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 You take the plot line of a completely outdated 50's flick, set the story in whatever city's tourist board, gives you the best deal, hire couple of tepid and incredible uncharismatic young half-stars, add in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.

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.

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.

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 .

New take on the 1956 story by douglas morrow, on exposing a corrupt official. In this case, reporter cj nicholas (metcalfe) is trying to get the goods on the district attorney hunter (douglas). He's pretty sure hunter is planting evidence to get convictions, but needs to come up with irrefutable proof. What could go wrong? The answer is... plenty. And unless a miracle happens, cj could be in huge, huge trouble. It's pretty good. Some suspense. Some twists and turns along the way. Clearly, cj and his work buddy should have expected the dirty tricks from someone as unethical and well-connected as hunter. Direction and updates by peter hyams. He's won some film fest awards.