Witness for the Prosecution (1982)

hyped garbage

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

I benefited by watching the 1957 version and this one within hours of each other. Each has it's weaknesses and strengths. The major weakness IMO of this version was the music used. It intruded and didn't match the mood of the story. Though Ralph Richardson's portrayal doesn't have the bravado of Charles Laughton's, he brought a quiet conviction to the part. Beau Bridges was compared unfavorably to Tyrone Power but he (Bridges) showed the boyish charm that would take in a lonely older woman who would want to mother him or even marry him. Power came across as more mature and world weary though he did bring his own brand of charm to the part. Diana Rigg was very good but I felt Marlene Dietrich in the 1957 film was the better actress, especially, as a native German speaker, she was able to pull off a Cockney (or near enough) accent. People have said the scene where Sir Wilfred meets the "Cockney" woman differed and that the 1957 version was the correct and superior one have got it wrong. This version's meeting is the one in the short story the movies were based on. Never having seen the play or read a copy I can't say which meeting was used in it but I do own the book that contains the short story and have recently read it.There are complaints that they followed almost word for word and scene for scene the Wilder version but I don't have a problem with that. A good story is a good story and they wouldn't be the first nor the last to do such a thing.

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.

In 1958 Billy Wilder made one of the best film adaptations of an Agatha Christie story when he directed WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION, with Charles Laughton, Marlene Dietrich, Tyrone Power, Elsa Lanchester, and Una O'Connor. It is one of those mystery films that, even when you understand the trick, does not fail to remain entertaining. But it has to be done in a certain way, with a sense of decorum and tradition (personified by Laughton as Sir Wilfred Robarts - brilliant defense barrister but guardian of England's precious laws and sense of justice). It is infectious. Even Power as the seemingly helpless Leonard Vole is desperately hoping that the system of justice will save him.But along comes this version of 1982. One would have thought it could not fail with a star like Sir Ralph Richardson as Robarts and Diana Rigg as Christine Vole. But it does fail. Even with Dame Deborah Kerr as Nurse Plimsoll and Dame Wendy Hiller as Janet Mackenzie (the Una O'Connor role)it fails. Richardson is too laid back for Sir Wilfrid. When Rigg testifies against her husband, after having previously given him an alibi for the murder, Richardson almost seems to tease her about her behavior. In the same situation in the Wilder film, Laughton's justifiable anger at this turnabout leads to a peroration point where he shouts out that she is a perpetual liar. It was far more affective with Laughton, although Richardson was (traditionally) a greater actor.Similarly, Tyrone Power's Leonard Vole was (as I said when reviewing the 1958 film version)playing Leonard for all the part is worth, and created the most sinister part he played after his best performance in NIGHTMARE ALLEY as Stanton Carlyle. The last ten minutes of the film show what a totally amoral and vicious louse Power's Vole really is. Beau Bridges was as laid back as Richardson, making the mistake of making Vole seem a nice guy. Vole can be helpless in the arms of the British judicial system or he can be a louse. He can't be a guy you want to take out for a fishing expedition.I give this film a "6" - barely because the cast tried. Their ideas were wrong in Richardson and Bridges' interpretations.

Sorry but I find the original a bit slow. The original court case is probably more dramatic. However, I like the cast better in this newer rendition and wish it was available on DVD. Diana Rigg as always is great. Deborah Kerr and Donald Pleasance also turn in good performances.