i>, blind from an unfortunate event, is the only witness. The story is from the perspective of <i>Sandra</i>, and just like any courtroom drama, details are revealed over time. Fortunately, it's at a steady pace, never announcing too much or too little, giving us the correct information at the right time. While I'm mostly positive about the story, some moments slow right down, and we come to a standstill; overall, thanks to the following few components, they considerably make up for the story's flaws. Performance: Its lead is <i>Anatomy of a Fall's</i> greatest asset, <b>Sandra Hüller</b>. She is tremendous, pulling no punches in the role of Sandra, the deceased's wife. For the rest of the cast, no one except the dog is ever greater than Sandra! Cinematography: The camera in this film is on a swivel, always moving, keeping us engaged. The camera uses Visual humour quite a bit, which is always great to see. Finally, the colour grade felt natural and, at times, warm, giving a homely vibe. Score: A simple piano piece plays throughout the film; it is excellent. Finally, the editing: This was a stand-out for me. It was cleverly cutting at points to hide us from the horrors but holding onto moments before it became too much. There's a lot of love about this film — a highlight of the Cannes 2023 run. <b>FADE OUT.</b>

ngly 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.

s wife (Sandra Hüller), herself a best-selling author, being the prime suspect. Despite an intriguing premise, however, the movie is overlong, needlessly talky and inherently flat, with a cold, clinical, unengaging narrative and characters who engender no connection, compassion or empathy. In essence, this is a “whodunnit” that plays like an extended “whocares.” Fault the screenplay here, which seeks to tell a tale in the same gripping vein as such great courtroom dramas as “Anatomy of a Murder” (1959) but that never achieves the level of tension, mystery and audience engagement needed to pull that off. The meticulously orchestrated script feels calculated and derivative virtually from start to finish, especially in its trial sequences, which explore an array of possible motives and explanations, including everything from infidelity to plagiarism to previous suicide attempts, that rely on often-implausible speculation and inflated conjecture to carry forward a proceeding that probably never should have ended up in court in the first place. What’s more, the double entendre that is the picture’s title is so obvious that any hopes of nuance, subtlety or profundity evaporate quickly once the failing nature of the couple’s troubled relationship surfaces. While the film admittedly features a fine performance by Hüller, it’s far from enough to rescue a picture with big aspirations that never pan out. How this release has garnered so much exaggerated awards season buzz is beyond me, especially given its intrinsically insipid, underwhelming, overstated character. There are plenty of other films of this ilk out there that are far more worth watching than this one, so grab one of those better selections instead and give this one the well-earned pass it genuinely deserves.

Screenplay, Best Achievement in Film Editing. It tells the story of In an isolated mountain chalet near Grenoble, where the problematic couple French Samuel Maleski is playing music in his attic so loudly that interrupts an interview of his German wife, Sandra Voyter (played by Sandra Hüller), and son Daniel (partially blind), returns from a long walk with his guide dog Snoop to find Samuel dead below his attic window. From there and all the theories, criminal analysis and courtroom judicial processes guide the movie and gain the midia of the country. Do not expect CSI level invention on this one - it is logical and reasonable as a movie that analyses the crisis in the couple and the impact on the son with a heavy focus on the courtroom that gabs your attention. Sandra Hüller is the protagonist that leads with an incredible performance on her role. The direction is solid as well as the screenplay. The cinematography varies from formal takes to more active ones and the editing is perfect in joining all the takes. I usually found courtroom movies to be boring but this wasn't the case that holds your attention till the end even with the slow moving of events and investigations from the live of protagonists to the dispute of the lawyers. A strong contender for all the prizes but knowing the academy I am almost sure it will grab 2 to 3 prizes. From my point of view the movie is a 8,5 out of 10,0 / A. For sure one of the movies of 2023 that must be seen, so it gets a like from me too.

film’s structure is sharp and deliberate, keeping you hooked as it probes the blurred lines between guilt and innocence. Also, what an awful choice in music :O

constructed, the acting uniformly excellent, the directing assured and precise. Justine Triet orchestrates the slow unraveling of a marriage and the legal machinery that attempts to assign blame with remarkable control; we're never quite sure what happened, and that ambiguity becomes the film's greatest strength. But there's something deeply unsettling beneath the craft, and it's not just the mystery of whether Sandra killed her husband. The story carries an unmistakable misogynist slant. The male investigator cannot, will not, entertain any possibility other than the woman killed her husband. His mind is made up before the investigation truly begins. The male witnesses align themselves with this theory, reinforcing the narrative of the dangerous, ambitious woman who destroyed her struggling husband. The film may not endorse this perspective outright, but it saturates the proceedings, shaping every interrogation, every piece of evidence, every damning interpretation. Whether Triet intends this as commentary on how the legal system treats women, or whether it's an unexamined assumption within the narrative itself, remains frustratingly unclear. What's certain is that watching a woman defend not just her innocence but her very credibility against a wall of male certainty feels uncomfortably familiar, a reminder that some verdicts are reached long before evidence is weighed. While not quite a 10, this is a superbly crafted thriller that leaves you questioning not just what happened, but whose version of reality gets believed, and why.