Anatomy of a Fall

This movie felt eternal, I felt tired after watching it. First of all, the plot is very promising, but unfortunately leads to nowhere. The characters are incredibly dull, and there is no chemistry between them. There are tense moments that make you believe something exciting will happen, but nothing changes. This film drags on and on. THERE IS NO CLIMAX OR CLOSURE. When I saw it in the cinema, several people fell asleep. Others slouched in their seats, with their head in their hands, as if they were exhausted, or in disbelief. This movie has NOTHING to offer. It is not thrilling, it is not clever, it has no twists or turns. It's just so very vapid, cold and pretentious.

source: Anatomy of a Fall

This film is a glorious exception to the rule that if a movie attempts to do too many things in its two hour time span then it will be disappointing. Not only is this film a gripping courtroom drama, the best I've seen since that previous "Anatomy", directed by Preminger, it is also a most acute examination of a miserable marriage as well as an uneasy mother/son relationship. That co writer and director Justine Triet manages to give moving, convincing renditions of each of these three subjects without putting undue strain upon my patience (I was never close to being bored) heralds, in my opinion, a most promising career. I definitely look forward to the next film by Ms. Triet and will, hopefully, be able to view her prior ones. And the lead actor, Sandra Huller, just may swoop in and make off with the Oscar. It also has, thrown in free of charge, the best dog performance in a film since "Sounder". Give it an A. PS...Remind me to never get arrested in France. Its legal system is, if this film can be trusted, more than a bit on the chaotic side. With an alarming tolerance for speculation. To mention nothing of witnesses viewing the trial!

Anatomy of a Fall_360P

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.

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.

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.

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 won 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 emotion You 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.

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.

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.