Anatomy of a Scandal (2022) User Reviews (349)

Not all bad but I really hoped for more

[Kingslaay · 6/10 · 1 May 2022]

Firstly the pros. I thought the acting was very good, good setting, interesting premise and a controversial topic to draw you in. Nothing like a juicy scandal.

However I feel the cons bring this series down. When the true identity of Kate Woodcroft is revealed I found myself saying what? How could someone physically change so much and sound so different? Remember the Libertine incident was at Oxford, so these are university days not high school. It is unrealistic to claim she can look and sound so different. Moreover, how come Sophie (her study partner) did not recognise her after seeing her on TV, newspapers and in the courtroom? She only conveniently recognises her at the end of the show. As Sophie has young children and is not too old herself we're also not talking about decades after her university days.

The other major con is the use of a stereotype. We are shown the white entitled male stereotype who behaves poorly during his university days and supposedly gets away it. It would be nice for a show not to push an agenda but rely on it's rich subject matter instead. I think this fictitious Libertine era storyline could have been omitted. In fact, what if James Whitehouse was an admirable character and this scandal leaves viewers questioning everything? It would have been better viewing if it made it more about the twists and turns of the trial. For these cons I'm sadly giving this show a 6, I had hoped for more.

The problem is the plot is fatally flawed; the actors deserved better

[steiner-sam · 6/10 · 11 June 2022]

It's a legal drama set in modern London, England, following the charge of rape against a senior government minister who is also the best friend of the Prime Minister.

James Whitehouse (Ben Radcliffe/Rupert Friend) is the senior minister and close friend from Oxford University days with Prime Minister Tom Southern (Jake Simmance/Geoffrey Streatfeild). James is married to Sophie (Hannah Dodd/Sienna Miller); they have three children. Olivia Lytton (Naomi Scott) is a researcher on Whitehouse's staff and a person with whom he had an affair for five months. A week after he broke off the affair, they had a sexual encounter, after which she charged him with rape. Kate Woodcroft (Nancy Farino/Michelle Dockery) is the prosecution counsel arguing the charges against Woodhouse.

The six-part series begins with the widely publicized scandal of the affair, followed by the rape charge and the subsequent trial. Throughout, there are flashbacks to the Oxford University days when Whitehouse and Southern were members of a wild partying group called the Libertines. We gradually learn that a death occurred at the Libertines' last party for which no one has been held accountable. Sophie was already Whitehouse's girlfriend at the time. Kate's relationship to it all is initially unclear but becomes apparent as the series continues.

This is a series with strong, well-developed characters, and the quality of the acting is high. The story raises good questions about the nature of consent in sexual relations. For me, the problem is the plot is fatally flawed because it's not believable. It forced me too often to not roll my eyes. This is unfortunate because the actors and the core issue deserved better.

Really enjoyed ... until the final episode.

[fh_3 · 6/10 · 28 April 2022]

Good writing. Good acting. Good story. Great sets and costumes. Some awkward directing and acting at times but not distracting. Then there was the final episode. No spoilers but it really unraveled for me. Not what you would expect but a bit absurd.

Started out beautifully...

[PennyIsMine · 6/10 · 16 April 2022]

...but ended badly. I'd rate the first few episodes a '9' for production values and staying away from some easy (and overdone) tropes. But the last few sunk it to a 6.

absurd ending

[perillomichael · 6/10 · 18 April 2022]

Enjoyed this until the absurd ending. Spoiler Alert!

At the end the main character gets arrested, the Prime Minister is taken down, all based on the unsupported word of a vengeful wife. No supporting evidence. No witnesses. No paper trail. No video. Just the unsupported word of the wife trying to get even with her philandering husband.. And, to boot, the prosecuting attorney would have been disbarred prior to this based on occurrences earlier in the film. None of this could possibly happen in real life. Disappointed in David Kelley. Usually a great writer.

Worth watching yet the ending doesn't live up to the hype

[mariani-84097 · 7/10 · 23 April 2022]

People seem to be disappointed especially by the end ; it's a shame though that the series doesn't end with satisfaction to the audience , it's well-paced, n with smart dialogue and a hood sienna Miller and the cinematography is thoughtful yet ONE BIG blunder is the twist at episode 5 ( not necessary and really far fetched ) which spoils the narrative ; still worth watching though.

So..

[ts-0000 · 20 April 2022]

Decent enough but figured out key points early on,including with the lawyer.

Did anyone feel bothered when the wife,didn't clean her phone after vomiting?

Also who goes to bed fully dressed,including with their shoes on.. Yes! The wife was in shock,but still.. Really?

The wife was about"truth"but was deceptive in her own right,going back to her college years & as current discoveries unfold.. Sure not anything like her spouse & his actions,but still she wasn't due all sympathy.

Casting,acting & cinematography was ok.. Still,worth checking out!

SIENNA MILLERS PERFORMANCE

[syedbukharii · 9/10 · 3 May 2022]

With the exception of my odd review here and there; not really one to voluntarily assess and feedback HOWEVER I am compelled to praise Sienna Miller's acting skills. Seems to me that though her years of acting roles, accompanied with maturity, SMs dramatical acting performances associated with emotions, conflicts and high level tensions have significantly improved on an elevated rank. She has definitely authenticated herself as an A LISTER !

THIS DRAMA IS A MUST WATCH FEATURE in light of her performance. A very good dramatical storyline too.

A further recommendation: AMERICAN WOMAN. Brilliant dramatical performance by SM.

Who is Sienna Miller?

[filipvanesch · 6/10 · 20 April 2022]

An amazing actress that can carry a show.

Truth be told Sienna Miller was, until a few days ago for me, just a name and face that rings a bell. Looking through her filmography, I somehow missed everything she was in. Her performance in this is addictive, she was the main character for me.

Arrogance Could be Terribly Attractive

[albertval-69560 · 8/10 · 16 April 2022]

It's engaging all throughout with unexpected twists at the middle and in the end. All the main actors are so convincing in their roles; the viewer feels he's right there where the action is.

There's this particular scene in the heat of the hearing where James is giving his testimony, and he and Kate appear in the scene and no one else. It gave the sense they were in deadly mortal combat and added to the dramatic flourish of the scene. And the viewer feels the suspense like what those in the courtroom could have felt while awaiting the jury's verdict. The scene is directed in such a way that the verdict could go either way. But watch out for the ending. It's the least of what you would have expected.

Sienna Miller, Rupert Friend and Michelle Dockery are splendid. I also praise Joselle Simon for her portrayal of the defense lawyer Angela Regan: deliberate and incisive.

Strong Start, Strange Finish

[annlevtex · 6/10 · 10 June 2022]

I don't usually put spoilers in reviews, but this show's ending left me so baffled and unsatisfied and that I have to address it. It starts off well, with a solid premise, fine production value, a lot of possible angles to explore and good acting across the board, especially from Sienna Miller.

Then around the middle, things get......goofy.

The use of flashbacks to the main characters' younger selves works well enough, especially when they are always seen in dimly lit rooms or outside in the dark of night. Young Sienna and Rupert look plausible, but young Michelle does NOT. You can change your look by losing weight, straightening your hair and switching up your style, but you can't GROW several inches after university. It would have been so easy to find a young actress who could plausibly morph into adult Kate, I cannot imagine why they didn't find and cast one.

They simply don't give us enough back story as to how Kate became estranged from her mother, or her journey from Oxford drop-out to (apparently) Australia to being a beast of a prosecutor back in London. It could have worked and made sense, but it was too murky.

The ending made no sense. I appreciated the fake-out, with him being exonerated for one crime and then ending up nabbed for another. But it was impossible for me to believe that he would actually be prosecuted or convicted for the death of Alec.

So, he gave his friend illegal drugs at a university party twenty years ago and said friend chose to jump off a building. Even if the drugs were illegal, even if he fled the scene in a panic and lied to the police about what happened, that doesn't add up to a crime that would land you in a handcuffs two decades later.

He didn't push his friend or force him to take the drugs. Did Sophie lie to the police and say he did? If so, they needed to show us that. And even if she did spin that story, too much time has passed and there is no way to prove it. It's a scandal, sure. But it's not a plausible criminal case. They should have shown him resigning in disgrace, not in custody.

Anyway, as I said, Sienna Miller is very good in the role and it is satisfying to see her journey. Rupert Friend is an excellent actor, I loved him in "Homeland," but he's a bit two-dimensional here. Michelle Dockery's performance starts off well enough but sputters when she gets to the really challenging material. I always thought she was overrated as Lady Mary on Downton Abbey and her acting here does nothing to change my mind about that.

Shout out to the actress who plays defense counsel. She's very good and delivers a closing argument that I genuinely believed could sway a jury. The rest was less convincing.

Remarkable

[nancyldraper · 8/10 · 23 April 2022]

This is quite a remarkable dramatic series. The writing is complex, the characters are flawed, the morality is grey. The acting is great, every actor is a recognizably part of the who's who of UK stage and screen. (The UK have working actors who show up to ply their trade whether it is for four months or a day). The plot is contemporary and surprising. I am usually pretty good at predicting a twist but, not only did I not anticipate a twist, but when it arrived, I only saw it seconds before it was revealed. I give this series an 8 (remarkable) out of 10. {Courtroom Drama}

The Facts of Life

[pietclausen · 7/10 · 16 April 2022]

Remarkable story and very entertaining. The first episode was worrisome and looked like becoming a soapy, but from episode 2 to 5 the story became a court case which was not far fetched and was a good reflection of real life. The sixth episode was a misnomer and should not have ended as it did. This episode is pure fiction and impossible to happen in real life.

Anatomy of a Fiasco

[vespatian75 · 3/10 · 22 April 2022]

This show just didn't make it. Being in the legal profession for nearly 50 years I try avoid carping criticism based on legal technicalities. For example, I think "The Verdict" with Paul Newman was a great drama, although it was not without inaccuracies in terms of its portrayal of the litigation process.

Anatomy is another story. Its problems relate to the plot devices that lead to a ridiculous ending. The first three episodes started well enough. Typical of British Productions the acting was top notch and the dialogue was witty. After that it was all downhill. Without giving away the details, it turns out that the story turns on a ridiculous twist that is impossible to accept. The ending was simply ludicrous. Oddly enough there were a few simple changes in the plot twists that could have rendered the whole story acceptable and believable.

Anyway if you wish to see a legal drama that starts with the word Anatomy I suggest Otto Preminger's great "Anatomy of a Murder" with Jimmy Stewart, Lee Remick, George C Scott et al.

Post #metoo era - meaning of consent

[fuljah · 15 April 2022]

This series is about toxic virility. It portrays a politician starting from his university years to his maturity years as a family dad and a minister in modern Britain. With various back and forts in time, we see the construction of the toxic male in Britain - excess boozing, vandalizing, assaulting women, entitlement and group aggression. Our protagonist is sometimes a witness, sometimes a bi-stander, sometimes a participatory and sometimes a critic. Finally, ending up being accused of rape, himself. I understand the subtext of the series too well, and it was really very well directed, however, it is all to didactic. Nobody wants to watch a moral discourse for hours. There are also side plots, like the women prioritizing marriage as an institution over truth, self realization etc.

I am sorry I did not find it very interesting / engaging and there is a very condescending tone. I would not recommend it.

More unrealistic from episode to episode

[nilskilian · 6/10 · 15 April 2022]

Average story, but it is absolutely ridiculous how much more unrealistic it gets from episode to episode.

Not exactly what I would call exciting, but it's okay.

Seen worse.

Short curly woman to a tall dark strager

[paper-pagan · 6/10 · 9 May 2022]

How did a short girl with curly hair at the university grow up a very tall woman with very straight hair is not as interesting as how the police failed to follow a social security number of a woman who got a marriage licence in the UK and probably the bar and certainly her own solicitor's office. You can easily change your name, but that hardly makes you invisible from the police and tax auditors, no matter what you mum tells them.

I was hoping this would be an good show, which it wasn't, it was badly acted and badly written and the plot is nonexistant, with a single twist that doesn't really go anywhere.

However I wasn't expecting that among all the mighty women in the story, I'd like the performances of Sienna Miller the best. She does a lot with what she's given!

Sucked in until the ending

[Farfallina78 · 6/10 · 22 April 2022]

I really enjoyed the plot. I've never found Sienna Miller to be a good actress, but she was decent in this. Overall the acting was good. What wasn't good was the about face ending which made zero sense. There was no major crime committed. As far as we were shown, the dead dude was doing the brown all by himself. He jumped/fell. Failure to report? Yes. Scandal for a prime minister? Ok. But arrests? GTFO.

The REAL scandal was a prosecutor who was linked to the defendant and never disclosed. But that was somehow ok? "Holly Berry" deserved to be dragged through the mud as much as the rest.

A shame bc the story had me hooked until the end, when not only did Sienna Miller's character ruin her family, but she did so via the lamest reason possibile.

Intense plot, incredible acting

[coachess-20078 · 10/10 · 17 April 2022]

I watched it in a Binge. As a family member of a sexual harassment victim, I witnessed first hand the impact it has on her. I applaud Netflix's choice in making such series: it's a hard story to tell, but needs to be told, and the cast told it superbly. For anyone who try to pick fault on Kate (a transformation of Holly), you are missing the point: they have to endure significant pains: Many years later, the brain tries to erase, but the body doesn't forget. My favorite part are the court scenes, and the cross examinations. Both lawyers are superb.

Highly recommend.

UK extra-marital affair and court room drama feels strangely all too familiar

[paul-allaer · 6/10 · 18 April 2022]

As Episode 1 of "Anatomy Of a Scandal" (2022 release from the UK, 6 episodes of about 45 min each)) opens, we get to know Sophie Whitehouse. She is at a party somewhere among the British elite. She gets a strange call and leaves for home. There her husband James, a Tory MP and Minister, and a close friend of the Prime Minister, confesses to an affair with an aide but he ended it 2 weeks ago. The immediate question is: why does James confess to the affair, and why confess now? At this point we are 10 min into Episode 1...

Couple of comments: this TV mini-series is directed by veteran British director S. J. Clarkson. Here she transposes Sarah Vaughan's novel of the same title to the screen, looking at an extra-marital affair gone very wrong, and the fallout to the people directly involved or close-by. I must say that the biggest sense I've gotten from seeing the initial 2 episodes is that, on the one hand, this all feels strangely familiar, as if I've seen this before, and yet (ii) this is quite watchable and dare I say, entertaining. One also gets the sense of the enormous privilege of the British elites, almost too much to bear really. The mini-series benefits from Sienna Miller's lead performance (as Sophie), but also benefits from the exquisite photography and set productions, featuring many familiar London spots. Getting a glimpse of the House of Commons at Westminster is probably the best part of all (for me anyway).

"Anatomy of a Scandal" premiered this past weekend on Netflix. I've seen the initial two episodes, and I'm sure I'll make work of the remaining 4 episodes in the days to come. If you are interested in a very British extra-marital affair and court room drama, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.

It's not what you think

[Ranbl · 8/10 · 15 April 2022]

It's a very misleading series. It's not about the trial or the case or the guilt or lack of it. They don't even bother to show us Olivia's side it's more an indictment of privilege and high society. But it spends 5 episodes barely dealing with it until it explodes. It is superbly shot and acted but I ended up feeling like I barely got a glimpse of the true story.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for the Libertines?

[junemo · 6/10 · 20 July 2022]

Because that's how I felt by the end, which was probably not the intent of the producers or the director. I think they were trying too hard to get us to hate these entitled, Oxford "blokes". What I couldn't figure out was if Michelle Dockery's character had the evidence needed to actually charge anyone with rape. It was essentially a "he-said, she-said" case. Then we find out why she pursued prosecution near the end of episode 4, and that's when most folks may say "huh"? It would have made more sense if Holly's (aka Kate's) rape came up at trial, but since the real Holly was the prosecutor who should have recused herself or risk losing her law license, no chance of that happening. And then there's the wife, who uses hubby's confession and trust in her, then immediately turns him and his BFF in to Holly and the police for a death that happened decades earlier that may have been a drug-related accident. None of these events were worthy of prosecution, unless you want to prosecute someone for being a reckless, thoughtless jerk. If viewers could only have speculated or solved the question of whether he did it or not, this would have been so much better. In the end, we see Holly's self-satisfied smirk, that she can finally prosecute her violator for a different "crime", and yet she still does not recuse herself. Looks like she's just as entitled as the rest of them.

A story worth telling

[maryskywalker11 · 8/10 · 2 September 2022]

Surprised by all the negative reviews! I just finished this show moments ago & I was captivated by it!

It feels like in this world the victims don't win but in this story they actually do, which though perhaps unbelievable (as many have stated here), is refreshing to see. I'd like to live in a world where victims speak up and are heard. Where bravery & truth are rewarded...

Anyways - I really enjoyed this show and was hooked immediately! Easy to binge (I did). Great acting, wonderful cast and you really see the development of the story play out...Siena beautifully displayed the stages of grief in a way that felt real to watch. Bravo! This show was also good at helping the audience trade allegiances. While at the beginning you're rooting for a man's life and family to remain intact, by the end I'd be surprised if you didn't feel differently. Where at first it seems the lines of truth & fiction are blurred...as the show progresses it's easy to draw a conclusion at to what actually happened. They sell the story well in that aspect.

Concerning the subject matter, as a sexual assault survivor myself, I often find shows revolving around these themes to be hard to watch, but for some reason I did not find the show triggering. I felt that it conveyed the gravity, tragedy & reality of sexual assault in a way that I was able to stomach. Which I think here is important to note.

Ultimately this is a very moving, powerful story of a woman choosing to do the right thing & prioritizing justice over loyalty. Highly recommend.

Great series with stupid ending

[twzbsrqf · 6/10 · 29 April 2022]

The series should have ended with the verdict. And, maybe also with James' wife deciding to leave him.

The actual ending was rubbish. James' wife has zero proof. It's her word versus James and James could say wife is lying because she wants to try to punish him for having the affair.

Too bad the producers ruined an otherwise great series.

Unbelievable

[swedish-11296 · 4/10 · 18 April 2022]

An unbelievable plot, where the caracters don't recognize friends from University 20 years later. And who has sex with a girl he never talked to just minutes after a horrible and terrifying accident?