Double jeu

In the Whidbey Island, Libby (Ashley Judd) is happily married with her husband Nick Parsons (Bruce Greenwood) and their son Matty. Nick is having financial problems but promises to Libby to buy a sailboat if she likes her. They go to sail in the vessel while Libby's best friend Angie (Annabeth Gish) stays with Matty. During the night, Libby and Nick drink wine and make love. When Libby wakes up, she and the boat are covered with blood and Nick is missing. She finds the galley's knife on the deck and out of the blue, the US Coast Guard arrives. They unsuccessfully look for Nick's body and later Libby is becomes the prime suspect to kill her husband to receive an insurance policy and is sentenced to prison. Angie and Matty stop visiting Libby and she finds that her best friend has moved to San Francisco. She calls her from the prison and finds that Nick is alive by chance and living with Angie. Libby befriends her cellmate Margaret (Roma Maffia), who is a former lawyer, and she gives advices to Libby. Six years later, Libby is on probation under the care of her tough officer and former lawyer and Professor Travis (Tommy Lee Jones). But she is determined to find Matty, Angie and Nick.

"Double Jeopardy" is a flawed, but entertaining thriller. There are no explanations for many situations, like, for example, the blood on the vessel and in Libby's clothes, or how a public persona can be so invisible. But the plot is engaging and if the viewer shutdown the brain for the flaws, will centainly enjoy this film. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Risco Duplo" ("Double Risk")

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.

Double Jeopardy actually seemed like my sort of film, and when I finally saw it I thought it was enjoyable. It is far from flawless, although the premise was interesting the story itself has some credibility lapses and has a lot of derivative elements. The film has the odd draggy moment and the characters are rather clichéd. On the other hand, Double Jeopardy looks wonderful, with striking scenery and stylish photography and editing. The music is not too generic either and it helps the atmosphere, and the script is well paced and sharp. Double Jeopardy is also well directed and Tommy Lee Jones and Ashley Judd give great lead performances, and although the rest of the characters aren't as interesting or as well written, effort is done both in written and performance quality to make them credible. Overall, an enjoyable film. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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.