I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

How sad is this?

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

In case you don't know, when a President recommends a candidate for his cabinet, the candidate has to endure a grueling vetting process by a Senate committee. Then the Senate votes to approve him or her, and if approved, the Senate moves to "advise and consent" the candidate. With that knowledge, you'll be correct if you assume the film Advise and Consent is about a Senate investigation committee's interview with a candidate for Secretary of State. As usual, Otto Preminger has created an enormously edgy film. His work includes The Man with the Golden Arm, Hurry Sundown, and Anatomy of a Murder, and in all his films, he pushes the boundaries of what was allowed to be shown on the screen. He has a talent for bringing out the very best in his actors, and as usual, you can recognize his style by the opening credits.In Advise and Consent, Franchot Tone plays the President of the United States. I've always seen a superior air around him, so it seemed completely natural for him to be in such a position of power. Franchot, Walter Pidgeon, Charles Laughton, and Don Murray all acted like veteran politicians, well-versed in the backroom deals. None of them seemed like they were reciting lines; they were all living and breathing their parts. Walter Pidgeon is the lead-even though Henry Fonda gets first billing-and is the glue between those in the Senate. Charles Laughton is the suspicious Southern opposition leader, and even if you don't agree with what he's saying, you can appreciate his cunningness. Believe it or not, even though Henry Fonda is the candidate, he's hardly in the movie! Since I don't really happen to like him, I didn't mind his small role. Ironically, watching this movie feels like you're watching a Senate hearing in modern times, even though it's fifty-five years old! Not much has changed in the political world. There are tons of twists and turns in the script, so even though the running time is a little long, it's extremely entertaining.

I have watched the movie in full length only once, but it was very impressive and has persisted in my mind till today. It passes as typical for its era political drama at a first glance, but it is quite advanced and provocative for the political and social environment of the age it was shot. A first surprising element its the nature of political cooperation, ideological lines and bipartisanship which the movie presents. In today's heated, insulting political feuds political parties in the US have been crystallised into almost monolithic and compact organisations with few ideological deviations among their members and elected magistrates. So, the central idea of the political turmoil in the movie is not a juxtaposition between parties but between ideologies and regional and social differences which penetrate in both major parties. The story tones down a lot but does not erase the names and bordering lines of Democrats and Republicans; featuring instead on behaviours and acts of specific people from the whole ideological spectrum. Traditional conservatism, political manipulation by party bosses, and old-fashioned honesty and dignity are all featured in the process of hearing the candidate for Secretary of State, played by Henry Fonda, each fighting for or against the candidacy with its own means and for its own reasons. An innovative aspect is the addition of a sexually-oriented scandal, a very very advanced aspect for the era of the early '60s, when the Code was still present though waning for many years before. This plot thread could be relevant today very easily. The much screen time devoted to the Senate chamber helps unite the excellent cast to common scenes and a lot of interaction. Charles Laughton, Henry Fonda, Franchot Tone and others shine with their talent on the screen.

Now aged, script misses and acting is not strong.That's what I wrote in my own one-liner as record against this movie.Perhaps it was considered avant-garde when first shown. Now, every aspect of it is like the yellowed pages of a discarded book.I was particularly hoping for clever dialogue; something close to All About Eve, with the senate replacing the theatre.But although the film attempts to stage such scenes, the script is mostly functional. Another disappointment was the underuse of Henry Fonda. The younger senators were not played well; not by actors who could make me care.The reveal of the dark secret of the committee chair was (by today's standards) quite cheesy.Also, seen through 2012 eyes, the film holds no surprises in its execution.

If not the best film about American politics, it's certainly in the pantheon. Director Otto Preminger's version of the Allen Drury novel keeps things very ambiguous while peeling away the layers of infighting & scandal that go into keeping Washington running. He's assembled a great cast including Henry Fonda as a very controversial figure up for the Secretary of State nomination. Fonda, always perfect playing FLAWED men, is spot on. There's no question he has some sort of skeletons in his closet, but getting them out proves to be very challenging. In true Washingtonian fashion, Fonda's nomination takes second place to the brutal, often lurid, bickering of senators who'll stop at nothing to get their agendas through. Preminger gives equal time to all (never letting on who is Democrat & who is Republican). Walter Pidgeon is the savvy Senate Majority leader and he gives what is probably his best performance. He's well matched with Charles Laughton (as an ornery and very willful southern senator). The supporting cast includes Don Murray, Peter Lawford, Paul Ford, Betty White and Gene Tierney as a society doyenne. George Grizzard, in his film debut, steals the movie as a conniving junior senator and Burgess Meredith has a great, almost sad, cameo giving not too credible testimony against Fonda.