Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

This ridiculous movie represent all that is wrong with the Hollywood film industry. You take the plot line of a completely outdated 50's flick, set the story in whatever city's tourist board, gives you the best deal, hire couple of tepid and incredible uncharismatic young half-stars, add in a top billing a major star , little over the hill, and you have a movie. And what an atrocity of a movie this is. I have no intention of wasting my or anybody else's time, so I'll keep it very short.It all happens in Shreveport, LA, but except couple of minor parts nobody has a minute trace of a Southern accent. The shear stupidity of the main character makes you wont to choke him to death. The plot line has more holes than a sieve. Suspending your logic isn't enough, you have to suspend your brain to go through this garbage. Just plain stupid.

Despite the almost unanimous negative reviews by viewers and professional critics, I liked "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt". Why? This movie is a combination of an old-fashioned mystery story combined with an indie film style.

I have been a longtime fan of old detective films and I also like modern low-budget independent movies like "Management" and "Little Miss Sunshine". This combination of styles; old-fashioned mystery and indie low-budget, didn't bother me.

I accepted that many of the actors were not the greatest around today, or that the lighting and sound was almost never polished and was often primitive. And that the music soundtrack was just adequate.

But what I very much enjoyed was the story itself. This is a great mystery plot which kept me guessing. And I like those kinds of stories.

A very unconvincing cast, including Douglas, delivers an extremely implausible story packed with clichés, with poor cinematography and old-fashioned music. I am usually OK with implausible stories and the original movie is probably good... but for heaven's sake, if you are going to do a remake, at least try to make it feel like the 21st century. The only thing the movie had going for it was a fairly good dialog (probably derived from the original manuscript to Fritz Langs original from 1956), but the lead actor and actress did a pretty poor job delivering them. I almost feel sorry for Douglas, remembering him in excellent movies like Fatal Attraction, Traffic and Falling Down, having to tarnish his good name with movies like this. I cannot for the life of me understand why he agreed to participate in such a B movie. Maybe he needed money (?) or maybe he cannot bear not being in the spotlight, but even so, he should try to make a reasonable effort. This was not up to his usual standards.

Reporter C J Nicols (Metcalfe) believes District Attorney Mark Hunter (Douglas) gets most of his convictions by planting DNA evidence on the person arrested for the crime. C J has a plan to prove this.

This is 2-things. 1: The story is based upon a play and 2: this is a remake of something back in the 1950s. Anyone remember Dana Andrews? Hmmmm………… Just seeing the title should tell all of us that we have seen this before, maybe not back in the 1950s, but somewhere along the line. I mean it's such a good title not to have been used before. We must have seen it. Moving on…………..

But unlike a talky play, this story does have a good car chase and a car chasing a woman in a parking garage. Can't put all that on a stage. And, this is not too talky. It has just about the right amount of dialogue and it's pretty good too.

You keep asking about twists. Yes, there are some. No, I cannot tell you what they are. You don't even know Dana Andrews. Pressing on……………

In response to your other questions, yes, there is suspense at times and some tension too. Yes, I know a play can do that. No, actually the music didn't help the suspense or tension as it should have, but they were there nevertheless. Continuing………….

Humor. You ask about humor? They didn't laugh back in the 1950s. A drama was a drama unless Humphrey Bogart or Clark Gable.was in it. Then it was both. So no humor in here. Sorry. Onward……………

What's that? You say they didn't know about DNA back in the 1950s. Well, then some other type of evidence must have been used to plant on the person arrested for the crime as the original movie must have shown. Have no idea what that was, maybe fingerprints. They did have that back then. Getting late…….

I am not sure how this movie compares to the original back in the 1950s, but I am sure I must have seen it somewhere in my life. My God, look at the title again! But, I have seen some things Dana Andrews was in and they were pretty good. Michael Douglas is in this movie and he's pretty good, actually, he's always good (well, except for the King of California thing). Have to go, Judge Judy is on soon………….

Yes, the acting by everyone was good. What's that? Who do I think did the best job in here? I'd have to say Joel David Moore as Finley. Could have used a few more scenes that had Michael Douglas in them, but………..hey, I'm not the director. Anything else you want to know?

The last line in the movie? Yes, it could have been something else. But, you kids………………

Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes, some.

This is a deep review of the justice system to reveal faults in its administration , in which a reporter allows himself to be incriminated in a killing . It is a remake of the 1956 film noir film "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" in which a writer's plan to expose a corrupt district attorney takes an unexpected turn. It deals with a young journalist (Jesse Metcalf) aided by his colleague (Joel Moore) conspires to frame himself in the murder of a woman as part of a effort to uncover a corrupt prosecutor . Reporter sets himself up to take murder rap to show the errors of circumstantial evidence and discredit (D.A.) District Attorney (Michael Douglas who also starred other judicial thriller for Peter Hyams titled Star Chamber) . With a friend holding back evidence so he can prove his innocence at the last minute, he goes to trial . But during the trial , the one man who can exonerate him gets problems and things go awry . The journalist is unable to prove himself innocent later on .

This interesting film contains judicial thriller , intrigue , plot twists , suspense and some far-fetched elements including plausible events . This is a real critical on the American justice system ; as this tale develops , a variety of submerged elements slowly surfaces to make this picture far more one of intrigue . The screenwriter has created a story that is thought-provoking and quite predictable and it works a treat in that it gets you thinking about the fact that with this kind of law ; someone really could be framed for something they didn't do . Intriguing idea sometimes doesn't hold up because of several twists and turns . The picture results to be a remake from classic film (1956) by Fritz Lang ¨Beyond a reasonable doubt¨, a brilliant and masterly exposition of American justice as part of an effort to ban capital punishment and in which Lang gets a first-hand view of Justice system , being starred by Dana Andrews , Joan Fontaine , Barbara Nichols and Sidney Blackmer . Acceptable acting from protagonist trio , as Jesse Metcalf as a young reporter who pretends to be guilty of a murder to get first-hand view of corruption , enjoyable Amber Tamblyn as his girlfriend as well as prosecutor assistant and Michael Douglas as a nasty D.A. Thrilling and atmospheric musical score by David Shire . Functional and dark cinematography by the same director , Peter Hyams , who usually is in charge of his owns photography labors . This thrilling motion picture was finely photographed and compellingly directed by Peter Hyams , though with no originality . However it results to be an inferior remake of its predecessor, a noir classic directed by Fritz Lang . Peter Hyams is an irregular director with hits (Relic, End of days, Outland, Capricorn one) and flops (Sound and thunder, The Muskeeter , Stay tuned) . Rating : acceptable and passable thriller . The flick will appeal to Michael Douglas fans .