Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

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.

Problem#1: Peter Hyams is directing, doing the camera, producing and did write the script (his first since 20 years) and it is lame. The dialogs have been copied and pasted from other movies of the genre. Not a single sentence or word seems unique. Unless you are <18 you have heard it all before. The plot is so predictable that Dr. Watson could figure it out during Sherlock's summer holidays - no drama here. Michael Douglas talent gets wasted. Jesse Metcalfe and Amber Tamblyn should stay in TV. There even seem to be major problems in the editing, because the way certain scenes are cut, doesn't make any sense. Best part of the movie, at least for Linux and Apple users, might be the fact that the bad cop looks like Steve Ballmer.

Gee, let's see... 1. Why didn't C.J.'s defense attorney subpoena C.J.'s boss at the TV station, who would have told the jury that C.J. had been pushing a story about the DA planting evidence? That would have at least put reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. 2. Michael Douglas warns C.J. that prison phone calls are monitored (duh...). But apparently his flunky co-conspirator detective wasn't aware that parking garages serving the DA's office would probably be videotaped. Besides, the donut-creating "terror" scene was stupid. 3. C.J. was smart enough to develop a brilliant plot involving a fake interview that earned him a journalism award, but so dumb he gives his girlfriend a copy so that she could later make the connection between his fake story and the murder. Take these mistakes, throw in some poor acting and a totally unnecessary car chase and you have "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." Better yet, don't watch the movie in the first place, and save yourself an hour and a half.

So having watched this I can't help but feel that this could have been so much more. The story is engaging enough (if a little obvious) and does offer some suspense. However it's badly let down by poor performances, poor production and some obvious plot twists. I was particularly let down by Michael Douglas' performance. It has him going through the motions for much of the film. Jesse Metcalf is completely unconvincing as the lead character. You don't feel his character is in any way authentic and simply don't care about him. Some of the other minor performances are heavily stereotyped and particularly bad to the point where they ruin important scenes (the overly camp witness who owns the Jack Russell, the anti social computer geeks who help uncover the doctored photographic evidence). If you were like me you were just waiting for Corey (Joel Moore) to be killed meaning the conviction of CJ would be inevitable (yaaawn). Lets not get into the poor camera work and appalling mucic score played throughout. The film even employs a poor "deus ex machina" to rescue the hapless Ella (Amber Tamblyn) from being killed, after she discovers the truth. While we are on that scene....... when she's hiding from the car behind the concrete pillar you just want to scream "RUN STRAIGHT AHEAD.....IDIOT". I don't want to sound too negative as the film is still watchable and the final plot twist does give some satisfaction. Keep your expectations low and try not to imagine how good this film could have been.....

Ignore the other bad reviews, the people who rated it badly couldn't and wouldn't know a good movie even with a flash light and a map. I'm pretty sure they are the same idiots who rated 'The Transformers', 'Max Payne', 'Gamer', 'Bounty Hunter' and 'The Ugly Truth' highly, just to name a few. So what if this film was low budget? It was very well acted and without the fuss of snooty over-paid so-called A-listers and stupid CGI pyrotechnics. This film keeps you guessing until the very end, entertains you and makes you think. So, if you did think it was crap then heed the last words uttered by Amber Tamblyn's character at the end of it.

The worst rental of the year. So scatterbrained is the camera work and editing that you may give up after twenty minutes as I did. This show should start with a warning that it may cause seizures to those medically inclined. Peter Hyams (the director) should have trouble finding financial backing after his debacle. Ditto for his chances of finding conscientious talent mindful of the direction of their career. Normally I'm not passionate about expressing my opinion. But I firmly believe that this film doesn't deserve to earn so much as a dollar of your disposable income. Shame on Michael Douglas for lending his name to this turkey.

Corny. Predictable. Slow. Unbearably tedious. Jesse Metcalfe. Michael Douglas. There's half a dozen reasons not to see this movie. Need more? Wooden acting would be a compliment for most of the cast. Michael Douglas is his usual self, neither brilliant nor terrible, but it's still not enough to save this movie - he's lucky that his wife's career is steaming along. He has been reduced to the worst of the B-Grade thrillers - although I use the term 'thriller' loosely. Jesse Metcalfe is the least convincing actor in the movie. Should have stuck to being the eye candy on some soap/drama for bored housewives. He failed to convey any of the emotions or tension required for his character. And what's with the Superman haircut??!? The plot, oh the plot. Well done it would still be tedious and predictable, but this is a train-wreck. Long-winded pointless dialog, combined with clumsy attempts to create drama and tension create the impression that this movie was made by a bunch of work-experience students. It's so predictable as to render watching the entire thing unnecessary. Watch the first half, and you already know the rest. I wish I hadn't watched it at all. Do not pay money, or waste hours of your life to see this film.

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 .

Remake of the 1956 noir film with the same name, Peter Hyams directed 'Beyond A Reasonable Doubt' is a superb remake without a shed of doubt. 'Beyond A Reasonable Doubt' has tremendous shock value, which makes this thriller a winner all the way. Very surprisingly, this film has not gained any popularity, which is really sad. This film has the potential to keep hooked, but god knows what went wrong! As a Viewer, I am glad I gave this applaud-able attempt a chance. Coming to performances,Michael Douglas is fabulous as the calculative DA. Jesse Metcalfe is first-rate. Amber Tamblyn is very sincere; very good. Joel Moore leaves a mark in a brief role. Others lend able support. on the whole... this thriller has what it takes. The end is sure to leave you awe-struck. Must watch!

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.