Spoonatects Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Plustown A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Kirpianuscus 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.

Edwin Middleton-Weaver This is a remake of a 50s movie of the same name, which apparently though fairly implausible, was at least suspenseful and vaguely thrilling, unlike this torpid effort. That it was directed by Peter Hyams is incomprehensible, as the man has made some pretty good movies in his time, (Capricorn One for example), and though partial to remakes, has had success with some of these as well, (see Outland, a sci-fi remake of High Noon). But I think he must have been either drunk, or under duress when he made this, as from the start it looks and feels like a TV movie; and not even roping in his old colleague, Michael Douglas, can elevate it from this. The production feels cheap, it's sloppily directed, and edited atrociously. The music sounds like it was scored by a student, (of Theoretical Physics), and the lead character is played by the Desperate Housewives resident topless tottie, Jesse Metcalfe, who is only convincing in making us realise why he was destined to remain on TV! I have to admit I only wasted 40 minutes of my life on it! The plot was glaringly obvious from an early point, where Hyams has the camera linger for so long on the tattooed fingers of the supposedly dead subject of Metcalfe's award winning documentary, that even George W. Bush could have worked out it was going to be relevant to a plot "twist" later! So after I couldn't take any more pain, I jumped to the end of the movie to check if it panned out the way I thought it was going to, and was so glad I did, as it was indeed that tritely obvious! And when the female lead speaks the final cheesy line of the movie, you unfortunately feel like it's the director directly addressing you, as she turns to the camera and says "Fuck you"!

dglink 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 .

Anthony Ehlers 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.