Présumé coupable

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.

....but you need more then a great story and premise to make a great movie. it was a decent movie...just because the story and premise was so awesome. the main problem with the movie was that the 2 leads..jesse metcalfe and amber tamlyn are not great actors and peter hyams is not a great director in any sense although he has made better movies then this...not much better tho. it will be a decent watch for big fans of courtroom....thriller...or crime genre movies...it has all 3 genres in it. boo for the fact that michael douglass was only in the movie for like 10 minutes and he looked like he was just going through the routine. i've seen much worse movies then this....the premise and story in this movie made it watchable.

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 .

Peter Hyams's 2009 remake of "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" has a low-budget amateurish air, that is only underscored by the mediocre cinematography and the inept performances of the two leads. Restless from conducting coffee taste comparisons, an ambitious investigative reporter suspects that the District Attorney is planting last-minute DNA evidence to win an unbroken string of convictions. With information taken from the DA's office by a willing young assistant and the help of his buddy and co-worker, the reporter frames himself for a murder. He intends to reveal the corrupt District Attorney when the manufactured evidence is introduced into his trial. Jaws will drop at the ridiculous proposal, which is intended to win a Pulitzer, and at the ease of gaining access to confidential information. Heads will shake in disbelief as the reporter openly queries a police officer about the murderer's shoes, clothing, injuries, and weapon and then proceeds to purchase all the required circumstantial evidence to implicate himself. That the police, the judge, the jury, or the viewers are gullible enough to swallow this nonsense is pure fantasy.

Fritz Lang directed the 1956 original of the same title with a cast that included Dana Andrews and Joan Fontaine; however, that earlier decade was a period when purely circumstantial evidence could convict the innocent. Today, modern forensics, DNA testing, and social media have reduced the odds of wrongful convictions, especially with evidence as trumped up as the remake suggests. While the murder trial was in progress, Facebook alone would have turned up witnesses to the reporter's purchases and whereabouts, and any episode of CSI shows what forensics can accomplish.

Like a fresh-faced Boy Scout rather than an ambition-driven reporter, hunky Jesse Metcalfe is out of his depth in a shallow role. His unconvincing love interest, Amber Tamblyn, has a passing resemblance to the young Diane Keaton, but in looks only, not in talent. Only Michael Douglas retains his dignity; as the ruthless DA intent on a governorship, Douglas plays these smooth villains as though born to them. His effortless performance is all the more sterling in comparison to the non-support he receives from Metcalfe and Tamblyn. Joel David Moore as Metcalfe's sidekick brings some life and humor to a thankless role.

In today's world of DNA testing, Photoshop manipulation, social media awareness, and police forensics, Peter Hyams's reworked script is incredulous and beyond absurd. To coin a phrase, the plot has more holes than Swiss cheese. Nothing and nobody is believable. A gratuitous, poorly filmed car chase does little but help extend the film's running time 25 minutes beyond that of the original and create a plot twist. Yet another "solitary woman alone in an empty parking garage" scene will elicit groans; DA assistants should see more movies to avoid these clichéd situations. Any defense attorney with a correspondence-school education could locate witnesses and evidence to prove his client was faking. Any judge worthy of sitting on the bench would wince at a lengthy string of last-minute DNA introductions. Any jury told to convict only if the evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt" would throw up their hands. Any competent District Attorney worth his salary and certainly one as experienced and ruthless as Douglas would immediately see that he was being set up. Even a professional performance from Douglas fails to save this laughable misfire; viewers should save their time and check out the original instead; perhaps Lang, Andrews, and Fontaine made the unbelievable credible .

The career of director/cinematographer Peter Hyams has been one of slow decent into mediocrity like Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, which has just a slight improvement over his previous entry A Sound of Thunder. This movie is arguably the dopiest courtroom drama of the decade (at least). It is a story that lives purely on coincidence and contrivance. It feels rushed and ends on an anti-climactic note. Sounds pretty bad huh? Actually it wasn't. There is something kind of amusing about the idiocy of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt which may be just enough to keep you watching. Sometimes it gets actually fairly tense.

C. J. Nicholas is an investigative reporter in Missouri who is convinced that the district attorney, has been faking evidence for the last 17 murder cases he has taken on. In order to expose him, C. J. comes up with a crazy scheme which involves framing himself for a murder, getting arrested and hoping that Nicholas tries to pin something on him. Sounds good, but something goes very wrong.

Not for a moment is the story believable, and it takes too many ways out of conflict, including rushing scenes, throwing in cheap surprises, and also a deus ex machina to conclude the whole thing. If you are not bothered by this, you may find something to salvage from Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. There are some quirky scenes here and there and a few good Hyams shots

Well, it could have been worse I suppose, the movie was better than I expected, but I think I may be giving it more generosity than it deserves.