Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009)

I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

a story about success. not the most inspired, far to be the worst . the presence of Michael Douglas and Jesse Metcalfe , the fight for the noble purpose, the last surprise, the love story are reasonable ingredients for a sort of crime who reminds better examples of genre. so, far to be awful.

When I somewhat recently watched "Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" -- the 1956 version -- I liked the film, particularly its leading actors Dana Andrews and Joan Fontaine. But I had a problem with the premise of the film -- that a reporter would intentionally scheme to have himself arrested for murder in a state with the death penalty in order to expose a crooked district attorney. But, in films, to varying degrees, we have to suspend belief. So, okay.Now when I watch this remake, which though modernized fairly faithfully follows the original plot, I have exactly the same feelings. I'm not saying that Jesse Metcalfe is a great actor, but he's pleasant enough in films. I'm not saying that Amber Tamblyn is a great actress, but here she is good enough to play Metcalfe's loyal and later suspicious girlfriend. Michael Douglas, of course, is a fine actor, but here he just sort of gets by, not being quite sinister enough. Two supporting actors here -- Joel Moore as a news cameraman and Orlando Jones as a police detective -- do quite nicely, and it reminded me that nowadays I don't see as much of Orlando Jones as I would like to; he's quite talented.If you didn't watch the original film, I won't spoil the major plot twist which, I think, will surprise you...although there are a number of plot twists here that are quite good.But to summarize the quality of this film, notice several phrases I have already used: "he's pleasant enough", "she is good enough", "sort of gets by", "quite good". The problem is that there is nothing great about this film. It's "pretty good". In fact, the highest compliment I can give the producers/directors is that they resisted the temptation to show Jesse Metcalfe's torso until the last few minutes of the film.Is this film worth watching. Yeah. It's okay.

The classic "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" from 1956 is a favorite noir of mine, starring Dana Andrews, Joan Fontaine, and Sidney Blackmer, directed by the great Fritz Lang. We describe it as a classic today, but back then, with stars and a director who made their marks in the preceding decades, and filmed in black and white, I don't think it was intended to be a classic. There were none of the Fritz Lang touches, no artful camera work -- in fact, this was Lang's last film.However, it happens to be a fantastic story, one of the best ever, and here it has been updated and changed somewhat for the 2009 film. In fact, it was changed a little too much, and that too much is what spoils it.The original film was an indictment against the death penalty. A novelist sets himself up as a killer so that the fact that he faked all of the evidence can be submitted before his execution, thus proving the system almost murdered the wrong man.In this film, the plot concerns a reporter (Jesse Metcalfe) desiring to prove that a district attorney (Michael Douglas) is falsifying DNA evidence to win convictions.I suppose given the fact that people are on Death Row for sometimes 30 years kind of spoils it as a film plot, but I don't think the plot here served what could have been an exciting update of a great story.Both films have a plot flaw -- the handling of the evidence to clear the reporter -- which could have been easily fixed. Not only is it not fixed in this one, but this movie dug a couple of other holes besides.First, how does a reporter in this day and age not know that jailhouse phone calls are recorded? Has he never seen one episode of Snapped, 20/20, or any true crime show? Worse, how did an attorney not know it?Second, what was that business in the parking garage? Any time you see a woman, at night, going into an empty parking garage, you know her chances of exiting, alive and driving her own car, are not good. Why would a woman who is aware that danger lurks even go into that garage without getting some guy to walk her out? And the attempted murder - please, ever heard of a gun? Third, the handling of the evidence that was to clear Metcalfe. A problem in both films, though in this latter film, the case isn't solved that way, so it just sticks out as being dumb.Still, it's not a bad rental. Amber Tamblyn does an okay job as Metcalfe's love interest, and Michael Douglas is good as the phony, icy DA.

Not having seen the 50s original, I didn't know what to expect from this film—but being a fan of Michael Douglas and court thrillers, I gave it a go.The film is entertaining, with a likable cast of young actors in Jesse Metcalfe and Amber Tambyln. It is also, in places, predictable and implausible.To suspend our disbelief that a journalist would willingly implicate themselves in a crime would involve a highly personal reason—that he does have a connection to the crime is only revealed in th closing moments. It can be as over the top as you like, but we must believe it as an audience.The film also has some clumsy sequencing and poor music/sound that destroys a lot of the tension. By the midpoint, the lead has made so many poor decisions as a seemingly intelligent character, that we may not care whether he wins or not.The twist ending was as contrived as the rest of the plot and, while effective, did not have the chilling resonance it might have had if we were more emotionally connected to the characters.Finally, if as a film maker you have access to a talent as extraordinary as Michael Douglas, even if he not the lead, make sure that you every scene with him in it lifts the tension and advances the plot. The final confrontation between Mark Hunter (Douglas), as antagonist, and CJ (Metcalfe) in prison was flat.