Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Grimerlana Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Pluskylang Great Film overall

Coventry Yours truly has never been much of a reader, though with one notable exception: the work of Agatha Christie. I absolutely, positively worship this brilliant woman and try to read as many of her novels, short stories and stage play adaptations as possible. "Witness for the Prosecution" is a genuine classic, and although somewhat atypical for Christie, it is undeniably one of the greatest stories ever penned down. There's one major disadvantage about having read all of Christie's whodunits, of course, namely that you can't experience the same astounding twist-in-the-end twice! I would really have loved to be overwhelmed by the climax of this film- version, especially because Marlene Dietrich and Tyrone Power give away such fabulous performances. The story, with its fascinating characters and dazzling plot twists, does remain the movie's biggest strongpoint, but there are a number of more reasons why "Witness for the Prosecution" is righteously considered as one of the most massive milestones in cinematic history. Billy Wilder's surefooted direction, for one, and the stellar performances of the entire ensemble cast. I mentioned Dietrich and Power already, but there's also the downright phenomenal Charles Laughton (arguably the most shamefully neglected actor/director in history) and an appealing supportive role for Elsa Lancaster. But do I daresay that the ultimate success-factor of this stage play adaptation is the masterful re-creation of the court trial? The bombastic settings and decors, the echoing acoustics, the powerful monologues of confident (and arrogant) barristers and the intimidating gowns and wigs are largely what make "Witness for the Prosecution" not only the first but also the mother of all courtroom dramas. This may just be the opinion of an avid fan, but practically ALL great courtroom-dramas that were released from the sixties until present day ("To Kill a Mockingbird", "Philadelphia", "Devil's Advocate", "A Few Good Men"…) were clearly influenced by "Witness for the Prosecution". In fact, I only have one minor complaint: *** Spoiler **** the film version adds one more final twist that I didn't find 100% plausible.

clanciai This is actually a comedy, and its artificial intrigue and superficiality is all too transparent for anyone to be able to take it seriously. Yes, it's a murder trial, and murder is dead serious, especially since the punishment in 1952 still was death by hanging, but there are too many flaws in this case to make it credible at all. For example, if Tyrone Power didn't kill her, who did? No other candidate is ever presented, except a fabricated hypothesis of a possible thief, who anyway didn't rob anything, while the broken window clearly wasn't smashed from the outside for a break-in. The prosecutor fails to make this apparent conjecture clear as the absurdity it is and is all the way dwarfed by Charles Laughton as the lawyer.Agatha Christie was a very skillful writer, all her intrigues are logical and water-tight, but they are all superficial constructions. In comparison with Hitchcock's one great murder trial film. "The Paradine Case" (see my review) which is thoroughly organic all the way with very clearcut and convincing characters, each one humanly crippled by his own weakness, this one becomes no more than an entertainment. It is even regularly funny. Billy Wilder made some of the best films of Hollywood in his time, but at the same time all his films suffer from some non-convincing artificial superficiality. He is very seldom serious and can rarely be taken seriously, never in his later films, perhaps in his early ones, especially his maybe best film "Stalag 17" (see my review).Anyway, the film is exciting and enjoyable all the way, although they scream too much at court, also this is not very realistic, and the most enjoyable acting is between Marlene Dietrich and Charles Laughton. His wife Elsa Lanchester adds as usual a very personal touch to the comedy. It's well worth seeing again after some decades for its great entertainment value, but there are certainly more interesting murder cases on film, especially Hitchcock's very underestimated "Paradine Case".

rodrig58 Charles Laughton was a great great actor. Billy Wilder was a great Director, Writer & Producer(remember Some Like It Hot, The Seven Year Itch, Sunset Boulevard, Love in the Afternoon, Irma la Douce, to name just a few?). Marlene Dietrich, great actress herself, specially in The Blue Angel. She is very good here too. But, the whole film does not have too much qualities, in fact, it's boring, only talk with a surprise at the end. Tyrone Power, as an actor, was not much, the most important contribution is that of being the father of Romina Power. Worth to see it only for Charles Laughton's and Marlene Dietrich's performances.

Takethispunch Sir Wilfrid Robarts (Charles Laughton), a master barrister in ill health, takes on Leonard Vole (Tyrone Power) as a client, despite the objections of his private nurse, Miss Plimsoll (Elsa Lanchester), who says the doctor warns him against taking on any criminal cases. Vole is accused of murdering Mrs Emily French (Norma Varden), a rich, older widow who had become enamoured with him, going so far as to make him the main beneficiary of her will. Strong circumstantial evidence points to Vole as the killer, but Sir Wilfrid believes Vole is innocent.When Sir Wilfrid speaks with Vole's German wife Christine (Marlene Dietrich), he finds her rather cold and self-possessed, but she does provide an alibi. Therefore, he is greatly surprised when she is called as a witness for the prosecution. While a wife cannot testify against her husband, Christine was in fact still married to a German man when she wed Leonard (who was in the Army and part of the occupation forces in Germany). She testifies that Leonard admitted to her that he had killed Mrs French, and that her conscience forced her to finally tell the truth.During the trial in the Old Bailey, Sir Wilfrid is contacted by a mysterious woman who, for a fee, provides him with letters written by Christine herself to a mysterious lover named Max. The affair revealed by this correspondence gives Christine such a strong motive to have lied that the jury finds Leonard not guilty.