Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

TheLittleSongbird The play is a lot of fun that keeps you guessing until the end, and Billy Wilder's film is one of the best Agatha Christie film adaptations in my opinion. So this TV film had much to live up to. And it did so in a worthy way, and generally compares favourably. The music score can be a little too obtrusive sometimes, but the biggest problem was Beau Bridges who is much too laid-lack, nowhere near shady enough and he doesn't have the slick charm, charisma or even handsome enough looks to have three women falling for him. Tyrone Power however did have those things. However, the film is very well photographed and looks evocative and wholly professional in how it was made. The direction is careful and meticulous but never resorting to stodginess. The dialogue is intelligent and sometimes funny, the courtroom scenes are well paced and compelling and while the chemistry between Richardson and Rigg is not quite as dynamic as Laughton and Dietrich and perhaps a little too teasing it is still sharp and intense.The story keeps you guessing, no matter how familiar you are with the story or not, coming from somebody who's seen the play twice and the Wilder film at least seven times the story was suspensefully and grippingly told which was what I was looking for really. The flashbacks didn't harm anything at all. I also don't mind it being word for word, screen for screen as it is well made stuff and has a good cast to carry it. I can understand why people would be dubious though, as I admittedly was too, seeing as the remake of Psycho was also word for word screen for screen and even shot for shot and it was an awful film because it had no sense of suspense or terror and the cast was bad, which was not the case here. In fact, apart from Bridges, the cast were very good. Ralph Richardson gives a quieter and perhaps more subtle performance than Charles Laughton, and it was a convincing approach and he still gives an enigmatic and twitchy performance as a result.Though admittedly I do prefer the more shrewd and gleeful performance of Laughton who made the already great dialogue even funnier by his comic delivery alone. Diana Rigg is also very good and delightfully wicked, probably the member of the cast that I remember. She isn't quite as successful as Marlene Dietrich with the Cockney-voiced lady but takes a very noble stab at it with some clever direction, with Dietrich she succeeded in using a completely different voice which compensated for the little attempt taken to disguise her distinctive nose. Deborah Kerr is in a different role, but does so in a fun and charming performance with good chemistry with Richardson, while Donald Pleasance's prosecutor is appropriately cunning and thoughtfully observed. Wendy Hiller is very sweet and dotty. All in all, of course there were times that weren't quite there but this Witness for the Prosecution is still very worthy and compares favourably.8/10 Bethany Cox

jjnxn-1 Excellent TV version of the Agatha Christie classic with an amazing array of talent for this type of enterprise. This is the sort of high quality fare that was standard on American television in the 70s & 80s and is sadly missing today. Bridges is okay but miscast. Leonard Vole needs to be played by someone with a slick charm as it was by Tyrone Power in the original, a persona like George Clooney projects now and Bridges while a capable actor doesn't have that quality. Therefore he is easily put in the shade by the powerhouse team of Sir Ralph Richardson and Diana Rigg. Both give exceptional performances, Richardson sly, knowing and wise while Diana Rigg is perfect as the determined if misguided Christine. Deborah Kerr provides a nice light touch as Richardson nurse. Good fun all around.

electrictroy I watched Witness for the Prosecution on the "This" movie channel hoping it would be just as good as the original, but unfortunately not.It plays like a TV episode instead of a movie, and the acting is very stilted. Even the way they move feels like watching robots in motion rather than a natural performance. I don't know who to blame - the directors or the actors - but in either case the actors look like actors, not real people experiencing real events.I recommend you get the original movie which DOES feel natural. Charles Laughton does a brilliant job as the lawyer.Even if you have to rent it, the original movie is better than this "free" TV version and worth the expenditure. PBS sometimes runs the original on weekends, so maybe you can catch it then.

borsch This remake of the Laughton/Power/Dietrich film is quite enjoyable, owing to skillful casting, top production values, and, of course, Dame Christie's cracking good story. Sadly, the only liability is the performance of Sir Ralph Richardson (It's almost unspeakable to say this; I feel like Brutus plunging the knife into his Caesar). This was one of his last performances, and his immense skill simply cannot overcome his advanced age. (Granted, his character is supposed to be aged and ill, but Sir Ralph is unable to act intrigued and energized by his last case the way Laughton was in the original.) Still, his presence alone delivers barrels full of audience goodwill, and the piece is anchored by fine performances from Diana Rigg in the Dietrich role, Deborah Kerr in Elsa Lanchester's part (a fun bit of off-casting!) and by Beau Bridges, who stretches himself beyond his normal nice-guy blandness and convinces in the Ty Power role. A nice movie for a rainy afternoon or a boring holiday!