Doble riesgo

Their definition of double jeopardy is so wrong that it insults intelligence. DJ protects a person, presumably found innocent the first trial, from being retried for that SAME crime. SAME ...as in same victim, same day, same circumstance. Not SAME victim but DIFFERENT day, circumstance. Using their interpretation of DJ, I could assault someone, be tried and go to prison, get released, and go assault that person again and get off scott free. Maybe a small legal point to most viewers, but I prefer to watch movies that don't make me scoff at the stupidity of the central premise. That said, the action is decent.

I've read all the bad reviews-I can say that it's really not THAT bad-granted-this picture has no realism whatsoever but-I could rattle off the names of many movies even more unbelievable that are still considered good films.

Not that this is a really GOOD film or anything-but it does what it does well-which is to get your attention and hold it-no great analysis, no deep conversations afterward about "what it all meant". Just a bit of time away from day to day life.

The movie is also trying to appeal to a particular crowd, the type who like these type of "mind thrillers'(Guilty as sin is another one, Malice, Final analysis etc etc) There's a whole host of movies like this one.

Now this particular movie stars Ashley Judd who is so talented she almost had me thinking she really was locked up-definitely a quality actress-and if your a female and have just had a really BAD breakup you may wanna see it for that "woman will triumph" quality.

Not that I'm saying this movie is great but I always tend to look for the bad AND the good-I thought one of the worst thrillers(a lot worse then this) was malice with Kidman and Alec Baldwin-that one was not only improbable but also extremely boring-but I'm getting off the subject at hand...

I liked this. saw it in the theater and rooted for Ashley all the way.

Seen a lot worse in my time.

And lastly if you wanna check out ridiculous movies(and it's a SEQUEL to boot) rent "revenge of the stepford wives".

Double Jeopardy is an interesting enough thriller, but it just isn't as satisfying as you would expect a movie with this premise to be. Ashley Judd is just annoying for the first hour or so of the film, and it isn't until the fugitive style chase begins that the movie gets really interesting. And this, of course, is where Tommy Lee's excellent acting is the most entertaining and fun. He has unfortunately been somewhat typecast since his spectacular performance in The Fugitive, but at least he has been typecast in a role that is always fun to watch and that he can always pull off excellently.

I think it's pointless to try to argue whether or not the whole double jeopardy law can truly be handled in the way that it was described in the film, but as a crime film Double Jeopardy was pretty good. Judd's husband in the film is one of those characters that's easy to hate, and not only because of what he did in the movie. You just look at this guy and you immediately don't like him. That's good casting, but it also completely voided any effectiveness that his `auction' might ever have had. And how about that coffin scene! Who cares that no one gets buried in a coffin that has plenty of room for two! That was one of the creepiest things I've seen in a movie in years.

Clearly, there is nothing spectacular about Double Jeopardy. It's not going to win any awards and it probably won't be remembered for very long. But it has a certain charm that can unfortunately only be appreciated if you're in the right state of mind when you watch it. Don't expect it to be as good as The Fugitive just because Tommy Lee Jones is in it (really, are any movies as good as The Fugitive?). I mean, let's face it, Double Jeopardy isn't even as good as Under Siege, but as far as a moderately entertaining crime thriller to kill a couple hours, you could definitely do a lot worse.

Yes, common law does contain a "double jeopardy" principle: one cannot be tried for the same crime twice. A friend of mine who knows something about legal theory (I know next to nothing) points out that one can nevertheless face the same CHARGE twice. If I am convicted of stealing Fred's car it's just not true that the law can't touch me if I steal his car a second time - in the eyes of the law, which is not a complete ass, I have committed TWO crimes, even though they both bear the same description: `stealing Fred's car'.

Let us suppose, though, that it's different in the case of murder, at least in some jurisdiction somewhere. (It's easy to see why murder might be a special case.) Suppose that Libby Parsons, falsely convicted of killing Nick Parsons, now has the legal right to REALLY kill him. What of it? Murder is the ONLY crime Libby is at legal liberty to commit; but how does one commit ONLY murder? It's just not possible. In order to murder Mick, Libby must break any number of other laws: she must inflict grievous bodily harm, or damage property, or endanger someone's safety, or carry a concealed firearm, or create a public nuisance, or loiter, or jaywalk - I'm sure there are enough laws on the books to keep her locked away from precisely as long as if she'd simply been convicted of murder a second time, and a good thing too.

It's hard not to think of this when she JUMPS PAROLE in order to go in search of her presumed-dead husband. What's the point of this detail? The film wants to wave what it supposes to be a clever gimmick in our faces: the fact that Libby can commit murder within the law. If she then breaks a law - which she needn't have done, and which the film certainly needn't have been constructed so as to make it the case that she needed to have done - what's the POINT of the double jeopardy routine? I don't know that there was much point anyway. Do we really want this woman to break out of jail and murder her husband? Of course not. We like her. She's not yet a killer and we don't want her to become one, even if killing her husband is in her interest, which it isn't. This would have been a better film if Beresford had at some point halfway through made it clear to us that the "legal principle" Libby had heard from her friend in jail was but a distortion of the truth.

Anyway: this bugged me. But it's not to say that "Double Jeopardy" isn't otherwise a well-made thriller, distinctly enjoyable to watch. It has Tommy Lee Jones doing his schtick, for one thing. I actually prefer his character here to the one he bore in "The Fugitive". Everyone remembers his reply in the earlier film to "I didn't kill my wife": "I don't care." But it's a line that was just thrown in because it sounds cool. In "Double Jeopardy" Jones has a more discernible character, and he's more fun.

Not that it's a horrible movie, but it was certainly nothing new. I didn't find a single surprise in the movie and overall found it to be almost boring.

I thought Ashley Judd and pretty good as was Bruce Greenwood. Tommy Lee Jones was OK, although his character was weak and never really developed.

As for the story, it's a good idea, but the execution leaves something lacking. There were no surprises in the story (something very important in a "thriller"). Without the twists and turns expected in a good thriller, the story seems to just meander to the inevitable ending. I (as did the group of people I was with) knew the ending about 15 minutes into the movie. There was no suspense of "who did it" or "will he get away with it".

All that can really be said about "Double Jeopardy" is that it had potential--great cast and good story idea. However, it just never came together. Part of this might be attributed to the marketing of the movie. As an example, "The Sixth Sense", released just a few weeks prior, managed to keep the ending a (sort of) secret, until it was seen. With "Double Jeopardy" though, the viewer goes into the theater knowing who did it and able to guess the ending without much thought.