Double Jeopardy

I've read all the bad reviews-I can say that it's really not THAT bad-granted-this picture has no realism whatsoever but-I could rattle off the names of many movies even more unbelievable that are still considered good films.

Not that this is a really GOOD film or anything-but it does what it does well-which is to get your attention and hold it-no great analysis, no deep conversations afterward about "what it all meant". Just a bit of time away from day to day life.

The movie is also trying to appeal to a particular crowd, the type who like these type of "mind thrillers'(Guilty as sin is another one, Malice, Final analysis etc etc) There's a whole host of movies like this one.

Now this particular movie stars Ashley Judd who is so talented she almost had me thinking she really was locked up-definitely a quality actress-and if your a female and have just had a really BAD breakup you may wanna see it for that "woman will triumph" quality.

Not that I'm saying this movie is great but I always tend to look for the bad AND the good-I thought one of the worst thrillers(a lot worse then this) was malice with Kidman and Alec Baldwin-that one was not only improbable but also extremely boring-but I'm getting off the subject at hand...

I liked this. saw it in the theater and rooted for Ashley all the way.

Seen a lot worse in my time.

And lastly if you wanna check out ridiculous movies(and it's a SEQUEL to boot) rent "revenge of the stepford wives".

Elizabeth Parsons has a rich husband and a young son. When she wakes up on their luxury yacht with blood everywhere and her husband nowhere to be found, she is suspected of his murder to get the life insurance. While serving 6 years, she discovers that her husband is very much alive. She learns that she can't be tried for his murder since she already has been, and begins to plan his death and how to get her husband back.

Despite that fact that the whole film is summed up in the title I decided to watch it anyway. So really there is very little drama for much of the film as we all know what she's doing and where the film is going. The plot could have been lifted from any number of video thrillers - all it needed was a little nudity and it could have been an erotic thriller for late night TV! As it stood, the bigger budget, higher production values and bigger stars helped the film actually rise a little above the material and seem to be much glossier and impressive than it actually was. The stunts and effects worked well and the direction was of a higher calibre than you'd see on the bottom shelf, but it is still a very ordinary thriller if you strip all the polish away.

The cast try hard but they have little to work with. An unnecessary role from Tommy Lee Jones helps keep the film's pace up by turning it into a cat and mouse chase of sorts, but mostly it is pretty dull. Judd is OK in the lead but doesn't do anything to justify her fee I reckon. Support from Mafia is so lame that it looks like she is almost falling asleep while giving her lines! The film relies on pace and tension which it mostly gets by flipping cars around for little reason and for putting Elizabeth in slightly (!) unlikely situations then getting her out of them. The legal interest in the plot actually falls to pieces when you think about it, but the film is clever enough never to take it's central idea further than a few lines of dialogue before rendering the argument null and void.

Overall I was struck by just how ordinary and dull the whole film was. If I had seen this film as a low budget video thriller I still wouldn't have liked it but I may have accepted it for what it is. This film just exposed it's own weaknesses by virtue of pushing to be a product much grander than it's plot deserved.

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 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.