredibly realistic. I haven't seen a film that felt this realistic in a long time, and it didn't oversimplify the complex situation. Additionally, the film was very well-directed, and the director's skill was evident.I won't delve deeply into the performances, but everyone did quite well. There might have been a couple of instances of overacting that caught my eye, but overall, the performances were on point.As I mentioned in the first paragraph, the direction really caught my attention. Apart from the screenplay, they portrayed events from a very accurate angle and profile, which was impressive. Another outstanding aspect was the courtroom scenes, with long, uncut takes that were mesmerizing in terms of both acting and cinematography, creating a sense of realism that truly captivated me. I couldn't believe how real it was. It was even more real than reality, to put it that way.The screenplay was clear and straightforward, with no exaggeration. However, I can offer some criticism towards the end, as the runtime extended, and as the conclusion began to take shape, I started to feel fatigued as a viewer. This is where I deducted some points, as I had expected 1-2 unique scenes that were missing.I'd like to mention my favorite scenes in the film with spoilers. The scene where the Snoop is poisoned was amazing; it made me feel so bad that my stomach still hurts, and that's a serious achievement. Daniel's final speech where he talks about the memory and his facial expressions were incredibly well done. I applaud the young actor. Sandra Hüller's performance in the scene where she argues with her husband was excellent, and her monologue was spot on. I also loved the part where the events were simulated; it was my favorite part, as it set this film apart from others.Additionally, during the courtroom scenes in the film, there is a lot of back and forth, which is hard to describe. The film explores all possibilities but doesn't lead you to a definite conclusion by the end. I'm not sure whether Daniel's final memory he shares in court is real or if it indicates that he couldn't accept that his mother was the murderer. If the events in the film had been resolved to my satisfaction, I wouldn't have liked it as much. I don't know what the general consensus is, but I believe that each possibility remains equally plausible from the start, and this aspect of the film is one of its strong points.In summary, despite the weariness towards the end, I'm glad I watched it in the cinema, and I'm glad I went to see this French production. It's the right kind of film in every aspect.", + "6": "An accident or an incident that then starts examination, as your world is then dissected and the roots pulled from foundations, interpretation and translation, vague and cryptic information, that may leave you with some years of deep reflective contemplation. Forensically the life you've led is stripped and searched - examined, layers of your soul removed just like a rabbit that's being skinned, to reveal the facts through diction, or is this all a work of fiction, as you try to wrench yourself from the state's cross to which you've been pinned. Just to complicate the picture there's a son who's in despair, the gaze that he once owned is now long lost - beyond repair, making sense of what's gone on, recollections are redrawn, perhaps the dog's the only one who really knew what's come and gone.Sandra Hüller is quite spectacular.", + "7": "Palme d'or meant high expectations while I was in the theater to see \"Anatomy of a Fall\", and it didn't disappoint.The first part of the movie has the tone of a typical crime-piece. We as an audience are shocked by the Samuel's sudden (although expected) death in the first few minutes. Now we have a mystery to solve: how did Samuel die? Was he killed? If yes by whom? And how?So we start following the attorneys and the investigators in the construction of a murder case against Samuel's wife Sandra (Sandra Hüller), and like them we try to solve this puzzle as we get spoon-fed its pieces: drops of blood, vague fragments of memories, recordings, past tragedies.. Each new piece of information presented to us before and during the trial shifts our opinion about the nature of Samuel's death, each new evidence is inconsistent with the previous one and adds up to a pile of confusion. We have enough to suspect, that's all.Then start the stories. Defense and general attorneys, experts, psychologists.. Everyone writes their own narrative about Samuel's death. And much like Kurosawa's \"Rashômon\" (1952), each storyteller bends the facts to fit their personal envies and objectives: Sandra wants to stay with his son, Vincent (Swann Arlaud) wants Sandra to love him back, the psychologist needs to keep his 100% record of patients that didn't kill themselves. Even the press has its goals in it: \"a writer killing her husband if much more interesting than a professor killing himself\". At that point, we understand that it doesn't even matter if Sandra killed Samuel or not, or as Vincent said \"we don't care about reality\". We all want the story that makes sense.So does Daniel (Milo Machado Graner). He discovers that he isn't only blind physically, but also blind about his family's past and his parents' relationship. Like the audience, he is shocked by each revelation and asks himself questions, investigates, and gets lost. His law-enforcer/baby-sitter Marge finally gets the key to him: \"if you don't know what is real, then decide it yourself\". Daniel tells his story, that turns out to be the best one. No way to know if the story is true. Maybe he just preferred the \"suicidal father, innocent mother\" to \"killed father, killer mom\". But one thing is sure, with his testimony, Daniel has reached the goal that her writer mother wanted to achieve in her books: blurring the lines between fiction and reality.Top notch acting by Milo Machado Graner, Sandra Hüller, Antoine Reinhartz, Swann Arlaud, and of course Snoop; I hope he isn't thirsty anymore.9/10.", + "8": "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.", + "9": "Seen at Viennale 2023: the problem with the digital medium is that it became too cheap to produce long movies in our days. On expensive celluloid, I guess, movies like this would be shorter. To fill the length one discovery is made ALWAYS after another and so is discussed at court in the same time line. This is extremely constructed. In a case of crime at least some happenings of the past should be in front of the judge at once and not like pearls on a string discussed one after the other. The movie content is highly intellectual sorted in the time arrow. So there is no room for actors and actress to give much of a performance.The Palme d'Or of Cannes should be given to movies that might be good enough to be remembered in several years, too. This boring piece of couple relation themes will be forgotten im a few years for good.", + "10": "This movie isn't bad.The bad part is that is 2 and a half hours long that could easily have been 90 minutes. I had high expectations because of the awards and the high ratings, but man, you gotta have a lot of patience to watch this. The first part got me, then it only gets boring (not that boring if you like court room and deep long dialogue movies).The good points about \"Anatomie d'une chute\" is the plot that is interesting, some of the dialogue and I'm giving it a 5 because of Hüllers performance.However, is just another court room movie without a clear closure. Not that I was expecting it to show if the guy killed himself or not but Palm D Or Winner? Why? Nothing new to see here.", + "11": "My local cinema does 'secret screenings', where the audience doesn't know what they will be seeing until the title appears; I think it's the only way to get people to attend boring over-rated arthouse films like Anatomy of a Fall.When I realised I had been duped yet again (I was hoping for Thanksgiving), I almost walked out, but I remained seated, partly to give the film a chance, but mostly to see how many other viewers would hurriedly leave in disappointment. Plenty did, and, in hindsight, I wish I had followed suit. But I stayed. And I was bored. For two and half hours.To be fair, the acting in Anatomy of a Fall is decent, Sandra Hüller giving a strong central performance as Sandra Voyter, a wife who stands trial for the murder of her husband, but the execution is so lifeless and the courtroom procedure so drawn out that I am amazed I stayed awake for the duration.And when the film eventually draws to a close, writer/director Justine Triet doesn't even have the decency to wrap things up in a satisfactory manner - we never learn whether Sandra is a murderer or not. After 151 minutes of boring drama, we're left there sitting like prize plums.", + "12": "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.", + "13": "To start with, the duration of the\nfilm could have been shorter than it was. The script was good, directing was good, Möller's performance was ok. The kid was remarkable in my opinion so was his dog! Loved how the plot unraveled in the court room. Somehow I expected a plot twist after the end of the trial which never came. I found no reason for the film to keep on going after the verdict.I would recommend the film to the lovers of French cinema, but would not have too many expectations at the very end.Extra points for the piano music, the Alpine scenery and the wintery atmosphere which I found remarkable.", + "14": "This is one of the most boring two and a half hours that you can spend in your life. A procedural drama where lawyers discuss the case without ever mentioning the motive, instead dissecting the victim's taste in music or the accused ability to work or sleep anywhere, under any circumstances.Two and a half hours of pointless drivel that, yes, relationships are complex, most people have layers, but my God, some people have the ability to take a 15-minute plot and turn it into an epic equivalent of a YouTube video that has 2 minutes of material and 20 minutes of sponsored content.Yeah, the point isn't if she did it or not (spoiler: you won't find out, kinda peculiar for a \"murder mystery\"), the point is to see how many stupid details about forgettable characters can fit into one movie without the audience jumping from a window onto a shed.Go paint a shed and watch paint dry instead of this movie, it offers the same amount of introspection, but also has a utilitarian side to it.", + "15": "Justine Triet's Anatomy of a Fall is a masterful film that combines the elements of a murder mystery, a courtroom drama and a psychological thriller. The film follows Sandra (Sandra Hüller), a German writer who lives in an isolated chalet in the French Alps with her husband Samuel (Samuel Theis) and their blind son Daniel (Milo Machado-Graner). One day, Samuel is found dead in the snow outside their home, and Sandra is arrested for his murder. She claims she is innocent, but the evidence against her is overwhelming. The only witness is Daniel, who faces a moral dilemma: should he tell the truth or protect his mother?The film keeps the audience on the edge of their seats as it unravels the secrets and lies behind Samuel's death. Triet skillfully uses flashbacks, unreliable narration and ambiguous clues to create doubt and suspense. She also explores the themes of family, loyalty, betrayal and identity, as Sandra's past and present collide. Hüller delivers a stunning performance as Sandra, a complex and flawed character who elicits both sympathy and suspicion. She is supported by an excellent cast, including Swann Arlaud as her lawyer, Antoine Reinartz as the prosecutor and Jehnny Beth as her friend. The film also features a memorable canine performance by Messi, who plays Sandra's dog and won the Palm Dog Award.Anatomy of a Fall is a film that will keep you guessing until the end, and leave you with more questions than answers. It is a brilliant example of how to craft a thrilling and intelligent film that challenges and entertains the viewer. It is one of the best films of the year, and deserves all the accolades it has received.", + "16": "I saw this Cannes Palme D'or 2023 winner with Nigel at the Curzon,Colchester.Sandra Huller dominates the screen in a subtle performance. She displays horror, bewilderment then a chilling demeanour and then something rather moving to her character- this just adds to the uncertainty the audience feels whether she did push her husband out the window. You're never sure and this is a strength to the film.She is also ably supported by Milo Machado Graner as her vulnerable blind son who delivers a sublime performance and nearly steals the entire film from Huller. His courtroom delivery is a masterful piece of acting especially when relaying the flashback in the car;of his father telling him all life comes to an end and the tears he evokes from this is heartbreaking.Despite all the strengths this film has many weaknesses; mainly an absurdity in length- a slim story is stretched to 2.5 hrs unnecessarily with acres of talk and talk mainly in the courtroom scenes that become ponderous. As courtroom dramas go this is neither thrilling nor exciting just a showcase to show how good Huller is as an actress.I, like Nigel, couldn't buy the USB stick being miraculously found showcasing the argument between the husband and wife, with this argument filmed to add theatricality to this event. It doesn't work and stinks of contrivance and a laziness to the script.Predictably this has been over praised by Kermode ( I didn't tell Nigel, Kermode's pal) because.....yet again......it's written and directed by a female!", + "17": "An interesting film about a woman accussed of murdering her husband. The way the story is told with flashbacks and through the eyes of the only witness the vision impaired son. I saw the film today at the New Zealand film festival. Really enjoyed the acting, the dialogue and the suspence of the story. Justine Triet did a great job of directing this fascinating legal drama. The lead actress was very good in this film portraying a complex woman who wants to protect her son while being on trial for the murder of her husband. I saw this film with a packed house at The Civic in Auckland New Zealand. A great theatre and a great experience i can see why this film won the Palme Dor.", + "18": "At first look, Anatomy of a Fall felt like a collection of all the thriller films I have seen before. A writer is suspected of pushing her teacher husband to death and the only \"witnesses\" seem to be their blind son and their dog. It's a banal premise but set in a snow-clad environ, making it a lot more poignant than it is. There's a lot of talking here - most of which happen in a courtroom - which is perhaps the best part, because you can clearly see the clever writing and even more solid performances from the entire cast. Anatomy of a Fall talks about complex human relationships and gives it multiple perspectives. And of course, the instrumental cover of 50 Cent's PIMP is an instant classic.(Watched at the 2023 MAMI Mumbai Film Festival.)", + "19": "It's not that this film is boring , it's that it's so boring you will be literally praying for the end credits. The pace is so slow and the plot so moribund that you will wish you had fallen out of a window to escape this dross. This is what happens when up their own arse film festivals fawn over films like this made for the cardigan and slippers brigade , who have no idea what entertainment is . It certainly isn't being literally lulled to sleep with a film that has all the excitement and drama of a wet Wednesday afternoon at the library foreign book section. I implore you not to waste your time with this it's over two hours of your life you won't get back. I saw this for free at the Odeon as a surprise screening. I was certainly surprised . Surprised they had the gall to screen this total snoozeville.", + "20": "Palme d'Or Cannes Award Winner.Justine Triet's cannily crafted French drama begins with a tragic accident as a man falls from an upstairs window to the ground below. Samuel (Samuel Theis) is married to a German writer, Sandra (Sandra Hüller). Their legally blind 11 year old son, Daniel (Milo M. Graner) discovers the body. Sandra had just completed an interview with a young female student about her work. A key line at the very beginning has Sandra mentioning that her writings like to mix fact with fiction. The law suspects that Sandra may have had something to do with the incident and she hires a lawyer Vincent (Swann Arlaud)Triet, who co-wrote with her life partner Arthur Harari lulls the viewer in with the criminal storyline. On the surface it appears to be a whodunnit, but, as it unfolds the forensic and legal intricacies take a back seat to the inner workings of Sandra and Samuel's wedlock (Anatomy Of a Marriage would be an equally apt title). This isn't to say that the resultant testimony and trial aren't vitally important, but, as the layers unfold, it is the marriage that comes under the microscope.One aspect that may surprise many viewers is how the French legal system allows for so much speculation and outright hearsay to be allowed in the courtroom. Triet and Harari use this to an advantage in their screenplay. The movie freely mixes testimony, flashbacks and arguments in order to paint its picture. Sandra is a German living in France who speaks English at home as a 'compromise' with her late husband. When she gets flustered in court trying to speak solely French, she defaults back to English. Daniel's blindness also compels the viewer to listen carefully to the tone of voice of the characters, just as he must. This is illustrated during a crucial moment when a secretly recorded argument between Sandra and Samuel is played before the jury. Much of it is shown in flashback, but, at its climax it's audio only - the viewer must draw their own assumptions.Triet and Harari being a real life couple adds to the verimisilitude of the portrayal of the husband and wife here (using the real first names of the two actors as their character monikers is a nice touch). Hüller's superb performance is what makes the movie work. As shown in TONI ERDMANN, she has the ability to outwardly display her emotions without revealing her inner workings. The supporting performances are all fine, with Arlaud adding an extra air of mystery by how he seems to always be questioning his own client as much as defending her. Does he believe his defendent is innocent? (note how his inquisitive look at the very end mirrors the one he gives Sandra when he first questions her)ANATOMY OF A FALL includes a judgement as to the legal facts of the case, but it's a testament to Triet that she doesn't neatly wrap it in a bow. The true verdict is with the individual viewer. The discussion continues and that's the mark of a movie that trusts the intelligence of its audience.", + "21": "This incredible drama thriller, winner of the highest price at Cannes, is definitely deserving of all the praise it has gotten.Being made in the style of the great master of suspense, it contains lots of homages and is stylized after his subtle and expert style. Whilst doing its own thing, of course.The pacing is very unique and very interesting, using lots of long takes without cutting - and like with all auteurs, it works splendidly. The actors all do an incredible job, as one would expect from such a great cast. It contain lots of clever dark humour.The cinematography, cutting and editing is beautiful, very unique and adds to the tone.Overall, an ever suspenseful thriller full of twists and turns, and an open and subtle ending that works incredible.A must see for any lover of film!", + "22": "This movie is just AMAZING !... this masterpiece blew my mind. I wondered how the Cannes Festival Jury Members decide to give the \"Palme d'Or\" instead of the \"Best Actress Prize\" Sandra Huller gives the PERFORMANCE of a LIFETIME. If she don't win the Best Leading Actress Oscar next year, i will never go back to the cinema anymore. The whole bunch of actors are extraordinary, even the young boy in the movie seems very mature for his age, he's turn was heartbreaking. I really hope this movie, will represent FRANCE in the International Film Category for the next Academy Award season. For me, the best movie of the year. It will certainly be nominated or rewarded, in a lot of ceremonies in the Film Industry.", + "23": "A horrid \"quality\" movie with nothing interesting besides the dog and the court atmosphere. Even that was stretched out and led to nothing. Guilty, not guilty, nobody cares in the end cause the director and even the producers seemingly don't care.The \"first\" of a kind where in the end you're still in the starting line. The movie is basically a jar full of endless conversation that in the end just falls and shatters in tens of pieces.Screenplay/storyline/plots: 5Development: 7Realism: 6.5Entertainment: 6Acting: 6.5Filming/photography/cinematography: 7VFX: 6.5Music/score/sound: 6.5Depth: 6.5Logic: 3.5Flow: 4Crime/drama/thriller: 3.5Ending: 1.", + "24": "WARNING: This review contains SPOILERS!!!!This year, the director Justine Triet proudly and deservingly took home the Palme D'or award at the Cannes Film Festival for her new movie Anatomy of A Fall. The film is a very realistic fictional film, just as most European-style filmmaking normally is. It finds the drama in real-life events. There is a score, but contrary to most movies where the score is a non-diegetic element, the director shows the source of the background music whether it was the son playing the piano or the house speakers blasting an instrumental version of 50 Cent's P. I. M. P, all of which add to the film's commitment to realism. The main sequences cut between the court case drama, the protagonist, Sandra's, life at home, and a bit of time before her husband's death. It's worth noting that the film never explicitly reveals what happened to the husband, but based on the evidence uncovered, it strongly suggests suicide. The central drama on screen revolves around Sandra's fight for her life/innocence after being accused of killing her husband.One fascinating aspect of the film is how it interweaves multiple storylines. There's the storyline of the timeline of their marriage and how it began to fall apart that was mostly told through court case testimonies; there's the storyline of the present, which is focused on figuring out what actually happened to the husband; there's the storyline of the son losing and then eventually regaining faith in his mother's innocence; there's the storyline of the son's tragic accident which caused him to become permanently blind and how that affected the couple; and the climax probably occurs in the courtroom when the audio recordings mentioned throughout the case are finally played, especially the one of Sandra and Samuel's (the husband) fight on the day he \"killed himself\". There's also the storyline of the husband's individual life and his battle against depression, even though the other characters are largely unaware of it.The reason why each storyline feels so real and distinct, much like real life, is due to the exceptionally realistic acting. Each character feels like they have their own separate movie told from their perspective of the events. It almost seems as if the director took the time to craft a feature film for each character as the protagonist and then decided to edit and splice everything together in a way that puts Sandra at the final forefront of the plot.Even the child, Daniel, has his moment as the film's protagonist, as he grapples with the possibility that his mother may have pushed his dad off the balcony. The performance from the young actor throughout the film but mostly in his climactic emotional recollection of events and the realisation that his mother is in fact innocent is exceptionally truthful. He doesn't feel like a mere side character. When he's on screen, he appears to be telling his story.Every actor in this film is outstanding, even the dog. While the dog's acting might have been enhanced in post-production through editing techniques, it's remarkable to see that even the dog appears to have its interpretation, its own story of what it witnessed.The film masterfully tells these various stories through different settings as well. It resembles a modern-day 'Rashomon' but filmed in a European style. The cinematography is honest and avoids intentionally manipulating light and shadows for dramatic effects. Instead, the focus is on capturing the details in each shot to occasionally remind the audience of the main issue at heart which is the threat to Sandra's freedom and innocence.The setting itself serves as a prop to the characters, reminding viewers of the characters' relationships with it. For Sandra, it's a reminder of her growing resentment towards her husband. For Samuel, it's a bleak place symbolising the empty compromise his wife made for his sake. For the son and the dog, it's simply their home. Though for the son, it later evolves into a place of pain and uncertainty.The director's meticulous storytelling decisions are evident in the order in which she unfolds each character's story. The film begins with an interview between Sandra and a journalist, with this being our only insight into the film's plot, everything seems quite casual. Then the moment the camera tracked the son walking through the snow, the dog frantically barking in the background and then a camera pan to reveal Samuel dead in the snow, the audience is completely shocked and shaken by the sharp turn the general mood/tone took changing our entire perceived course of the film into an incredibly tense courtroom drama. There are so many more details to be found in this movie and the way that the plot unravels. All I can say for now is that every person in that theatre who watched the film was engaged throughout the entire thing and left knowing that they've seen another extraordinary piece of pure cinema.", + "25": "The writing has good dialogue but first 30 min is slow. This film is very cerebral and plays with a bit of a cliche where the wife is more successful and smarter than the husband and is persecuted for it and then becomes the victim. I've seen this story in the hundreds the past few years and at festivals lately.Everyone at Cannes was talking about The Zone of Interest so I was surprised when this film\nwon bc very few people talked about it. This film is good for exploring husband and wife, man and woman dynamics and secrets in a courtroom style murder film genre, etc.This film does not contribute anything new to cinema so I was disappointed by the award. The wife character is bisexual which is used to create more mystery. Did she kill the husband so she can be with the other woman? She don't need no man to be happy, right? She's very stoic and doesn't feel much emotionYou will go back and forth wondering did this woman who is so much smarter than her husband kill him bc he is jealous or bc she is bisexual? Or does she have alterior motives.I recommend maybe watching it on the airplane while you're with friends talking and couldn't find something else or could be good on the subway with your phone if nobody is talking to you.The ending is surprising so I gave it an extra star for that; that's not easy to do. And another star for the writing which was the better part.Took away stars because a new movie or tv show with this same underlying story and theme (albeit different execution) comes out every day. And took away points bc there is an underlying didacticism.", + "26": "I know, I know. It's my problem. A wonderfully acted, beautifully shot, two and a half hour french \"whodunnit\" and I feel cheated.Most viewers, from the reviews I've read on here, got everything and more from this years winner at Cannes. But not me. To my shame, I waited and I waited, for that jaw dropping twist that I felt I deserved. I even stayed for the entire credits in the vain hope that there was a hidden denouement. But no. All I was left with was, did she or didn't she? (or did he?)\nI have enough stuff to worry about and adding to it like this isn't helping. It's bad enough having to spend the last twenty years never knowing what happened to Tony Soprano, now I have to ponder the fate of Samuel Maleski too.", + "27": "I stumbled onto this movie because of its interesting poster. Until this movie, I've watched very few French movies and this movie was a pleasant surprise. *Anatomy of a Fall* tells a story of a wife who is accused of murdering her husband who had died from a mysterious fall. On the surface, it's a courtroom drama as at least half of the movie occurs in the courtroom. I think it was interesting to see different structure of the judicial system in comparison to the US, because that's what we are so familiar with. The prosecutor (Antoine Reinartz) was much more sassy than the usual prosecutors I've seen on screen and it was a delight to watch.This movie spoke about how you can \"prove love\" because it directly portrays the difficulties of marriage. Sandra (Sandra Huller), the accused wife, retells the challenges of her married life with Daniel, her now-deceased husband. It had its moments but the audience is shown the ugly side more. Their fight scene was reminiscent of *Marriage Story*, which was also excellently performed by Johansson and Driver, but I felt that it was much more constrained and realistic. The scene in *Marriage Story* was more explosive and violent but the scene in *Anatomy of a Fall* felt more deep-cutting. The point is not to compare these two, but to state that another great movie has been added to a list of movies with (challenges of) marriage as its main theme.Many elements of this movie has spoken to me in a personal level. I too had to face the question of how the love had to be proven with circumstantial evidence in a judicial setting. Life often told a story far more complex than the evidence available in the courtroom and it is a terrible thing to happen to an individual. As Sandra reflects toward the end, winning in a case like this provides no benefit and it only allows things to return to the norm while losing would mean a devastating outcome to your life. At the very best, you come out neutral. Because I understood that, the movie may have been more captivating to me than some, from whom I've seen complaints about the length. I think it was a rather excellent courtroom drama with brilliant performances of the main cast, especially Huller. She has another movie coming out (*Zone of Interest*) soon so I will be sure to check that out. Overall, a deserving title of Palme d'Or.", + "28": "This is one of those films you either love or feel is a complete waste of time. For me it was a complete waste of time and a real slow painful journey. It gets a bit interesting after about 2 hours but they soon drop that ball and it becomes a dread again. I've been reading reviews and people think it's an open ending. I Don't agree at all. You get a satisfactory answer/solution and it's wrapped up. The part I liked is at the trial when she talks back at the self absorbed psychiatrist. It turns out Sandra is not a nice person at all but she's only human and does her best to survive. They could easy make the movie 1,5 hours and not lose anything. And yeah. It was so bad I had to make my first ever review...", + "29": "My Rating : 8/10Complex yet simple to follow, dynamic and nuanced at the same time, 'Anatomy of a Fall' is not the sappy seat of the pants type courtroom drama. What makes it unique is the underlying humour and seriousness with which it is portrayed, not something you get to see very often. Call it repetitive if you will but I disagree. The ambiguity is seriously addictive and creative. It's deeply entertaining to observe this strange study of psychology and also compelling.'Anatomy' is not for everyone. You have to have the eye for the implied interpretation of topics at play here. Go in with an open heart and mind and perhaps you will be convinced as I am. Peculiar entertaining drama.", + "30": "I could not quite get the hype surrounding this Cannes-award winning feature film. I guess I just wasn't a big fan or courtroom dramas, but I must say that I did enjoy most of the film. The film wasted no time in getting straight to the central theme of the story, which is death and grief (and later on marriage conflicts). The acting performances of the protagonist and her son was enough to be awarded in different international acting awards. The conflict really emphasized their effective performances. Technically the French film wasn't a standout but its theme resonated to so many people in different backgrounds.", + "31": "I saw Anatomy of a Fall, starring Sandra Huller-The Zone of Interest, I'm Your Man; Milo Machado Graner-Stuck Together, Waiting For Bojangles; Swann Arlaud-About Joan, By the Grace of God and Samuel Theis-Softie, Party Girl.This is a French drama about who do you believe. Sandra and Samuel are both writers that are living in the French Alps in a cabin, with their 11 year old son Milo. Milo had an accident when he was 4 years old and it left him blind. Samuel is found dead in the snow outside the cabin by Milo, who had taken his dog for a walk. Apparently, Samuel fell out of the third floor and hit his head on a shed on his way down. An investigation shows that Samuel had a contusion on his head, which makes it a suspicious death. Did he commit suicide or was he murdered? Swann is Sandra's attorney, and after she is indicted to stand trial for Samuel's murder-she was the only one in the cabin when it happened-things are uncovered about Sandra & Samuel's relationship that puts doubts in the minds of everyone, including Milo and Swann. It is an interesting story and it is hard to make a judgement, as more facts are uncovered making it look as if it could go either way.It's rated R for language, violence and sexual references-partial nudity-and has a running time of 2 hours & 31 minutes.I don't think I would buy it on DVD-once was enough-but it would be a good one to stream.", + "32": "Just Got out of a Anatomy of a Fall ScreeningAn Interesting Story of Complications Within Relationships, Lies, Deceit, Burdens, Regrets, Misinterpreted Speech and Inconclusiveness.Quick Side Note. I never knew about Jehnny Beth until this Film. I looked her up. I love her Style, just so Way out There. Such a Stylistic Specimen. 😲😘Anyway, on to the FilmThings I Liked -1. ⭐ The Lead Actors Performances Sandra Huller was Strong. And that Long Scene between her character and Samuel Theis character was eye Widening Stuff and Got Intense as Hell. The Lawyers Performance was Good and the Young Boy also puts in a Good Performance.2. 🎀 That Prosecutors Performance who had the Red Garment in the Courtroom was Super Strong. Anytime he was on screen, he had this Sharp and at times Witty Dialogue. His Screen Presence was Excellent. 👌3. 💭 The Film from the Very Beginning had me Locked in, as to just what and how in the hell the incident happened. The way they Calibrated the films scenes and Characters before the Initial Incident was well done. When the Boy comes back from Outside, I was just thinking \"ok, so the boy was outside, and the woman that came to see Sandra's character was gone before the incident and the music was still playing...\" in other words, the film did well in getting the thinking going, after all, you have to be invested in the Story to Begin with.4. 📼 And then as the film goes on, the Reenactment videos happen, the practical Reenactments happen, the Noise Experiments happen, the Blood splatter analyst theorize, the therapists come in, and more and more details unfold.However.These Next 4 words will be either the Downfall of the Film for many, or for others like myself, I don't mind it...The Film is InconclusiveThat's it Guys/Gals. Don't expect a Resolution to this Particular Story. Its literally 50/50. The Film doesn't Lean Strongly into Either Side and it doesn't need to.The Details Presented within the Film are there for you to Possibly Make your Own Conclusion.Overall, it was an Intriguing Watch.", + "33": "6.5 points/The decline of the Palme d'Or seems to be an inevitable trend. A large section of the movie is devoted to the multi-party game over the truth about the cause of death, which instead weakens the emotional presentation of the family of three and the people themselves, leaving a question mark on the main perspective. The completion of the play is very high, but the narrative technique is mediocre. It focuses on using games to draw out the story line behind it, and the intensity remains at a passing level, which smells like a Korean realism-themed movie. In the audio-visual part, the camera uses a documentary lens feel in many scenes, which highlights the sense of reality, which is a great advantage. Personal preferences aside, this is a mediocre movie from an overall perspective. Today, movies all over the world are in decline, and we don't know when the next golden age will be.", + "34": "It is easy to think of fictional narration as more malleable than its factual equivalent. Indeed, one can project whatever opinions one has about a fictional tale onto the narration and think of these opinions as \"part of the story.\" But then again one can also do this with reality as contemporary American political rhetoric clearly demonstrates.In the strictest sense, though, fiction may be less resolvable than fact. Factual evidence can come to light after an event that determines the valid interpretation of said event. In fiction, however, what is left unwritten or shown can never be ultimately resolved because there simply is no factual truth to which one can relate a claim or an interpretation. Writer-director Justine Triet takes brilliant advantage of this aspect of narration in her film, \"Anatomy of a Fall\".As has already been suggested, what can and cannot be known about an event is the key question of \"Anatomy\". The film also asks us how much we can know a person, or character, by drawing one so convincingly and complexly that the indeterminacy of their guilt or innocence of a possible crime seems simultaneously impossible and undeniable.For a character in a movie to exist so fully for an audience an actor must embody them exceptionally well. It can be said without hyperbole that Sandra Huller gives one of the finest performances in any film in a long time as novelist Sandra Voyter. While the script by Triet and Arthur Harari is superb the sense of knowing, and not knowing, Voyter would not be as powerful had Huller been even slightly less extraordinary.We genuinely like Voyter but as her intimate life is relentlessly exposed to the public, and the audience, she does come to seem a bit creepy. But, we must ask ourselves, how many of us would not seem so under such merciless scrutiny, especially in the context of our closest, and most private, relationships.The young actor Milo Machado Graner also impresses as Voyter's son, Daniel. Although he does not have as much screen time as other characters Daniel could be said to be the film's real protagonist, as the story traces the boy arriving at his version of \"the facts\". This is a fully formed performance from a child-performer.As this is a \"review\" I will, almost pettily, present my few reservations about the film. In one scene, a character essentially declares the movie's themes in one speech. There is nothing wrong with a work wearing its thematic material on its sleeve, but it could have been done less ham-fistedly.More regrettably, there is a not-even-half realized \"romantic subtext\" between Voyter and her attorney, Vincent. This aspect of the story is so unnecessary it feels like clutter in the midst of an otherwise perfectly ordered room. As a character Vincent is the sexy Frenchman par excellent. That he is played by Swann Arlaud feels almost like type-casting. The many scenes in which Vincent/ Swann speak English made me think of Pepe Le Pew.But these are some minor objections to what is a truly exemplary piece of work. Triet has made a great film.", + "35": "I had no idea what this film was as I went to watch either Marvels or Scorsese's latest film: I'm thrilled I watched this instead.It was intriguing, with no exposition, believable characters and a plot that kept me interested. I saw this on my own and it was wonderful but I ended up talking with strangers in the lobby about the film and discussing whether parts of the plot had been left open or not.Being your brain and your heart, great story and such a relief from the glutton of big action movies of late. Would've worked as a TV movie but it was just big enough to work on the silver screen. Go and watch!", + "36": "POSITIVES:1) Sandra Hüller is absolutely phenomenal here. The amount of times in which the camera just holds on her face and lets her spellbind us as an audience was truly incredible. In the past month I have seen performances from Lily Gladstone, Natalie Portman and now Sandra Hüller which would all be worthy of this year's Best Actress Oscar. It should be said that the child actor playing Daniel was great as well\n2) For a film that could be considered to be simply a legal drama, which is hardly something new for cinema, I was extremely pleasantly surprised by how gripped I was throughout the entire film. Every examination and cross examination in the film always had my full attention and I thought it was a brilliant decision to keep the audience in the dark about whether Sandra was guilty or not\n3) All of the technical aspects of the film - direction, writing, cinematography, score etc were brilliant and for a film with such a small budget it really is incredible what they've managed to achieveNEGATIVES:1) I thought the film fell away somewhat at the end and it didn't quite stick the landing for me. I thought it was a little bit silly that the entire ending hinges on a young blind child deciding to deliberately poison his guide dog and then present this \"experiment\" as conclusive evidence that it must have been suicide. I also hated the seeming hint at a romance between Sandra and her lawyer when they're in the restaurant together\n2) This will seem like a very minor nitpick, and I'm no expert in European courtroom systems or what rules they have, but during the courtroom scenes both of the lawyers seemed incredibly sarcastic and petty to me with some of the comments they were making. Surely this isn't allowed? Even the judge was quite sarcastic at times and it all just seemed very unprofessional and unrealistic.", + "37": "This movie should really be renamed the anatomy of wasting 3 hours of your life.Low performances.. Extraordinary actress they say.. well Christen Steward in Twilight had more facial expressions than this sad effort of protagonist...Now to the main point.. the plot.. or should I say the plot holes and the cheap metaphors.. really tired of all this \"culture\" cheap products that really make no sense..It's only suitable for the pseudointellectuel people that want to differ from the norm for having unique taste in something.. and then of course blame the norm for not understanding this kind of art..By far the worst movie I have ever seen... and I have seen thousand of them..", + "38": "I heard about this French film from word of mouth, the review by Mark Kermode made it appealing, and it won the Palme d'Or, it sounded like the sort of foreign language film that could receive further awards during Awards Season, so I was looking forward to it. Basically, in Grenoble, France, novelist Sandra Voyter (Tony Erdmann's Sandra Hüller) is staying at her chalet having an interview with Zoé Solidor (Camille Rutherford) about her process for writing, which may be slightly flirtatious. Meanwhile, her partially blind son, Daniel (Milo Machado Graner), is washing his guide dog, Snoop. The interview is interrupted by Sandra's husband Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis) playing a loud instrumental version of 50 Cent's \"PIMP\" upstairs. While Daniel goes out for a walk with the dog, the interviewer leaves as they cannot continue talking with the loud music. When Daniel returns, he finds Samuel dead in the snow with a bloody head wound from a fall. The police investigate the fall, but it is unclear if he fell accidentally from the attic, if he committed suicide, or if he was pushed. Her lawyer and old friend Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlaud) visits Sandra to get her perspective on the events prior to Samuel's death. Sandra refuses to believe Vincent killed himself but tells Vincent that he overdosed on aspirin months before. He notices a bruise on her arm that she claims to have sustained from bumping into the side of the kitchen counter. An autopsy reveals Samuel's injury was inflicted before his body hit the ground, and Sandra may be charged with murder. Daniel is questioned about what he heard before leaving, he claims his parents were not fighting, but a test of the volume of the music reveals that he could not have heard them talking from where he claims he was, and he changes his story. There was a blood trail in the snow when Samuel's body was found, and a blood spatter was found on a shed below the attic window. There is a test with a dummy to determine how Samuel would have fallen and landed upon impact on the shed, but it does not match, based on where the body was found. Then a USB stick is found at the chalet which contains audio of an argument made by Samuel between him and Sandra before made the day before he died, and this prompts an indictment. Sandra practises her testimony with Vincent, during which she explains that Samuel was technically responsible for the accident that blinded Daniel. His eyesight was damaged during childhood following a car accident while Samuel was looking after him, and he never fully recovered from his guilt and depression. One year later, Sandra is on trial accused of murder, in a case presided by impartial Judge Janvier (Pierre-François Garel). Sandra's defence team state their claims about the fall and the head injury, while the prosecution believes she hit him with a blunt object and pushed him from the second-floor balcony. During an argument with Samuel's psychiatrist (Wajdi Mouawad) and the prosecutor (Antoine Reinartz), Sandra admits feeling resentment towards Samuel after Daniel's accident. The recording from the USB stick is played to the court, and a flashback shows this argument between Sandra and Samuel. In the argument, Samuel accused his wife of plagiarism, infidelity, and trying to control his life. This argument turned violent, which Sandra confirms is the reason she sustained a bruise on her arm, but she claims the rest of the violence was Samuel inflicting it on himself. Sandra admits to having an affair the year before Daniel's accident and several affairs after, implying that Samuel disrupted the interview fearing she may seduce the interviewer. She insists that she was given consent to borrow an idea from one of Samuel's discarded plots for a book to use in her own. The prosecutor notes that her writing and stories are based on her personal conflicts and that the thoughts of a minor character in her most recent novel could mirror her murdering Samuel. He claims that Samuel would not have killed himself the day after fighting, while Vincent argues that Samuel would have killed himself, motivated by his stresses and his failed writing career. Daniel is disturbed by what has been disclosed, he agrees to testify before closing arguments but asks his mother to leave the house temporarily. Marge Berger (Jehnny Beth) is assigned is assigned by the court to live with Daniel to prevent any interference in his testimony. Daniel remembers that Snoop was sick after Samuel's suicide attempt; he feeds the dog aspirin, almost killing him to prove a point. After Marge helps him save the dog, Daniel confirms it was the same effect the dog had the day of Samuel's death, suggesting that Snoop consumed Samuel's vomit, validating Sandra's claim while describing the incident that occurred. While he is still uncertain about what happened, Marge tells Daniel to believe what he can live with. During his testimony, he says he recalls, while taking Snoop to the hospital, Samuel talked about the dog's potential death and implied his own suicidal thoughts. Daniel states his belief that his father committed suicide and Sandra is soon acquitted. Sandra comes home, puts Daniel to bed, and looks at a picture of her and Samuel before falling asleep with Snoop. Also starring Saadia Bentaieb as Nour, Camille Rutherford as Zoé Solidor, Anne Rotger as the President, and Sophie Fillières as Monica. Hüller gives a magnetic performance as the writer trying to prove her innocence in her husband's demise, and young Machado Graner is impressive as the near-blind son who may be key to determining the verdict. The question of an accident, suicide or murder lingers throughout, with plausible theories, relationship problems and text from the books brought forward as potential evidence, it does take a while to build tension and momentum, but it certainly keeps you guessing and questioning how it will end, a terrific courtroom drama. Very good!", + "39": "Triet does a masterful job of building suspense and creating a sense of dread throughout the film. The film culminates in a powerful and satisfying conclusion.One of the things that makes Anatomy of a Fall so compelling is its ambiguity. The film never gives us a definitive answer to the question of whether or not Sandra is guilty. Instead, Triet focuses on the psychological effects of the murder investigation on Sandra and her family.Messi, the dog, gives a surprisingly nuanced and emotionally resonant performance. Messi is able to convey a wide range of emotions, from joy to sadness to fear.", + "40": "Sandra Hüller stars as a wife accused of murdering her husband. And man, from the moment this film started, I was entranced. To avoid spoilers, I'm primarily writing here about the technical aspects of this film. The camera work invokes specific emotion at every turn. Whether we are looking into eyes of her son or experiencing the eerily quiet surroundings of snow and ice, the cinematography is delightfully deliberate through every scene. The music & sound production is nothing short of amazing, although it does not dominate a rather quiet, understated film, it certainly is critical to the story. I was left rather silent by this film's conclusion and I cannot get so many of its specific details out of my mind. This film may be my favorite of the year. It is emotionally resonant in ways I did not expect, shot & edited to perfection and is carried by Sandra Hüller in one of the greatest individual performances of the past 5 years. Must watch.", + "41": "This was one of the hardest films I've ever tried to stay interested in. Painfully slow and dry. The plot moves at a snails pace and you will find yourself drifting off wondering when it will end. The performances by the actors were fantastic and there were glimmers of brilliance in some scenes but by then the audience is on life support and it's totally lost in the mundane mess of this film. This entire film could have been 90 minutes but clearly the director chose to not edit this film in any way. All I can say is it must have been a very slow year at Cannes. I honestly can't recommend this film to anyone.", + "42": "An interesting take on the murder mystery and court case genre, this film sets out to to give the audience the full works but without any Hitchcock style shocks or tensions, instead opting for a simple telling of events, which does have the ring of authenticity about it, gradually revealing the truths that lie hidden, or do they?. Less a riveting thriller more an emotionally charged drama, the film reminded me of those Ingmar Bergman films of the 1970s, where emotions are laid bare and realities are revealed. The courtroom scenes are as brilliantly handled as the rest of the film, with superb performances and sharp dialogue, plus for me it was an interesting insight into the French legal system and its workings. Overall, this was an absorbing 2.5hrs, but don't expect a riveting thriller, it's a much more nuanced film than that.", + "43": "I do not see this film as a courtroom drama, nor crime, nor psychological. It was an intimate examination of love, relationship, grief, depression, and an incredible child.It was not just a film, rather it was soulful. It drew me in.The truth was not hard to see. I could not see the film as a mystery, nor was the truth not important.The acting was phenomenal. Every character was clever, insightful, and compassionate. The events were cold but you could feel a warmth throughout. One thing I wonder is the ending. Was the memory true or made up? It wouldn't have changed my belief about the truth but it would make the film that much interesting!", + "44": "Very engaging, tense drama set in France but mainly spoken in English. French husband of German woman found dead with head injury outside alpine house. Did he commit suicide or did his wife kill him. Various bits of evidence about their relationship and history of arguments come out in a tense courtroom drama. Ultimately their blind son gives clinching testimony but the film takes us one way and then the other leaving the viewer very involved. Well acted especially by wife and son and very well constructed. It doesn't feel like 2.5 hours because it draws you in. Some of the sons piano playing is particularly grating but it conveys his pent up emotions very well.", + "45": "Plot is simple and not very interesting given all the story revolves around one main event. It has got the european author atmosphere: slow, eternal shots that add nothing, silences, infinite gazes, screen time filled with nothing while minutes go by. I understand all these tricks can transform any mediocre narration in a masterpiece for critics, but it surprises me how a boring package is able to elevate the mundane for them so much.The film is not terrible, it has got a couple of witty reflections on relationships, but that's about it, not worth all the tediousness around. Not easy to empathise or even care too much about the little things that go on, at some point you just want it to end, please.It probably has some style, some \"unusal\" photo and narrative, petty things that distance the film from the poor tv-film story you are actually contemplating, but do not be fooled, it is not great. I would love it had been tho.", + "46": "\"Anatomy of a Fall\" is a gripping mystery that masterfully intertwines family drama with suspenseful storytelling. The film explores the complexities of relationships and the shadows of doubt that can linger in a tragedy. The performances, particularly those of the main characters, are poignant and deeply engaging. The narrative is skillfully woven, presenting a tapestry of emotions and suspicions that keep the viewer engaged till the very end. However, it's the film's deliberate ambiguity that stands out, leaving space for interpretation and discussion. This ambiguity might not satisfy all viewers seeking clear resolutions, but it adds depth to the story, making \"Anatomy of a Fall\" a thought-provoking and compelling watch.", + "47": "This movie has three things - impeccable performance by the protagonists, great script with relaxed but confident pace and characters with psychological maturity. In that respect this movie is more like a play staged at a beautiful set but not focusing much on cinematography but driven by unfolding of events like acts of a play. Imagine \"12 Angry Men\" or \"Who is afraid of Virginia Woolf\" and you have a general idea of what to expect. This movie doesn't pull elaborate tricks like a Nolan movie and it won't require multiple watches to understand it; it's brilliant without trying too hard. In my opinion this movie loses nothing to little by spoilers and that says a lot about the quality of this movie in mystery-thriller genre.", + "48": "Without the script being unrealistic, the dialogue, the atmosphere and the actors manage to put you in the mood without tiring you out. Yes, it's slow paced but that's the way it should be. It offers emotion without drooling and it works purposefully.My rating reflects what the film offers and is not comparative to other films.I would say that the main theme in the film is to show a family situation in which everyone has their own perspective and experiences it differently.For those who complain that it flows slowly I want to say that since the film intentionally has this flow it is unfair to condemn it.", + "49": "For those who know what it is to 'short a stock' ( in other words to bet against ) , the Hollywood studio moguls would have shorted this movie if it were a stock . . . And . . . Yet it won The Palm D'or ( best picture ) at the Cannes Film Festival. There are now fewer opportunities to see movies like this, since the 'Art House' theaters are no more: foreign with subtitles , serious subject . . . And . . . Drama with no gimmicks. The acting , script and narrative arc are a marvel to behold. I can tell you this , as the movie went along I became more engaged as it built to climax without ever being clumsy or stilted. If you like your loose ends tied up , stay away. The film is courtroom drama , sort of murder mystery but really about the difficulties we all face in human relationships, more I cannot say except I would not have wanted to miss this one and , trust me , it won't be in theaters for long , while it may lack 'mass appeal' it will satisfy anyone who appreciates good cinema of which there is so little these days.", + "50": "\"But how to prove it?\" When all evidence goes against the female writer, she realizes she must save herself; otherwise, her son's future would be bleak. The subplot with sleeping pills is indeed a novelist's ingenious creation, but lying doesn't prove the husband's murder. The famous Miranda rights ensure that individuals can conceal information that is against their interest. Therefore, in a situation where she couldn't prove her innocence, she was forced to lie to avoid being wrongfully imprisoned. Yes, she can write anywhere, including in a courtroom. In this regard, her son and she reached an unspoken understanding in the court, isolated under surveillance.The husband's suicide also stems from weariness of taking care of the son and a desire for redemption. The emotional complexity that the world cannot fathom is fortunately understood by the son in the end. The precocious blind child, educated at home by both authors since childhood, once he grasps the notion in court that \"evidence is always insufficient. For the missing and blank parts, we have to supplement them according to our own perspectives\" (roughly), once he chooses to believe his mother, he might also possess the ability and inheritance of a writer to produce crucial testimony. The harsh and unrelenting trial forced the child into the cold adult world prematurely but also allowed him in his final statement to align with his departed father, expressing the man's helplessness through his childish words. Yes, this out-of-sync dubbing not only suggests the child's fabrication but also hints at the child's understanding and acceptance of the father's love. For the rest of his life, he has to rely on this qualitative aspect, the answer he has chosen for himself (trust in his mother, faith in the light) to get through. Among family members, there is no need for irrefutable evidence. If the law needs it, if the public needs it, let's fabricate one for them. The expression of the female judge confirms that she, too, understood this point. This time, humanity triumphed over the law.\"How to prove it (love)? Why do I have to prove it?\" This question is also what the simultaneous major film \"Auburn\" tried to express in a full three hours...I finished watching at 2 a.m., utterly stunned, immediately searching for related information. Indeed, it's the work of a female director. I've always believed that a woman's advantage in observing and understanding human hearts is an irreplaceable strength for female creators. Astonishingly, it's the just-released Palme d'Or at Cannes. Grateful for the stable and reliable aesthetic sense of the French audience and jury. In.", + "51": "When the movie ended, I said, \" so what?\" Every movie has messages that the viewer can conclude definitively at the end of it, because some of Today's films have complex endings that reveal everything in the last minutes. Now, in this crime mystery film for two and a half hours, we were oscillating from one reality to another hidden reality, but we really did not know what really had happened and director left it to us. Why and why again, I want to know what happened. After 150 minutes I as a viewer I deserve to know .As more facts were added to the storyline , it simultaneously became less believable that there was a such horrible suicide or the wife being the killer. And So what really happened at the end? Imagine Hercule Poirot in the final scene rounding up all the suspects who wanted to determine who the murderer was as we see the final credits as the end of the Movie.", + "52": "Overall, a very good movie but could be leaner. There are a few scenes here that seem unnecessary to the plot. Plus, the film went on for another 15 or so minutes after the character on trial has gotten their verdict read. Things really should have wrapped up quickly after that. Instead the picture keeps going to the point that I thought for sure we were about to get a twist ending. But there is no twist, the drama just ends with someone falling asleep while hugging the family dog. Which is okay, I guess. But it seems like we could have gotten there faster.All that aside though, I can't imagine anyone watching this flick and not finding it compelling entertainment.", + "53": "It starts slow but then it gradually builds up into something surprising. Beautifully acted by entire cast. Loved the close-ups and the intricacies between characters. Loved also how the external collective character of the \"social environment\" was included in the plot.I would have stopped it earlier but finally the director had its intention. :-)The movies reveals how on a simple situation can unfold into an entire universe of possibilities where reality becomes unknown, or it gets so many facades where each point of view is a real as the other's.Loved every second of it.I highly recommend it.", + "54": "Quite boring waste of time and money at triple speed to watch, short-sighted, trivial, tasteless, lengthy and boring, mysterious and illogical, can't stand it anymore. Speechless, so embarrassing, sandra horrible, maitre ridiculous, not a movie, just a documentary, worse than documentary, meaningless argument, inflexible, stiff, fallen, long winded, nagging. Are this crime thriller? Totally nonsense, unconcious, moaning for no reason, said family but not faimly, said reality but not related, suspense but not suspense, depth but not depth, mediocrity One star for the dog, very nice and clever...", + "55": "A dead man who was egotistical, jealous of his wife, and unwilling to take on the responsibility of childcare. I thought the music was loud at first. The movie begins with no context or description of the relationship between the deceased and his wife, and the fog over the couple's intimacy unravels as the recordings of the trial unravel. It's the marriage that's a mess, but it's the man that's a mess. The dead man said, \"You owe me.\" In fact, the wife did nothing wrong. The couple's quarrel is so typical, the male so indignant and aggrieved complaining about the energy of raising children take up their own work time, as if the child is not their ..", + "56": "This is my first time writing a review and I am honored to write it for the Anatomy of a Fall. This movie is amazing in every aspect whether it's cinematography, characters or the plot. I generally like European movies and this one doesn't disappoint. It's definitely very different than the Hollywood movies we watch regularly. It is deep, intense and emotional. It shows the human emotions so deep and well. It's a rather slow paced movie but I wasn't even bored for one second. There are some twists in the movie and they are unpredictable which makes you even more curious as the movie progresses. Would highly recommend watching this movie.", + "57": "I love the fact the film left me with questions. It was also fascinating to see how differently a courtroom works in France than it does in my homes (UK/US).But onto the substance... The acting was superb. It's always best when it feels so natural you don't even consider the acting until the film was over.Linking literature with life. Making decisions without all the data. The frustration of having your life exposed and examined without the full context. All these themes were explored, and I will think about them again.It's the opposite of a forgettable film. It's one to consider and reconsider.", + "58": "Despite some French touch when it's regarding image cliches such as \"tv news style interviews\" and some plots parts and humor, I find this movie a brilliant piece, it's a constant wave of uncertainty with a constant perfect balance between lies and truth, between your point of view and they're point of view, between choosing her and choosing him.The result is a fine script where you get out of the theatre still questioning, too many details made you questioning what happened, how happened and no solid or proper solutions were on the table. The performance of the main character is stunning. Worth to watch it!", + "59": "It's one of the best trial films I've seen in my life. It makes us wonder if the suspect is guilty or not at first, what is the truth or not, but that's not the film's main point. The story has many themes underlined for us to wonder about. It's about how marriage, your relationship with your own life, success and failure, and all the problems are complicated. A single point of view can't decide the story. The acting is so good, and the child, Daniel, is amazing. The cinematography reminded me of old documentary films. I also love how Snoop the dog plays an important role, and the camera follows him throughout the film.", + "60": "European cinema is really starting to make great films again.Anatomy of a Fall does everything right. Good acting, directing, great script, subtle photography. Even the dog acts well!The film feels very realistic and asks serious questions about truth. In complex personal dramas does objective truth exist, or is it up to us to decide what truth is?Themes of sex, family, ambition and of cultural and geographical dislocation are explored in a sophisticated way, through the lense of a courtroom drama that reflects the contradictions and difficulties of family life.Who, anywhere makes films as good as this?", + "61": "This film delivers and executes its title perfectly. It takes you into the psychological, emotional & physical aspects of the \" anatomy of a fall \" .... this film immersed me as I become a juror myself trying to unravel the plot and determine the facts from an unbiased perspective. This film also had the effect of making me analyze my own metaphorical \" fall \" in past experiences and aspects in my life while giving me the careful approach to decipher the factors that led to it as depicted in the film. It is a very powerful and relatable movie depicting the burdens of modern day relationships and parent hood.", + "62": "Sandra trying to prove that she is not the cause of her husband's death and the statement of her visually impaired son Daniel who is an eye witness to all this is the summary of this movie.A film that takes death as it's base and completely depends on the simple but effective technical aspects, characters and the way it is presented.Story deals with existential crisis, ego, depression, trauma and survival which get's perfectly blended with the parallel emotions, which is done brilliantly with the perfomances.It's is a good courtroom drama movie that acknowledges mental health issues with a lot of emotions with great performances from the cast.", + "63": "On the contrary, I don't agree with the criticism that the film is close to theatre or literature than cinema. The camera which moves freely between people and places and the grainy images gave me the sense of Dogme 95.It definitely did not leave me with the impression that I was watching a courtroom movie or a movie that constantly pursues the question of who is the murderer. On the contrary, I think I watched a wonderful middle-aged family drama with children that does not care about the truth and the court outcome and uses the trial minutes only as a backdrop. And I am very happy I watched it.", + "64": "This went unexpectedly hard asf. Kept me on my toes, truly. Just when I thought particular beat would be made, the film goes a different direction. Great performances; this is a mandatory SUBS over dub. Great writing, didn't expect the second half of the movie to be a particular sub-genre but I enjoyed it, felt somewhat fresh. Wasn't ridiculously long. The first 10 minutes do NOT clue you into what the movie was about, that's not a detracting feature more-so attention grabbing. Fitting title in a somewhat surprising manner. This was great. Giving it 8.5/10 ideally but imdb doesn't allow halves in ratings.", + "65": "Honestly, at risk of going against the grain here, I believe that the best performance was the one of the dog. Her performance was ok, not \"exceptional\" as described everywhere.All in all, a pompous, uneffective movie, way too long, without surprises, turns, or anything to make it extremely interesting. Too many estereotypes of french cinema, and too little meat. I firmly believe cinema has a component of art, but this one is pretended art. Sorry, but not good art. No music, photography, argument. I completely fail to understand the appeal of this movie to so many people.I was completely disappointed after reading all these comments. 2,5 hours of nothing, and more nothing... leading to a disappointing \"The end\".", + "66": "In the fetid underbelly of \"Anatomy of a Fall,\" truth ferments like curdled milk, churning the stomachs of those who dare to peer into its abyss. Sandra, our protagonist, wades through a quagmire of deceit, her silk dresses clinging to her like bile-stained shrouds. The air hangs heavy with the stench of unspoken desires and festering resentments, a miasma that induces a perpetual lurch in the pit of your gut.Her marriage, once a delectable banquet, has soured into a rancid stew of suspicion and loathing. Each flashback is a gag reflex, regurgitating shards of infidelity and spewing forth a tidal wave of bile that threatens to drown both her and the viewer. Memories spew like fetid fountains, each drop a caustic reminder of the putrid truth she desperately tries to swallow.The investigation, a ghoulish feast for carrion crows, becomes a frantic excavation of buried secrets. Every witness statement is a malodorous morsel, chewed, swallowed, and regurgitated in a symphony of bile and broken alibis. Lawyers gnaw on bones of suspicion, their polished barbs dripping with the metallic tang of half-truths.Daniel, the blind son, stands amidst this purgatorial miasma like a porcelain doll, forever poised on the precipice of porcelain shattering. His world of touch and taste becomes a grotesque buffet of deceit. Fingertips graze the slick surface of lies, tongues lap at the acrid aftertaste of unspoken desires. He is a conduit of the fetid, a living testament to the corrosive power of secrets kept too close to the chest.As the narrative spirals, so too does the nausea. Each revelation is a punch to the gut, sending bile rising like bileberries in a haunted swamp. The courtroom, once a sterile stage for truth-seeking, becomes a gladiatorial arena where emotions are vomited forth like gladiatorial entrails. Tears mingle with spittle, accusations curdle the air, and the very breath of the jury seems thick with the acrid tang of regurgitated regret.In the end, no catharsis arrives. The truth remains as elusive as a bar of soap in a latrine, forever teetering on the edge of comprehension before slipping back into the fetid abyss. We are left with the lingering stench of decay, the phantom taste of bile on our tongues, and a churning unease that clings to us like a shroud.\"Anatomy of a Fall\" is not for the faint of stomach. It's a cinematic enema, flushing out the complacency from our souls and replacing it with a raw, visceral understanding of the darkness that lurks beneath the surface of our seemingly sanitized lives.", + "67": "This courtroom drama delves deeply into the complexities of human relationships. The movie doesn't focus solely on the mystery of the death; rather, it uses this event as a backdrop to explore communication failures and emotional disconnects in the relationship. Atmospheric tension is present in every scene, and the reliance on circumstantial evidence and loose ends captivated my attention, leading me to formulate numerous theories while watching.From my perspective, the protagonist is an ambitious and successful writer, a rational character whose partner jealousy and inner competition creates a fear of failing and procrastinates his own writing aspirations. He blames himself in his deeper thoughts but tries to shift this blame onto her to ease his inner turmoil.Regarding the son's testimony, for me, the car conversation was fabricated, as he 'decided' that his mother was not guilty. This element adds a layer of complexity to the narrative, challenging the us to discern truth from perception.", + "68": "If someone had told me that \"Anatomie d'une chute\" would make me add 50 Cent's \"P. I. M. P.\" to my playlist, I probably wouldn't have known how to react. It was unexpected to see the presence of the theme in a French legal drama, and even more surprising was its prominence in addressing some of the film's central themes. But despite appearances, \"Anatomie d'une chute\" is anything but a typical dull legal drama.I admit that your experience with this film may vary depending on your level of engagement with the work, as your experience will be greatly affected by how much this film can draw you into its world, its characters, and their nuances. At its core is a mysterious death.There are various ways to approach this story. It could have been an investigative thriller in the style of David Fincher, but it's not. Justine Triet knows exactly what she wants to extract from it. She is more interested in showing it through the eyes of the people involved and does an astonishing job in this regard. Rather than the quest for the truth, the script is more concerned with how people react to the bits of information they come across. It also aims to demonstrate the complexity of human relationships and the path that leads to certain decisions in the lives of couples that can never be fully understood by an external audience filled with prejudices and snap judgments. The media attention surrounding the trial that occupies almost the entirety of the last two acts of this film demonstrates that the truth is not always the most important aspect. It also shows that the judgment of a specific moment or action is less significant for the audience than a character judgment that is always waiting to be passed.The way this is all filmed surprised me greatly. Triet doesn't seek a classical and comfortable approach. The blocking is phenomenal, making us feel almost like intruders. The camera's movements are also unstable, approaching the emotionally unstable characters. It's a mastery that few possess, not because few know how to do it technically, but because few can do it so effectively, eliciting the emotional response desired from the audience. For instance, there's a scene in which a third party speaks about the deceased. The camera first focuses on Daniel (Milo Machado Graner), the son, who is visibly uncomfortable but tries to hide it. Then it shifts to Sandra (Sandra Hüller), and we can see the same discomfort in her as she tries to make eye contact with her son. It moved me and brought tears to my eyes. The foreground here wasn't the dialogue but how it was affecting these people.What Milo Machado Graner, one of the most impressive performances by a young actor, and especially Sandra Hüller do in this film is sensational. Hüller brings an impressive array of expressive tools that always work according to the moment when they are put into action. When she tries to seduce, when she fights, when she opens up, when she closes off, when she feels invincible, when she feels vulnerable. Her micro-expressions and body language convey everything she has to say, and I must say that I consider this performance among the best I've ever seen. It's spine-chilling.With this, I'm afraid I might be doing a disservice to the supporting actors, which would be unfair because they all deliver outstanding performances. In addition to the previously mentioned young actor, Swann Arlaud plays the eloquent defense lawyer and friend who becomes increasingly close to Sandra. Antoine Reinartz portrays a powerful prosecutor with a speech as intense as it is well-crafted. Samuel Theis shines in an incredible scene from the past. And speaking of that scene... what an immense kitchen argument, so well-crafted, packed with information, filled with conflicting emotions, repressed feelings, and expertly edited to the point where all you can do is open your mouth in admiration of such a work of art. After all, this film is about several falls, and no scene could better exemplify the most significant fall than that one.Although this is not the easiest film to watch, demanding a lot from the viewer, especially until the end of the first act, the way everything unfolds, the development of its script, and the paths and destinations of its thematic approach are absolutely fascinating. It is one of the most realistically human films in its approach to unknown facts. It doesn't aim for flashy cinematic spectacle, but it provides plenty to engage your gray matter every time you think about it.What happens inside each home is truly known only to those who live there. The truths. The half-truths. \"Anatomie d'une chute\" is a magnificent realistic exercise in the search for a truth that isn't always attainable, forcing everyone else to navigate in an uncertain but necessary zone of conscious decision-making. Sandra Hüller delivers one of the best performances in history. Period. Chilling.", + "69": "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.", + "70": "It's a legal drama set in the recent past in a chalet in the French Alps near Grenoble and a courtroom in Grenoble, France. It follows the investigation and trial of a female novelist charged with the death of her husband, also a novelist.Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller) is a successful German novelist. While studying in Great Britain, she met her husband, Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis), a French-background university lecturer and aspiring novelist. They have an 11-year-old son, Daniel (Milo Machado Graner), who suffered an injury at age four that seriously affected his eyesight. They have moved to Samuel's home community near Grenoble because he thought this would aid his writing. They speak English and French at home; Samuel doesn't speak German, and Sandra believes her French is not strong. Clearly, the marriage has been troubled since Daniel's accident, which took place in a traffic accident while Daniel was in Samuel's care.The movie opens with Sandra being interviewed by a graduate student, Zoé Solidor (Camille Rutherford). Samuel is working in the chalet's attic, installing insulation and playing music louder and louder, forcing the interview to end. When Zoé leaves, Daniel takes his dog, Snoop, for a walk. When he returns, he discovers Samuel dead on the ground after a fall from the third-floor attic. Sandra claims she was asleep until she heard Daniel's scream.The circumstances of Samuel's death launch an investigation. Did Samuel fall? Was he pushed? Did he jump? What caused his significant head wound? The authorities eventually charge Sandra with murder. Her lawyer, Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlaud), has an earlier history with Sandra and seems uncertain about his beliefs about her role. The trial does come to a believable conclusion.Sandra Hüller and Milo Machado Graner give stunning performances. \"Anatomy of a Fall\" is one the best legal dramas I've seen for a long time. I can't speak to the accuracy of the French courtroom scenes; it's markedly different than North American and English courts in the wide-ranging manner of witness interrogation that involves the accused all along the way, and both the prosecutor and defense lawyers take great liberty to insert argument amid questioning. But the audience learns just a little more at each turn through the slow unfolding of Sandra's and Samuel's marriage through the testimony.If you like legal dramas, \"Anatomy of a Fall\" is highly recommended.", + "71": "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!", + "72": "In life things happen that cannot be explained, understood, or justified. This very smart film looks closely at how we argue our points and rely on words and rhetoric to make sense of events. Or, how we twist and manipulate language and situations to our advantage, AKA lying. The main character here is a writer - of fiction. How much of what she says is true? How much is fiction? The film is careful to make sure we do not know. We either trust her, or we don't. We also feel certain we can trust the lawyers only as much as we are willing to, given their profession. After all, their job is only to present a precisely distilled portrayal of events that will win for their \"side.\" The words we use can hit home and create mutual understanding and agreement, changing perspectives in the name of the good and the true. However, given the possible degree of falsity in our statements, we just as often use language at the expense of honesty, not saying what we know to be true, solely for our personal advantage. Our words can be sincere, or carefully crafted to be intentionally misleading. Entire industries rely on this, and are well compensated for the effort. Which is happening - honesty or deception - and at what points in this film? How much value do others place on our statements? This movie contains fascinating layers of truth vs. Fiction, trust vs. Mistrust, tales told, events remembered, events brought back to life by interrogation and carefully chosen statements. But, are they true? How did the dead man die? Does our protagonist really know, or not? Who is listening to our arguments, and do they really hear or care what we are saying when they have their own differing viewpoints, or do not trust us to tell the truth? This is a thoroughly thought provoking film, with excellence and superiority achieved in writing, acting and filming. \"What happened?\" is the point, but also not the point. Perhaps the actual point is that we work so hard to make sense of emotions and events, and we feel a strong desire or need to assign responsibility for things that may be far too complicated to arrive at \"blame,\" and ultimately must remain imprecisely known. We accept the simplified explanations and answers - often fabrications - that suit our need for expediency, and continue our travels through life, half in the dark but shining our own light everywhere.", + "73": "Greetings again from the darkness. It's not really possible to combine a murder trial with divorce proceedings, but this year's Palme d'Or winner at Cannes comes about as close as we can imagine. Writer-director Justine Triet and co-writer (and husband) Arthur Harari wrap a 'did she or didn't she' murder mystery in a relationship drama that plays out in a gripping courtroom drama. As for the title, there is an actual fall which leads to the dissecting of the slow fall of the marriage, as well as the emotional fall of having one's entire life laid bare in a public setting.Sandra Huller was brilliant in TONI ERDMANN (2016), a film that you should see if you haven't already. She also starred in director Triet's film SIBYL (2019), which led her to be cast here as Sandra Voyter, a German writer, wife, and mother. If Huller's performance isn't the best of the year, it certainly is in the top three or four. She is stunning as a complex character grappling to hold on to the life she wants despite the obstacles beyond her control ... including an indictment and trial for murdering her husband.There are so many pieces to this storytelling puzzle that it's quite challenging to paint a proper picture without giving away any of the minutiae surrounding what is the film's core: we never really know another person, and even knowing ourselves requires an honesty and perception most lack. Some of these pieces include jealousy, the motivation of a writer, guilt, blame, a child's view of his parents, the French courtroom process, and the need for understanding and closure. These aspects (and more) weave a tangled web over an extended runtime of 152 minutes that not only keep us focused on the trial, but also on the behavior of Sandra, and the excruciating thought process of her 11-year-old son Daniel (a remarkable Milo Machado Graner).A wonderfully awkward opening scene sets the stage for us to recognize Sandra's annoyance and her (unseen) French husband Samuel's (Samuel Theis) purposeful intrusion. This leads to their partially-sighted son Daniel taking the dog for a walk, and his subsequent stumble upon his father's dead body in the snow. The police investigation is inconclusive, with an explanation available for three possible causes: an accidental fall from the attic window, a suicidal dive from the window, or a deliberate push from that window. With conflicting evidence, and only theories at hand, Sandra is indicted and faces a trial focused less on her husband's death, and more on the secrets and arguments - the ups and downs - of their relationship.It seems the prosecution case boils down to ... she must have done it because they had arguments and she wrote about it. The prosecutor is played by a fiery Antoine Reinartz, while Sandra's defense attorney (and long-ago lover) Renzi is played by a calm Swann Arlaud. It's only in a crucial flashback that we witness husband Samuel (Samuel Theis) and wife Sandra in the midst of an argument that seems to hold the clues needed to assist viewers in a final decision. However, even that isn't simple due to the approach taken by son Daniel with his dog Snoop (also remarkable!).The chalet in the French Alps plays a role in the fall as well as the relationship. Verbal sparring is not limited to the above-mentioned flashback, but also in the courtroom where the lines between solicitors crackle with preciseness as Sandra controls her emotions. Even the language differences between French husband and German wife are part of this, but the odd French courtroom process will likely catch outsiders off guard. This is a gem where we as viewers are chugging right along with Daniel and the judges as words and emotions take the place of physical evidence. Camera work from Simon Beaufils is unconventional yet succeeds in putting us in the chalet as well as the courtroom. Some may see the ending as ambiguous, but listening to the big argument and following the dog and Daniel should provide the clarity viewers seek.Opens in theaters on October 27, 2023.", + "74": "No pun intended - life is complicated- Marriage is even more complicated! And we perceive things the way we want to. I am not sure what the law is in France - and the more I think about the movie, the more I like what it does. It may be a bit long, it may have pacing issues, but when it comes to deliver ... it delivers in quite the high fashion to say the least.What do we know? There are certain things that can be called facts. Likely, highly unlikely and everything in between. I don't know what you know about me - one of the lyrics of a song that will be blasting through your speakers (and that of our main characters). I was wondering why that song was playing - and there is more than one reason behind it.The ending is ... well you can watch and feel that it just solidifies what the movie tells us ... or you can see something wicked ... sinister in there, that can be seen as testament that it means the opposite of the conclusion of ... well the movie. The movie is tricky ... the mind is tricky. We never can fully tell why people do what they do ... no matter how much planning goes into whatever they decide to do.Wicked storytelling ... and interesting story that will have you on the edge of your seat quite a few times ... truth or not - you decide!", + "75": "Absolutely no interest in what happens to any of those characters.The level of smugness displayed here by all involved made me want to reach for a barf bucketSome convoluted tale about what constitutes truth and proof which might fascinate people involved in legal matters but to the layman this is duller than watching paint dryDid she push him? Did he jump? Couldn't care either way simply wished they had both been pushed right at the start of the film and we could then do something more useful with our timeIt moves at snail's pace at no point is anything said or shown that is vaguely interesting it is dull dull dull dull the only thing of any interest at any point in this film was the beautiful chalet in the Alps gorgeous place... As regards acting the young boy was very good especially the final stretch I have seen the actress before in German films in which she spoke German she was really very good in that here she speaks mostly English and some French and frankly does not pull it off in either language... Very disappointingThe Palme D'Or is sometimes so lame that you really wonder who was on the deciding board and why they made those choices it doesn't seem based on quality And I simply have no idea what it is based on probably best we do not find out...", + "76": "... the performance of the child actor: Milo Machado Graner. All the other actors were brilliant and amazing in their own ways, especially Sandra Hüller and Swann Arlaud. However, due to the demanding nature of the task at hand, Graner did superbly. He never phones it in. It's a calibre I've never witnessed before to this degree from a child actor. Surely I haven't seen all the classics and films in the world to make such a statement as there is still so much left for me to watch. Regardless, Graner's performance gives me so much confidence in proclaiming the following statement: this is the best performance I've witnessed from a child actor (ever?). There is mastery exhibited both in the quiet moments and dialogue-heavy scenes. Just from his body language, things can be inferred and implied. Graner is subtle as much as he is unsubtle. It's quite hard to put it into words, which is a sign of something great. You feel things that words cannot describe. That's art.As for the film itself, I think it's pretty good. I was expecting something more due to the critical buzz and its success at Cannes, so I can't say I wasn't a little disappointed. I feel like the movie was a bit too long and/or slow, which I usually don't feel if the plot and narrative is as gripping that the film presents (I'm a fan of courtroom dramas). I think the film wants you to be second-guessing the characters' actions and motivations, which is a clear choice by the director and that is fine. However, personally I would've liked it to be more critical of the French legal system with a clearer voice. What Anatomy of a Fall boils down to is the law vs truth in the face of a tumultuous marriage between two writers.Rating might go up on a rewatch but doubt I'll be watching it anytime again soon due to the pacing.Also: loved the instrumental that plays on repeat in the beginning hahah.", + "77": "I always try to keep my eye on what's going on not only in mainstream Hollywood movies, but I also find important to see which arthouse movies are bringing some new voices and artistic expression, specially from a female filmmakers.'ANATOMY OF THE FALL' is a Golden Palm Winner at the Cannes Film Festival is co-written and directed by Justine Triet.This well received drama, although too long (2h30min) due to its ultra realistic performances is definitely worth checking out.Large part of the movie happens in courtroom where the primal language is French, so audiences which don't speak French might drift off a little.But what makes this film unique is ultra realistic performances, specially by Sandra Hüller, which delivers truly star making performance.She doesn't indicate her emotions keeping audiences in suspense not knowing if she indeed killed her husband or she herself is a victim.To be honest viewers over 40 years of age will connect with this story better then younger generation, based on the subject and due to its slow tempo, some audiences might be disappointed.What truly elevates this film is a scene midway through the movie of an argument between main characters, which starts as a audio evidence recording in courtroom and continues as an actual flashback, which becomes a window to understand the relationship dynamic, as they both resentment one another for different reasons.This scene alone is worth admission ticket price as both husband and wife blame one another for their life failures. Brilliant acting and directing work right here. Then again it's very welll written and although I don't like movies, which relay primarily on dialog as a main source of narrative means in this case I appreciate it.This film isn't pure entertainment, it's a work so to speak, but after it's conclusion you might appreciate it's depth and specially ultra realistic acting performances.Recommended especially for arthouse cinema concours!", + "78": "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.", + "79": "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.", + "80": "As \"Anatomy of a Fall\" (2023 release from France; 152 min.) opens, we are in the French Alps and novelist Sandra is interviewed by a literary student, while Sandra's husband is playing loud music from upstairs in the chalet. The music is so loud that Sandra cuts short the interview. 11 yo Daniel takes his dog Snoop for a walk, and when he returns, he fins his dad Samuel dead in front of the chalet. What has happened here? At this point we are 10 minutes into the film.Couple of comments: this is the latest from French director Justine Triet (who co-wrote the script with her husband Arthur Harai). Here she reunites with German lead actress Sandra Hüller, who also starred in Triet's 2019 film \"Sybil\". \"Anatomy of a Fall\" is at its core a courtroom drama, where we learn of the couple's prior history leading up to the fateful events. Their son Daniel is the sole witness. All of this sounds rather straight forward if not banal. Yet a strange thing happens: the director is in no hurry and lets court room scenes play out in detail, as we learn more and more about what happened, or could've happened. Hüller's lead performance is absolutely outstanding. As is the young boy play Daniel.\"Anatomy Of a Fall\" premiered at this year's Cannes Film Festival to immediate and near-universal critical acclaim, winning the festival's top honors (Palme d'Or). There is good reason why this film is currently rated 96% Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Frankly I cannot recall having seen a better movie so far this year. Yet despite all this, France chose to submit another, far less acclaimed, film for the Best International Film Oscar nominations (rumor has it that it was to \"punish\" Triet for rebuking French President Macron over his pension reforms). I saw the film this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati. The Saturday early evening was attend okay (roughly 15-20 people). If you are in the mood for a top-notch foreign court room drama, I'd readily suggest you check this out at your earliest opportunity, and draw your own conclusion.", + "81": "Sandra Huller is killin' it in this movie.This tense part family/part courtroom drama finds her playing Sandra, a successful novelist in a toxic marriage. Her husband dies under mysterious circumstances, and much of the movie is about the trial for murder that finds her to be the prime suspect. But this movie isn't as interested in the did she or didn't she as it is in exploring the ways that the truth about others may never be completely available to any of us. Or even further....that there is no such thing as absolute truth, as the truth can mean different things to different people and changes based on one's perspective.The film is tense as hell and expertly acted across the board. I don't know if this will be high profile enough to make it on to the Oscar radar, but it would be a crime if Huller wasn't nominated for Best Actress this year.It just so happens that I watched the Netflix film \"Fair Play\" a couple of days before seeing this, and I thought this one did a much better job of examining the land mine that is a marriage with a perceived power imbalance (especially when the female holds the power) than the other movie, even though that's a small part of this film and the entire premise of the other one.Grade: A+", + "82": "\"I have to understand.\" Daniel (Milo Machado Graner)Understanding that life offers few certainties and many ambiguities is a lesson young blind Daniel must learn as he is around the home at his father's fall from a roof and a witness at the trial of his mother, Sandra (Sandra Voyter), for the murder of his father, Samuel (Samuel Theis). The moral pull on the son, whose mother, a German-born, France-based bisexual novelist, is accused of pushing his father over the railing, is much like the pull on us as we and the judges decide Sandra's guilt.Anatomy of a Fall, winner of this year's Palme d'Or at Cannes, is an intelligent and fascinating drama, part convoluted trial and part troubled-marriage deconstruction, along with a coming of age for Daniel. The fact that this murder scenario is told also in one of her novels adds mystery and motive to the proceedings. Director Justine Triet and co-writer Arthur Harari will not help us in our conclusion.Throughout we are faced with the uncertainty about the fall and the marital arguments that precipitated the fall. It's apparent early on the lack of witnesses and common marital struggles (Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf comes to mind) will muddy the waters of justice. The film is not so much a celebration of trial as theater as it is the struggle between empiricism, in all its accuracy, and the vagaries of emotion as proof.Having just enjoyed the relatively simple trial film, The Burial, starring Jamie Foxx and Tommy Lee Jones, I was pleased at the intricacy of Anatomy, which relied on the ambiguities of the death and marriage to prove culpability. The universal appeal of the trial is that most passionate partnerships like Sandra and Sam's has such a complex menu that The Burial is light and easy by contrast.Anatomy of a Fall is cerebral cinema at its best.", + "83": "It's a real adventure watching the Palm d'Or winner each year. Lately they've been pretty good to be fair, but we do know that the films can be as terrible as the likes of 'The Tree of Life' in 2011. Some of the best films I've ever seen have won the award but also some of the worst I've seen have too. Luckily 'Anatomy of a Fall' was on the good end of the scale. This was an excellent film.The first thing that I have to note about the film is that I had no idea this was how the French court system worked. It was absolutely chaotic in the best way possible. It made for a terrific way to film a movie but I can't imagine my actual future being decided by such a system.There's a lot of attention to detail in this movie. Everything is very simple on the surface, however if you go a level deeper everything is designed in a very precise way to create a perfect mystery for both the characters and the audience to put together.The acting in this movie is also incredible. I would not be shocked at all if a few Oscar nominations came its way in 2024. Sandra Hüller in particular was mesmerising to watch in every scene she was in.The film is long at over 2 and a half hours but I was captivated for every minute of it. This is one of the best films 2023 has to offer and a film that will be discussed among film lovers and students alike for a long time to come. 9.5/10.", + "84": "Man found dead beneath open window. Did he jump or was he pushed?Anatomy of a Fall can be a bit dry. It can be a bit slow.But, there are some superb performances (particularly from Sandra Huller, Antoine Reinartz and young Milo Machado Graner), and a superb script. It feels very real, with moments of emotion, surprise and tension that draw you even closer to the story.There is a combination of English (as a second language) and French spoken in the film so you are not entirely reliant on the subtitles, if you are the kind of person that would avoid them.Best of all, this film doesn't tell you what to think. You'll be reflecting on what happened for days afterwards.", + "85": "Many films have been made involving trials, and many films have been made involving a potentially suspicious death and mysteries that ensue thereafter about who was--or wasn't--responsible, or even if foul play had happened at all. Yet Justine Triet's strikingly profound new film \"Anatomy of a Fall\" shatters many of its expected genre conventions to create a genuinely unique, compelling, and enthralling cinematic experience rooted in the legal thriller genre, but taking on a distinctly character-driven and interpersonal identity to craft a uniquely engaging and compelling narrative.The film is set in a chalet in the Alps, and centers on Sandra (an outstanding Sandra Hüller,) a writer married to her husband Samuel. The couple has a young son Daniel, whose vision is impaired. After a gripping initial scene depicting the titular fall, in which Samuel plunges to his death out the window. Sandra is suspected of murder and put on trial. From there, Triet's direction and writing seamlessly blend thriller-like dramatic tension with a character-driven understanding of the tragic downfall of a marriage and the deep personal flaws of the two affected individuals. Most of the main characters in the film are completely dynamic, and grow and change throughout the story both during and outside of the trial. This character development is brilliantly integrated into the screenplay like clockwork, including clever uses of flashbacks, foreshadowing and other narrative devices to provide further contextualization of the situations characters found themselves in--not to mention such uniquely engaging characters makes the film's 150-minute running time fly by. The emotional and psychological impact of the trial on Daniel, the only surviving witness in the family, is also depicted in an emotionally layered and intricate way that calls for the viewer to both empathize with him as well as understand the shortcomings of his parents. Another uniquely engaging part of the film is the cultural differences displayed in a trial in France in comparison to how a similar trial might unfold in the United States.The film's cinematography is strikingly effective and significantly complements the narrative at hand. Shots of the Alps in and around the chalet are simply gorgeous, while back-and-forth cuts during the courtroom proceedings and flashbacks are effective. In many ways, the tone that the cinematography sets is reminiscent of the film's tone as a whole: mature, calculated, thoughtfully in touch with its characters, and unpredictable. \"Anatomy of a Fall\" doesn't provide easy answers around its characters, nor does the film let them hide in the shadows. But such a dichotomy is precisely a key reason why the film is so superb in the first place. It's a film open to different interpretations, perspectives, and sympathies, in part because it is acutely aware of the ethical and interpersonal gray areas in situations such as that depicted in the film--and by coming to terms and depicting the ripple effects of such gray areas, both the dramatic effect and cumulative emotional effect on the viewer is uniquely striking. I cannot recommend this film highly enough to thoughtful film lovers. 10/10.", + "86": "\"Anatomy of a Fall\" is just such a French film. It's a thriller but you only see the results and never the actions. It's a courtroom drama but without any Hollywood grandstanding. It's a tale of family life but you never see the family members together.This is, on the whole, a good thing. What the film delivers instead is an intense and personal study of how people are flawed, selfish and selfless, basically human. The characters here are complex, uncertain and conflicted. The courtroom setting thrusts all of these qualities into the spotlight and it doesn't make for pleasant viewing.So from this angle it's a great film that keeps you wondering all of the way through. On the other hand the script really takes its time and there isn't, after all of the anticipation, a money shot. I can't blame the film for that because it is, after all, French but still it's a touch deflating.In some ways \"Anatomy of a Fall\" reminds me of \"Marriage Story\" and other movies of that ilk. Done well you know that you're in the presence of great acting but it also feels like you've paid to be part of someone else's abusive relationship. Maybe this is just the medicine you need to take in order to feel less disgusted about yourself when you walk into the next mindless action flick?", + "87": "I heard some many good things about this movie and after seeing it, I absolutely love it.The direction from Justine Triet is fantastic with Triet being able to capture the tension, dramatic themes and emotions within the setting, character and narrative. Triet's previous film \"Sibyl\" was while ambitious, yet, mostly mediocre but her direction has improved in this film as she was able to handle the tone, structure, and style pretty well. The camerawork is really good as the camerawork has some pretty beautiful looking shots. The narrative is really good as it explores interesting concepts and themes that were interesting and thought-provoking. Many of the characters are pretty interesting and all the performances from the cast members are fantastic, especially Sandra Hüller. The child performance was absolutely amazing as well.The colorful presentation and atmosphere setting is well-executed that helps build up the tension within the characters and themes. The dialogue is strong and the emotional elements were well developed. Courtroom drama movies aren't my favorite genre but there was not a single boring moment of this movie and I was hooked from beginning to end.Fantastic movie and already one of my favorites of 2023.", + "88": "The movie shows some moments from the lives of three people, and none of the good.So if you like people arguing, that's half your movie. The other half takes place in a courtroom, with more arguing. Lucky you.Sadly there are thousands of soap opera episodes with annoying arguments and fights from start to finish. Still not enough it seems?What is worrying, is that outsiders in a similar case might have to decide whether a crime has been commited, and do so with the forced help of a kid, who is bombarded with opinions from all sides. That's called Justice.The actors do their job very convincingly, contrary to in the movie \"Luka\" I endured a few days before, where actors and director both only seem to want to relive their fond memories of actor training, the part where they get to behave as monkeys. None of that here, serious business only!Somebody called the music \"subtle\". There is one song (instrumental) that gets repeated often at loud volume(why not select a more deserving unknown tune?), everything but subtle, and the boy is learning to play the piano, but nothing adagio, rather Molto Allegro... I checked my watch just a few times, and to take a nap Luka is a far better choice. But there are hundreds of great books that are crying out, begging, to be turned into a movie. Although more expensive than this one. Probably.", + "89": "French cinema again, man.English & US filmmakers just honestly can't do it like they can; (not to generalise, but) as nations, we're far more restrained, austere, self-conscious & cynical (shaped as societies by the notion that one should approach life with a cold, stiff upper lip & not rock the boat too much; explaining the tendency to typically operate within the confines of perceived conventionality, as opposed to questioning it - America additionally may be its own country but its history & origins are also obviously derived from the pre-established traditions, inherited by their ancestors from UK colonists)... On the other hand, France has a separate past (distinctive personality traits / philosophical beliefs passed down from generation to generation - shaping the trajectory of its population's collective development - \"rebelliousness\" being intrinsically felt as a resonant theme that's actively encouraged, not shunned for instance - harking back to the defining revolution, fighting for liberation from tyrannical oppression, whereas alternatively, we've always maintained the status quo they shattered - protecting an aristocracy, surviving to this day - instead of upending it) & therefore, a different culture's born from that major disparity, resulting in the opposite; passionate people, unashamedly loud in their expressions of their emotions through bold creativity & artistry (unbound by the shackles we arguably still have around our ankles) - which makes for a kind of movie one can seldom find elsewhere, since the articulation of points in each feature feels unburdened by the same domestication & hesitancy, you'd usually find here, at home.'Anatomy of A Fall' is yet another example of this; an astonishingly well-realised, detailed & authentic analysis of humanities' nuanced flaws & endearingly paradoxical complexities - confusing, contradictory imperfections found within us all, present amongst one family depicted, entwined within a tragedy we witness being investigated on a microscopic level for over two thrilling hours in an ambitious, masterfully crafted, deeply evocative piece of fiction which is so brilliant in the deliverance of its profound message (unlike anything available, domestically), I don't actually feel the need to write a particularly lengthy review - because it's far more capable of saying what it wants to say, in a superior fashion than I ever plausibly could, given the chance.Would easily have given it a 5 star review (utterly perfect - without any identifiable faults), had the production finished just a little bit sooner (feels like the story needlessly lingers for a while after the narrative has completed - losing a sense of purpose when it could've merely ended 5 / 10 minutes before, once the court case completed; gave the impression a final twist was on the horizon, by staying... When actually, nothing really happens - no rug's pulled from beneath us, justifying the brief extension - a shame) but regardless, by far one of the best films of the year. Engrossing, meticulously constructed & powerful. Truly outstanding.", + "90": "Saw this at the theater as I needed to use some AMC points and nothing else looked worthwhile. It was decent enough and while I get it's more of a character, procedural film than an action movie or even a thriller as this seems to be wrongfully categorized, it was still a bit of a slog to get through. A talented editor found have shortened this with no impact to the story or characters. The pacing in some parts is just. So. Slooooowwww. There's a few scenes where we are just treated to viewing photographs, photographs that we've already seen in previous scenes and even in the beginning credits! There's scenes of the road to their house in different times of the day of night that go onnnnn and onnnnn and do little to advance the story. I get there's no need to rush through a story, but my god, there's no need to put your viewers to sleep either.The acting is superb however and the characters are so believable you feel you are watching a documentary or viewing some one's actual private REAL life. Sandra Hüler did an amazing job and will likely get best actress nods for her performance. Kudos to the child actor Milo Graner too- it's a tricky line to see kid actors who are either too cutesy or annoying that they destroy the feel of the film. This kid was totally believable.In the end though - I was left thinking, what did I just watch? I didn't need a tidy resolution, but kept hoping for something that would have made it seem it was worth the effort and not just \"Huh?\" When the credits roll.", + "91": "Well, this is by a distance the best movie I've watched this year. It actually feels more than a movie experience as it's so writerly, almost so theatrical that it becomes much more than the sum of its parts by the time you emerge from two and a half hours of spellbinding storytelling.It's a French courtroom procedural at its heart.But it's a marriage breakdown story at its heartBut its a tragedy at its heart, as the son of our main protagonist loses his sight as a result of his father's momentary lack of attention (in this respect it reminded me of The Child in Time by Ian McEwan in which a simple lapse of concentration leads to a lifetime of anguish).This is to prove pivotal at the climax of a densely multilayered script that keeps you guessing from start to finish. Not that it's a whodunnit.Basic story is this. Mum, famous writer being interviewed by a sexy young French literature student whom she maybe fancies because she is bisexual has to abort interview because Dad (failed writer and home carer for the son he blinded) starts to drown out the interview by playing P. I. M. P at full volume on the stereo. Mum seems unconcerned; semi-sighted son takes beloved dog for a walk in the snow. When he returns dad is dead having either jumped or been pushed by his wife from the top floor of the chalet.We now embark on a slow (reminded me of Michael Haneke direction) unravelling of a pre-trial build up with Mum's old friend (flame?) before the trial itself shift shapes endlessly as the story unfolds.It's set in the French alps where French husband Samuel has forced his German wife Sandra to relocate. She speaks perfectly good French but insists they converse in English.At the trial the court insists on French (but she drops often into English) and this ambiguity and fluidity of language is a powerful metaphor for the rules of marriage, how relationships are brokered, where the power lies.At its core sits the simply incredible, often inscrutable, Sandra Hüller who's barely off screen. She has a script to die for, written by the director Justin Triet and Arthur Harari . In many ways it's the star of the show because it's so clever, moving and labyrinthine.Then there's a mesmerising performance by 11 year old Milo Machado Graner, the semi sighted son who is the key to the whole story, but keeps his cards well hidden until the breathtaking denouement.Frankly, the beautiful blue eyed pet dog deserves a mention too. You'll need to watch it to see why.All in all it's a remarkable movie. The Haneke reference is deserved. The performances outstanding. Perhaps too slow in the first act, but by the end you'll be wanting more.Don't go for popcorn entertainment. Go for philosophical human insight and intrigue. You'll thank me - if that floats your boat.", + "92": "Clever movie on so many levels. Its about a murder trial, but shares many parallels with other facets of life in the 2020s. There was no evidence directly linking the suspect with the death. No weapon. No motive. No witnesses. All the evidence was circumstantial, and conjecture. And this circumstantial evidence was quite compelling, as presented by the prosecutor. But in reality, it was still not direct evidence and proof of murder. The prosecutor was brilliant and plays a role akin to many voices on social media on a daily basis; judge and jury without an evidence based trial and largely based on circumstantial evidence. It all seems so obvious unless its happening to us, then it gets real.Secondly, the couple at the heart of the movie faced \"normal\" marital challenges. Arguments. Financial worries. Career challenges. The trauma of guilt. Loneliness in a relationship. Here, these challenges are magnified to formulate a case for murder. Yet, these challenges happen to many of us. And when its simply boiled down to this, it would mean many of us could be guilty of murder simply by virtue of proximity. Under a microscope we could all be put to trial.Finally, the gender dynamics are quite interesting and I wondered throughout whether the situation would be any different if it was a male suspect and female victim. Perhaps a more common case in real life, and it makes us ask do we bring any prejudices to the same situation simply by virtue of a different gender. For example, it might be considered so extreme for a female to be physically abusive or violent towards a bigger and heavier man, and such an \"extreme\" female is so rare they must therefore also be capable of murder?We need to be careful to differentiate between what we actually know, and what we speculate. We need to be conscious of our biases.The movie is superbly cast, and the performances are exceptional. The accused, her son at the center deserve all the applause.", + "93": "When young \"Daniel\" (Milo Machado Graner) returns from a walk in the snow with his dog (\"Snoop\") he discovers the body of his father lying on the snow in front of their alpine house. He shouts for his mother, writer \"Sandra\" (Sandra Hüller) and soon the police investigation is out to establish just what happened. What do we know? Well, not a lot really - just that before the young man left for his stroll, his mother was giving an interview in their kitchen to a journalist that was being increasingly drowned out by the intrusive music emanating from her husband upstairs, and - that young \"Daniel\" is blind. \"Sandra\" enlists the help of a friend who represents her as after many a re-enactment the authorities conclude that there is enough evidence that she lobbed him over the balcony and murdered him. A curiously relaxed courtroom drama now ensues. Those of us used to watching British or American scenarios like this might find the approach, usually entirely speculative, taken by prosecuting counsel to essentially draw his own conclusion from evidence that may or not be there is quite entertaining to watch. The President of the tribunal rarely intercedes in what becomes a frequently unsubstantiated analysis of the sometimes turbulent marriage of the two, we learn of the cause of the boy's blindness, of his mother's sexuality and by the denouement I felt that Justine Triet had worked well with a strong cast to create a whodunit where there might have been no crime at all! That denouement is a little rushed, but leaves a lovely degree of doubt in the mind of the one member of the cast who probably needed convincing the most! It's just a shade too long, a wee bit too much build up, but once it's in full swing this is a strongly performed, sometimes quite funny and dark crime drama that is well worth a watch.", + "94": "Although the title refers to Otto Preminger's Anatomy of a murder this Cannes gem has more similarities with \"La Verite\" from the french filmmaker Henri-Georges Clouzot. So if you expect a classic courtroom drama, you better watch Preminger's work.At the center of this story is a trial for the death of a family man in which his wife is suspected of murder. However the court process is on the surface and the film goes below the surface as we watch an anatomy of the relationship between two spouses in front of their child.Most fascinating is the level of reality that is achieved so sometimes you are not aware that you are watching a film. This especially applies to the courtroom parts. Things are not black and white as we see \"many\" truths. One truth is in the testimonies in court, another is what we hear from the family recordings and the third one which is the most subtle is the emotional state of the characters. We have to put the mosaic together from the cracks of the characters relationship, which are shown without any sentimentality in a raw and unpretentious way. But in the end I think that we have to decide in relation to the following dilemma - Is there a difference between physical and psychological murder?Great film with outstanding cinematography and performances.", + "95": "Two strong-willed intellectuals, both of them passionate writers find their marriage in a state of turmoil. When the husband dies suddenly, the wife (Sandra Huller in a powerful performance) is accused of murder, forcing their blind child to testify as the only witness. Just when this film looks like it might regress into formulaic conclusion, it takes a step back and offers something more haunting, more thought-provoking and unique than what we've come to expect from this genre.The backstory of a crumbling marriage is particularly eloquent and incisive. The scenes between the two spouses with dueling grievances will break your heart. The courtroom scenes are equally riveting and spiked with fireworks between the prosecution and defense. Huller gives one of her best performances ever, but she has plenty of strong support, including Milo Machado-Graner, as her anguished son. Samuel Theis is a strong presence as the deeply moody husband.The film never loses its strong narrative thrust. It shifts seamlessly from one absorbing sequence after another. Tough going at times, perhaps even a little exhausting, but this will stay with you and is definitely worth seeing. Highly recommended.", + "96": "I watched this movie with great expectations, following the reviewes I had read.I am much disappointed by the movie.The story is about nothing, for me it is like \"talking about the sexes of tha angels\".The story can be told in less than ten words, and it is boring, to say the lest.I think it is cinema at its worst.I stayed until the end, all the while trying to understand the purpose of the director.It is much too long, about 15 minutes would have been enough to tell such a tiny story.Intellectual movie ?? No, boring movie.I lost my money.I give three stars be cause of the terrific job of Sandra Huller.", + "97": "One of those rare films that is so carefully thought out and thoroughly polished that one is hard pressed to find any flaws.From Trier's story and direction to Sandra Huler's acting to the choice of music and even the clever choice of nationalities of the two halves of the couple - everything is right as it should be. Every dialogue is cleverly written and revealing. Every moment of the 2.5 hours is meaningful and leads towards painting the big picture that gradually appears.The film avoids the \"shock and awe\" easy devices that plague \"fast food\" cinema that floods our theatres. There are no good guys or bad guys. It is a film that dissects the anatomy of a marriage that, for some reason, gradually, falls apart. The court drama is just a means towards presenting the challenges of the relation between a French brilliant - but fragile - intellectual husband and his equally intelligent - but more resilient - wife.The ending, while bringing some sort of closure, leaves you pondering for a long time after seeing it. The final \"answer\" brought to me more questions that I am still thinking about.Folks, there is intelligent life in the universe - and even in the cinema industry.", + "98": "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.", + "99": "While Justine Triet's 'Anatomy of a Fall' appears on the surface to be a courtroom thriller, its core is much deeper and complex than a mere 'whodunit.' In order to solve who/what caused the literal fall, we must unpack the figurative fall of the relationship at the heart of the film. Sandra Hüller gives a tour de force performance and deserves all the accolades she may receive this year (both for this as well as her role in The Zone of Interest). Is Sandra guilty or not? Should we be rooting for or against her?Triet masterfully provides the audience with different perspectives to showcase that 'how' we observe evidence is just as important, if not more important, than 'what' the evidence actually is. She asks, \"Can any evidence be truly objective?\" With ingenious cinematography and editing, we rapidly change points of view, jumping between the accused, the victim, the witness, the prosecutor, the defense, the judge, the jury, the courtroom audience, and all the way to those watching the coverage of the trial on TV.Triet also uses sound and dialogue in fascinating ways to explore the power and limitations of auditory evidence. Besides the victim and the accused, the only witness to the crime is the couple's blind son, Daniel, played excellently by Milo Machado Graner. Daniel must rely on what he heard, but could not physically see, in order to attempt to understand the truth. The film also explores how we perceive evidence that may be muddled. The film opens with a recorded interview that is suddenly interrupted by a laugh-out-loud needle drop. Our attempt to understand the characters talking through the overly loud music is only the first of many times where perhaps our senses are not fully capturing everything present. The film regularly shifts between French and English. While some films (i.e. Inglourious Basterds, Monuments Men, etc.) will throw in a cheap line of dialogue like \"why don't we just switch to English\", the language shifts here are done with intent. Just as some nuance of foreign dialogue may be lost in translation as we the viewers rapidly read the subtitles, so to do characters in the film struggle with translation.Ultimately, Anatomy of a Fall is not just a film for fans of courtroom dramas or murder thrillers, it's a film about relationships. Whether that's a relationship between two spouses, a parent and child, or a blind boy and his dog, this film asks many poignant questions that will have you thinking about your own relationships for long after the credits have rolled.", + "100": "The theme seems to be how we should deal with ambiguity in life situations. I usually dislike ambiguous endings but here I accept it because that was the point several situations of the entire movie.I don't think I any of the following is a spoiler. Was the death murder or suicide? Which spouse was really unfair to the other? Was the husband suffering from depression or not (psychiatrist said no)? Did the physical evidence favor one side or the other? Was the father's conversation with son in the car just about a dog or more? Was the wife lying about a lot of things or not? Based on the given evidence, all of these questions could be answered either way. The movie suggest that in these cases, when forced to choose, just take the one you personally prefer to be true.The acting is fabulous and the pet dog was an especially nice touch. The movie is also about scenes from a marriage. The psychological aspects in this marriage with child are well-explored in flashbacks and testimony. The discussions touch on the many types of emotions and could reflect on anyone's marriage.As an aside, jumping off a attic window would be an unlikely way to commit suicide, and usually a suicide note is left behind. But murder seemed unlikely too. So I made up my own third scenario, that he accidentally fell while trying to do some house renovation.", + "101": "This movie belongs to the worst categorie: pretentious: ie. Boring to death in favour of its intention to strive for some kind of \"quality\".Shortly this is why:\n150' are far too long for such a slow moving scenario thus making it an unpleasant if not boring experience.So be patient, make sure you sleep well the night before or you might fall asleep at parts, and be prepared for nothing trully exciting happening.I also found that the lack of any inspiring film making techniques contributed to the boredom i felt for this movie.Not to mention some sleeping audience seating next to me plus a pair that left somewhat shortly before the end of this award winning movie.By me it is a NO.", + "102": "Murder Mystery? Family Drama? Courtroom Drama? Marriage Drama? Psych. Thriller? I don't know. But what I do know is that this French film has received RAVE reviews and is on the award shortlists for this season and has already won the Palme d'Or (if you care about Ballon d'Or) at Cannes. If you like slow burns, this should be on your list.Sandra's husband, Samuel, falls to his death and she's held accountable for it. What happens once she's questioned makes up for the rest of the 2hr story, with flashbacks that slowly but steadily provide more context to what could have happened. Within these flashbacks, there's a lot of commentary on marriage, parenting, insecurities, careers, (unfulfilled) dreams/aspirations, etc. This is a crime movie unlike anything else I've seen before, and I don't know if I mean that in a good or a bad way. It's...different. I didn't think you could write a murder mystery (?) this way.The acting by the lead, the mom and the son (yep) was well done. The husband kills it in the limited screen time that he's giving. Nothing mindblowing about the way the movie's filmed and the lack music (almost nothing in the background) was a weird experience and made the film go...slow..?...at least for me it did, and I know I'm in the minority.Check it out if you're a cinema lover, or somebody who likes to watching something totally different.", + "103": "I watched it with doubt about the film; I have got a free ticket to watch it. I would have paid if I knew it was this good.Every sequence is delivered at exciting pacing, they don't overstay their welcome to become boring.The direction of the film is detailed, and carefully crafted. I am new to this director, apparently she is master at her work. Bravo to her.The plot of the film is about a suicide case (or not) where the wife is accused of killing; there are not enough evidence to prove either way. As an audience I could not predict that ending which was a satisfying experience.If you are wondering if it's a good movie; it's actually great.Mark my word; it will be nominated for at least for one category.", + "104": "In an ocean of bad films, I started watching Anatomy of a Fall by complete accident through a random playlist. I was immediately captivated by how incredibly well acted this was. It's genius, to a certain extent, because it presents itself as a courtroom drama, but it turns the concept on its head.It's nothing like you've ever seen before. Nothing.Throughout the film, I kept asking myself, what if this had been filmed by Lars von Trier or Gaspar Noé? This would definitely be at the Festival de Cannes. And it's only when I finished watching the movie, in awe of its ending, that I realized that, in fact, it did win the Palme d'Or, as it should.After giving over 20 one-star reviews in a row, I was starting to think that there were no longer any good movies left. This gave me hope in cinematography. It shows that, in a world dominated by AI, we can still have creativity beyond belief, things that computers could never think of, things that only an artist of the highest caliber could possibly deliver, a work of labor of love, a masterpiece, to a certain extent.I won't spoil the film for you, but let's just say that it's entirely in Frenglish, which is both almost amusing and yet so chilling. I speak both languages, so it was easy for me to follow, but I can understand why some viewers might be a little bit distressed by that.An important point to note is that the film does not contain any type of fantasy/dreamlike element like so many have before such as antichrist or climax. And I think this is why it's such a tour the force: the director is able to convey something that on paper is seemingly dreadfully and turns it into high art.It's hard to explain. You have to watch it for yourself. Absolutely fantastic. 9/10 but only because I'm comparing it to classics at this point.", + "105": "Memories of Murder and Marriage StoryNot saying they copied or were directly inspired, but if they were in fact inspired by these two movies, then this movie is a great example of how you take inspirations and make something new and great.Amazing performances, gripping story - although, most courtroom dramas are pretty gripping, as shown by the amount of courtroom reality shows and true crime shows currently on air.But Anatomy of a Fall weaves an intimate mystery where we deeply empathize with these flawed characters because the problems they face are too familiar - the struggles of the every day, blaming ourselves and each other, tensions building and building. We care too much, but also care too little. We don't know how to balance ourselves and we don't do what we should do.", + "106": "'Anatomy of a Fall' has a simple plot. A family of three live in the French Alps. One day the son - blind and with a seeing-eye-dog - discovers his father dead in front of their chalet, presumably from a three-story fall. The mother, Sandra played by Sandra Huller, is tried for murder. A verdict is delivered. And soon after, the film ends.That a verdict is delivered does not mean the person on trial was necessarily guilty or innocent. It means the jury had an opinion. And so, the director assumes (or hopes), do we, the viewing audience. Over the course of the film information comes to light, to the jury as well as us. Much of that information comes as a surprise. Much of it paints the three main characters in a different way than we initially thought when first meeting them. Certainly the woman on trial is more than the person we were given to believe she is. And so each of us may walk out of the theater with an opinion of our own. Certainly I did.I thought the film's pacing was terrific. I never got bored during its 2 and one half hours. Much of the family's backstory is rendered through evocative dialogue. Other aspects are seen through horrific visual flashbacks. I thought that the courtroom episodes of the film were fascinating: French Justice is altogether different from ours. In some ways it made me jealous of the French.But there are two concerns that kept this film from receiving a 'perfect 10'. (1) There is a sequence involving the seeing-eye-dog that I found impossible to believe. And (2) the fact that the director Justine Triet set out to make a film that leaves the viewer wondering is both brilliant and ... frustrating. I feel a bit manipulated. As though enough 'clues' are dropped to have my opinion leaning one way, then another. As though I am being played with.You, of course may well feel differently. And I hope, after you see the film, that you do.", + "107": "There's a lot missing here, and that is the key. Starting with a fresh cadaver, \"Anatomy of a Fall\" rides a series of tough questions till the very end. Accident, murder, suicide? Seemingly simple, straightforward options that dissolve in a murky family soup, played out in a thrillingly wordy courtroom drama.Sandra is a German writer, living in an idyllic, remote French Alp cabin with her husband and son. She is introduced sharing wine over a friendly interview. The son is introduced taking their dog for a walk in the wintery surroundings. The husband is introduced in a prone position, pool of blood soaking snow. And we are off. The fatal and shocking plummet swiftly evolves into a complex investigation, of the death itself, but of equal importance, of relationships.Sandra Huller is the perfect lead here, jovial, friendly, yet clinically steely and stately, she is the tough nut to crack defendant caught in a seemingly horrific nightmare. A nightmare that opens relationship wounds in a court of law, relying on sequential event memories with lives on the line. Not only are old wounds reopened, but public opinion is in play, and most importantly, so is a prone, confused child. Marriage and family is messy enough, let alone post-mortem.The spoiler here is that there is no spoiler. The shoe never really drops. All facts are presented from all sides as they see fit. It is for the audience to judge and jury Sandra, and this film, which is an infuriating stroke of clever.hipCRANK.", + "108": "Anatomy of a fall would perhaps be better titled if it were called anatomy of a marriage. It offers an (almost) unflinchingly brutal look at the dissection of a marriage. It also excels with more realistic depictions of the courtroom, an exciting, thrilling film where facts are slowly uncovered, along with their attendant interpretations and implications. In this respect it shares more than its title to another excellent courtroom drama, Otto Premingers anatomy of a murder, which remains one of my favourite films. But the focus here is not so much on the lawyers and court personalities as it is on the accused herself. Sandra Huller offers a powerhouse performance surely worthy of an Oscar nomination- she is a character who is exhausted and exasperated at her disintegrating marriage, but may not be as sympathetic as she appears. There is always a distinct possibility she turns out to be a cold hearted killer, despite how humane she looks. The ending is also morally ambiguous- Sandra may be squirted in law, but that is only because the justice process is here to prove guilt, not innocence. But despite the excellences in acting and in writing, I still have reservations. The screenplay has chosen to focus on the disintegrating marriage rather than the act itself, which always makes for a rather grim subject matter. But the issue may be that not all of these details are fully relevant in court, impacting the realistic quality of the film. The film, while maintaining a taut pace for its first 100 minutes or so, slows in its final act, and I felt it resembled too much like an art film, with its inexplicable, dialogue-less shots. There are inevitably there to build mood, but it's practical effects are lost on me. In conclusion, Anatomy of does not quite rise up the courtroom masterpieces which precedes it(A few good men, Anatomy of a murder, Witness for the prosecution), but it shares enough similarities with these illustrious titles to warrant a watch.", + "109": "Giving this an 7/10 ratingThis drama / thriller is in English and French, it's this years Palm D'or, winning film. It's really takes it time, could be shorter as it gets bloated in the last part. As it's called, the story rotates around a death by a fall.The main characters are the wife, and the son, played brilliantly by Also has a big role as the story unfolds in the second half. It look very well shot, although there are some very close, and I mean close, close ups, which, for the setting, work. As this is very much just driven by what everyone's performances, you must be sharp, as you will miss something.Sandra Hüller is pretty much in every frame of the film, and is stoic, troubled and scared, as the film progresses. Swann Arlaud and in particular Milo Machado Graner, are brilliant. The focus is around these three actors characters, and they pull it off well, but I feel it's way too long and drawn out, it need fighting up more. Whether is deserved the Palm D'or winning film prize, is up for debate.Check it out and see for your self it deserved the best film prize it won. My thoughts are, not really, but that is just my opinion.", + "110": "It's difficult for me to see what makes this movie not just good but great. Good it certainly is: very intense, with many uncomfortable, post-mortem close-ups into a complex, twisted relationship which keeps adding new layers as the story slowly unfolds. I liked the courtroom drama, which is fairly typical (last minute witness!) but with interesting beats featuring the prosecutor and various experts appearing pretty biased and unfair toward the defendant. I do prefer however the recent \"Saint Omer\", which is less cliché, more contemplative and more effective (on me) in its emotional impact.Otherwise, I cannot say I was interested in the protagonist, which is a problem for what is essentially a character study. I was left cold by this woman (what would French cinema be without novelists and university professors as protagonists??), her son and late husband, their relationship, petty dishonesties, intellectual fallibility, devouring ambitions, etc. I guess the film is supposed to stay with you because of the many subtle hints that she may indeed have committed the crime (e.g. The very last scene), but I couldn't care less. You are not supposed to necessarily like or empathize with that tough woman, but the movie does its best to make you interested in her, her psychological makeup and her (mis)deeds, and on that level it failed with me (or did I fail the movie?). I guess the film has to do with definitions and perceptions of the Truth, as perceived by a judge and the jury, the media, the public or the kid, and as rendered by a novelist (her novels eerily echo what really happened) or a filmmaker, giving the film a limited metafictional dimension. In the end you have to decide what happened for yourself, the way the kid has to. A child who is blind, like Justice. This is all very smart, but, again, I fail to be emotionally involved.The film also reminded me of \"Night of the Twelfth\", another murder mystery set in the snowy mountains above Grenoble (my hometown, which I assure you is in fact a very peaceful place... Mostly). But at least that less ambitious genre film had an angle and subject matter that made it echo through the cold Alpine summits, and resonate through my mind. \"Anatomie d'une chute\", on the other hand, just left me cold.", + "111": "Superbly written and masterfully acted, the film's most striking quality is to transport the viewer into the devastatingly human experience of a family whose fabric starts to fray in the aftermath of a road accident which leaves a boy (Daniel) visually impaired.Although central to the script, the mysterious death of the husband Samuel (no spoiler here) loses relevance in the face of what comes to light during the subsequent trial, which unveils all that lies beneath the complicated relationship between a couple grappling with uncertainty, betrayal, guilt, isolation and mental illness.The character of Mrs. Voyter (the defendant in a homicide trial), while bitingly cold, piques a surprising amount of empathy with her hardly unpoised defence and linguistic isolation as she's called to untangle herself from a high-profile court case vehemently led by a French-speaking prosecutor.However, the most powerful trait of the film is handed out by Daniel, the couple's child, played by a superb Milo Machado Graner, who carries the weight of two traumas (his suffered blindness and the loss of his dad) and is also called to muster all his courage and memories of times past in a bid to save his mother. His character, bearing all the climax and essence of the film, arouses tenderness and awe revealing that the most arresting lessons in adulthood often manifest through the assessments of a wounded child.An absolute gem of a movie." +} \ No newline at end of file