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.

If you listen to the critics who knows where we would be. I

ignored the comments that this was another Fugitive only a female version, but found the movie fast paced and well acted by Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd, as well as the whole cast. I liked the story line and it was exciting and the time just flew by. Go see it you will enjoy it!!!!

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.

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.

Elizabeth Parsons has a rich husband and a young son. When she wakes up on their luxury yacht with blood everywhere and her husband nowhere to be found, she is suspected of his murder to get the life insurance. While serving 6 years, she discovers that her husband is very much alive. She learns that she can't be tried for his murder since she already has been, and begins to plan his death and how to get her husband back.

Despite that fact that the whole film is summed up in the title I decided to watch it anyway. So really there is very little drama for much of the film as we all know what she's doing and where the film is going. The plot could have been lifted from any number of video thrillers - all it needed was a little nudity and it could have been an erotic thriller for late night TV! As it stood, the bigger budget, higher production values and bigger stars helped the film actually rise a little above the material and seem to be much glossier and impressive than it actually was. The stunts and effects worked well and the direction was of a higher calibre than you'd see on the bottom shelf, but it is still a very ordinary thriller if you strip all the polish away.

The cast try hard but they have little to work with. An unnecessary role from Tommy Lee Jones helps keep the film's pace up by turning it into a cat and mouse chase of sorts, but mostly it is pretty dull. Judd is OK in the lead but doesn't do anything to justify her fee I reckon. Support from Mafia is so lame that it looks like she is almost falling asleep while giving her lines! The film relies on pace and tension which it mostly gets by flipping cars around for little reason and for putting Elizabeth in slightly (!) unlikely situations then getting her out of them. The legal interest in the plot actually falls to pieces when you think about it, but the film is clever enough never to take it's central idea further than a few lines of dialogue before rendering the argument null and void.

Overall I was struck by just how ordinary and dull the whole film was. If I had seen this film as a low budget video thriller I still wouldn't have liked it but I may have accepted it for what it is. This film just exposed it's own weaknesses by virtue of pushing to be a product much grander than it's plot deserved.