Remake of a 1956 Fritz Lang film in which a novelist's investigation of a dirty district attorney leads to a setup within the courtroom.
Similar titles
You May Also Like
Reviews
Good start, but then it gets ruined
Don't listen to the negative reviews
Blistering performances.
It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.
This movie is worth watching for two reasons:(1) Michael Douglas reappears as "Gordon Gekko, the prosecutor." Same snarl and voice that I so admired in his father, Kirk Douglas. I thought Douglas was much more Gekko in this movie than in "Money Never Sleeps" even as he lacks the greasy combed-back hairstyle and fancy suspenders.(2) A real interesting thriller, with a surprise ending that caught me off guard. I did not like the car chase, it seems totally disruptive. The garage scene was even more disruptive. Both unnecessary for the plot. The court scenes seemed plausible for only one reason, Michael "Gekko" Douglas. But altogether, quite an entertaining movie....if you like suspense movies I presume the movie ran over budget, for he ending seemed rushed, with poor audio and video. It made me think of one thing, could you really get away with murder by manufacturing duplicate evidence collected after the murder, claiming a hoax in court??? Hmmm.
This remake is fantastic, however the problem with remakes is that they are limited, you can only do so much with remakes which is to change some of the dialogue and scenery.The performances are natural, the directing and dialogue is fine, the story is clever and the twist unexpected.The very end scene is brilliant and was perfectly done.It's a thriller worth checking out, once at least.
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 plot has its scheming moments but the viewers get the picture about the role of DA's office too soon. Apart from Michael Douglas, there are no memorable actors, and even the relations between main characters remain rather vague and perfunctory. At times the scenes are unrealistic, not fitting into the logic of the plot, for instance the car chase and events related to a certain DVD. The real ending is sudden and sophisticated, but it could have been elaborated, the person in question could have created some extra tensions.In other words: could be worse, but could be better. I have not seen the previous version of this film - but I do not think I will.