Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009) User Reviews (86)

A Mixed Bag

[gradyharp · 5/10 · 31 December 2009]

There are so many questions raised by this film that it is difficult to review it. The original screenplay by Douglas Morrow (1956) has been 'updated' by writer/director Peter Hyams, and while the concept of the plot is a strong one, it requires rather savvy actors to make it work. Aside from Michael Douglas as the DA of questionable ethics and court proceedings, the rest of the cast is a rather ill-prepared group of nascent actors in need of more experience than in the fluff films from which they came.

C.J. Nicholas (Jesse Metcalfe) enters the Shreveport scene complete with a prize for reporting, eager to make it big and earn a Pulitzer: he seems to have an equal obsession with chasing young pretty women and finds one in the person of Ella Crystal (Amber Tamblyn) who happens to be the assistant to the DA. Nicholas, and his entertaining co-worker Corey (Joel David Moore), are on to something - they believe that the DA tampers with forensic evidence to win cases, focusing on phony DNA samples rather than thorough investigation. Out to debunk the DA, Nicholas plans to plant evidence at a crime scene, a stunt he will later use to expose the wannabe Governor DA, and in order to make this work, he places himself as the 'evidential perpetrator' of a crime. He manages to draw Ella into his circle of lust as well as his overall plan to unseat the DA. Things change and the ending could have been surprising in the hands of better actors.

The film is heavily padded with the requisite car chases and explosions and derring-do of the good cop/bad cop type, but the real problem with the movie is the weak presence of Metcalfe and Tamblyn. If the viewer can tolerate the confusing aspects of mixing high humor in the first part with the supposed suspense in the second, then the film is worth the entertainment. It could have been a stronger film with a cast of professionals.

Grady Harp

I liked the story

[BB-15 · 7/10 · 27 February 2010]

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.

Dopey crime drama, very amusing though

[Samiam3 · 6/10 · 7 February 2010]

The career of director/cinematographer Peter Hyams has been one of slow decent into mediocrity like Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, which has just a slight improvement over his previous entry A Sound of Thunder. This movie is arguably the dopiest courtroom drama of the decade (at least). It is a story that lives purely on coincidence and contrivance. It feels rushed and ends on an anti-climactic note. Sounds pretty bad huh? Actually it wasn't. There is something kind of amusing about the idiocy of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt which may be just enough to keep you watching. Sometimes it gets actually fairly tense.

C. J. Nicholas is an investigative reporter in Missouri who is convinced that the district attorney, has been faking evidence for the last 17 murder cases he has taken on. In order to expose him, C. J. comes up with a crazy scheme which involves framing himself for a murder, getting arrested and hoping that Nicholas tries to pin something on him. Sounds good, but something goes very wrong.

Not for a moment is the story believable, and it takes too many ways out of conflict, including rushing scenes, throwing in cheap surprises, and also a deus ex machina to conclude the whole thing. If you are not bothered by this, you may find something to salvage from Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. There are some quirky scenes here and there and a few good Hyams shots

Well, it could have been worse I suppose, the movie was better than I expected, but I think I may be giving it more generosity than it deserves.

Fascinating failure--great idea, poor execution, it's that simple.

[secondtake · 26 July 2011]

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (2009)

Michael Douglas is impeccable whenever he has a role with brutal power, with cunning, with speechmaking the cuts through the listener, with selfish focus. And he is all these things here.

But he is properly the third name on the credits, and the two leads, both little known to me, are young and capable and unexceptional actors. With the three of them, there might have been a decent movie possible.

The hook here is an amazing, simple, audacious idea. A young reporter (Jesse Metcalf) is suspicious of a District Attorney (Douglas) who is faking evidence, so he sets himself up as the perp in a crime he didn't commit to trap the DA at his game. So it looks like a hero at work, an undercover reporter who is going to prove justice, Al Pacino style. And he has both a buddy (the not so handsome sidekick) and a girlfriend (Amber Tamblyn). The girlfriend, strategically, is on the staff of the DA.

But things go wrong. Very wrong. The DA is more ruthless than they realized. The girlfriend ends up taking over the investigation of her own boss, and ends up uncovering, with some improbability, some flaws in the reporter's character, too. The movie ends with a terrific (not) two word send off, probably meant to appeal to young people who have wanted to say those two words to lots of their boyfriends and girlfriends themselves. Or have.

Lots of crime thrillers have plots like this, good ones with twists that are calculated but great entertainment. This one is repeatedly hamstrung by bad writing, however. And this bad dialog is sometimes acted poorly, so that you almost groan out loud. It's especially painful because the plot is pretty intense if you give it a chance. In fact, sometimes it almost seems intentional the way a character acts a little flippant or silly, and yet it struck me as out of place. This might make it impossible to really get the depth of what was intended. Which is too bad. A remake done well would have the potential to really work.

Suspenseful and exciting judicial thriller full of twists and turns

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 25 February 2013]

This is a deep review of the justice system to reveal faults in its administration , in which a reporter allows himself to be incriminated in a killing . It is a remake of the 1956 film noir film "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" in which a writer's plan to expose a corrupt district attorney takes an unexpected turn. It deals with a young journalist (Jesse Metcalf) aided by his colleague (Joel Moore) conspires to frame himself in the murder of a woman as part of a effort to uncover a corrupt prosecutor . Reporter sets himself up to take murder rap to show the errors of circumstantial evidence and discredit (D.A.) District Attorney (Michael Douglas who also starred other judicial thriller for Peter Hyams titled Star Chamber) . With a friend holding back evidence so he can prove his innocence at the last minute, he goes to trial . But during the trial , the one man who can exonerate him gets problems and things go awry . The journalist is unable to prove himself innocent later on .

This interesting film contains judicial thriller , intrigue , plot twists , suspense and some far-fetched elements including plausible events . This is a real critical on the American justice system ; as this tale develops , a variety of submerged elements slowly surfaces to make this picture far more one of intrigue . The screenwriter has created a story that is thought-provoking and quite predictable and it works a treat in that it gets you thinking about the fact that with this kind of law ; someone really could be framed for something they didn't do . Intriguing idea sometimes doesn't hold up because of several twists and turns . The picture results to be a remake from classic film (1956) by Fritz Lang ¨Beyond a reasonable doubt¨, a brilliant and masterly exposition of American justice as part of an effort to ban capital punishment and in which Lang gets a first-hand view of Justice system , being starred by Dana Andrews , Joan Fontaine , Barbara Nichols and Sidney Blackmer . Acceptable acting from protagonist trio , as Jesse Metcalf as a young reporter who pretends to be guilty of a murder to get first-hand view of corruption , enjoyable Amber Tamblyn as his girlfriend as well as prosecutor assistant and Michael Douglas as a nasty D.A. Thrilling and atmospheric musical score by David Shire . Functional and dark cinematography by the same director , Peter Hyams , who usually is in charge of his owns photography labors . This thrilling motion picture was finely photographed and compellingly directed by Peter Hyams , though with no originality . However it results to be an inferior remake of its predecessor, a noir classic directed by Fritz Lang . Peter Hyams is an irregular director with hits (Relic, End of days, Outland, Capricorn one) and flops (Sound and thunder, The Muskeeter , Stay tuned) . Rating : acceptable and passable thriller . The flick will appeal to Michael Douglas fans .

Only Douglas Worth a Look, Rest a Waste of Time

[dglink · 6/10 · 2 January 2015]

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 .

A Disappointing Joke

[rskjc · 1/10 · 9 April 2010]

Really--I would be embarrassed to be associated with this movie! I was initially intrigued by the basic plot, but as the movie unfolded I found myself groaning over the poor dialog, disconnected character personalities and unconvincing acting. The premise of the movie was so good, but the details and execution, oh so poor. The soundtrack was laughable as the key subject in the film went from store to store finding the "evidence" that was to be used against him in court. The ending was painful to watch. The dramatic "twist" of the plot at the end was so ill conceived it came across not as an "ah-ha" moment, but a "you've got to be kidding me" moment. The overly dramatic "F-You" at the end was probably the worst ending moment of a film I've ever seen. Save the one dollar you'll spend at Redbox.

everybody agreed....great story and premise...

[bcheng93 · 6/10 · 15 November 2016]

....but you need more then a great story and premise to make a great movie. it was a decent movie...just because the story and premise was so awesome. the main problem with the movie was that the 2 leads..jesse metcalfe and amber tamlyn are not great actors and peter hyams is not a great director in any sense although he has made better movies then this...not much better tho. it will be a decent watch for big fans of courtroom....thriller...or crime genre movies...it has all 3 genres in it. boo for the fact that michael douglass was only in the movie for like 10 minutes and he looked like he was just going through the routine. i've seen much worse movies then this....the premise and story in this movie made it watchable.

A Pity - It Could Have Been So Much Better

[mboyd1986 · 3/10 · 21 April 2011]

So many little thing about this film just kept pulling it down into the "B" film category.

The silly car chase where you knew exactly what was going to happen, the DA's policeman friend, Lieutenant Merchant, whose character was so totally over the top. And yet it had Michael Douglas in it, so you thought "Well, this has to be good, surely?".

Unfortunately, not. The main character, C.J. Nicholas's, strange partner Corey Finley who drove too fast and said weird things, the silly old woman in the bank, the odd couple digital photography guys who were simply unreal. Who made up these characters? Such a shame - it should have been a good film. Michael Douglas was pretty scary and acted as well as the mediocre script allowed him to. But overall, it just missed it's mark. Even at the very end, the very last words spoken in the film by Ella Crystal were simply, silly.

So, so... and not believable

[newby_rox3 · 6/10 · 28 February 2010]

********* SPOILERS **********

I thought this film was acceptable.

Since the date-time information that the DVD served as digital backup of was easy to procure by other means, what was the importance of the DVD? The receipts for the articles - the knife, mask, shoes, clothes, dog, etc., or testimony from any of the counter-persons involved could corroborate the times of purchase. But, even added to the the DVD, would this have been a legal defense? Even with the buddy's testimony that this was planned beforehand, wouldn't that have been insufficient evidence by evidentiary standards? Because in the end we know it wasn't enough for the truth. Substantial plot flaw, I thought. And in the end, the assistant D.A. was a better investigator than the investigative reporter.

There were other parts of the movie involving the prison stay were a bit unbelievable and unnecessary, but the the DVD was the worst.

Just plain stupid

[sergepesic · 2/10 · 18 October 2010]

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.

A Gem in a world of crap we've been subjected to by recent Hollywood

[Sherazade · 8/10 · 5 April 2010]

Ignore the other bad reviews, the people who rated it badly couldn't and wouldn't know a good movie even with a flash light and a map. I'm pretty sure they are the same idiots who rated 'The Transformers', 'Max Payne', 'Gamer', 'Bounty Hunter' and 'The Ugly Truth' highly, just to name a few. So what if this film was low budget? It was very well acted and without the fuss of snooty over-paid so-called A-listers and stupid CGI pyrotechnics. This film keeps you guessing until the very end, entertains you and makes you think. So, if you did think it was crap then heed the last words uttered by Amber Tamblyn's character at the end of it.

Pretty good for a remake

[bob-rutzel-1 · 6/10 · 31 December 2009]

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.

Unconvincing and full of clichés

[UlfSAndersson · 3/10 · 23 November 2009]

A very unconvincing cast, including Douglas, delivers an extremely implausible story packed with clichés, with poor cinematography and old-fashioned music. I am usually OK with implausible stories and the original movie is probably good... but for heaven's sake, if you are going to do a remake, at least try to make it feel like the 21st century. The only thing the movie had going for it was a fairly good dialog (probably derived from the original manuscript to Fritz Langs original from 1956), but the lead actor and actress did a pretty poor job delivering them. I almost feel sorry for Douglas, remembering him in excellent movies like Fatal Attraction, Traffic and Falling Down, having to tarnish his good name with movies like this. I cannot for the life of me understand why he agreed to participate in such a B movie. Maybe he needed money (?) or maybe he cannot bear not being in the spotlight, but even so, he should try to make a reasonable effort. This was not up to his usual standards.

Doubtful quality

[dbdumonteil · 20 January 2011]

Once more,a remake of a Film Noir which was crying to be left alone."Beyond a reasonable doubt" which was Fritz Lang's final (and brilliant ) American movie has always been one of my favorites of the director ,perhaps my favorite of his American career along with "you only live once " and "fury".

To write that I was eagerly waiting for Peter Hyams ' remake would be exaggerated .But I was curious enough to have a watch.It's moderately entertaining ,with full of filler (Russ Tamblyn's daughter chased by a car) ,bad acting (except for Michael Douglas who was given a role worthy of a cartoon villain) and little suspense ,particularly if you know the final unexpected twist.

Lang's black and white gem was something like a Greek tragedy ,with immanent justice .We never feel that the hero is in jeopardy in the remake ,the scenes of the false clues seem like a game for big boys . Lang wanted to express his disgust for death penalty (reductio ad absurdum) and for the last time to show that any man is a potential criminal.Here ,we have the good guy ( good because he wants to hit the big time,to win the Pulitzer) fighting the evil prosecutor .And to crown it all, the journalist's girlfriend works for his enemy ;an enemy so powerful he does not shrink from crime .In Lang's screenplay ,Sidney Blackmer dies in a car accident, period.The Dana Andrews/Joan Fontaine relationship was much more complex than it appeared : she was devoid of sex appeal (or Lang showed her so),often all dressed in black ,displaying no passion ;in direct contrast to that ,the good time girls her fiancé met ;whereas Barbara Nichols was cupid and crude,Fontaine looked almost frigid.The new screenplay oversimplifies all that and opts for the young beautiful couple with good prospects .

Lang's screenplay was sometimes criticized for its implausibilities ;but the remake is worse for that matter.Many scenes are pathetic : the "coffee test" ,the two unbearable soon-to-be-doctors-of -computing,Michael Douglas scoffing at the prisoner in chains ,the chase in the parking lot,not to mention the "first cousin" episode.The only real good idea is the journalist's video and the idea that that poor mother's life is as important as any of ours.

Peter Hyams was responsible for "2010" a disastrous "2001" sequel;he's better at doing movies of his very own,like "the star chambers"(also starring Douglas).

Please take my advice :do watch Lang's black and white gem ;80 min only,beginning with a man walking on the death row ,and ending with a sinister telephone ring :the bell is tolling again.

A "7", but just barely

[vincentlynch-moonoi · 7/10 · 31 December 2016]

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.

Really not too bad.

[anthonysoik · 6/10 · 26 September 2023]

It was a corny movie to say the least, but it kept me entertained through the whole thing. There are more plat holes in the movie I could count. You just have to remember that this is a movie. It's meant to entertain and not be taken so literally. The plot is absolutely ridiculous: a journalist wants to prove a district attorney is planting evidence so the journalist plants evidence on a recently murdered victim to frame himself.

Michael Douglas somehow got tied up to be in this movie and he of course is the driving performance. The rest of the acting was laughable at some points. The ending was actually pretty good. Give it a watch.

Subpar thriller that looks straight out of the 80s...

[Siamois · 3/10 · 8 December 2009]

This movie is a remake but will be judged on its own merit, especially since I did not see the original.

On paper, things look good. You've got the seed of a promising story featuring several characters who could have been interesting, some courtroom drama which could have been intense, some plot twists which could have been shocking and a star lead actor in Michael Douglas who could have sold you this movie with his charisma.

But none of it ever happens. And much of the fault lies with Hyams' terribly outdated direction. While he used to direct somewhat interesting films several decades ago, Hyams has long since lost any edge he might have had and every weakness in his style which we readily forgave back in the 80s are now terribly grating when seen in a 2009 movie. The photography is downright boring, the music is cheesy, pacing and editing awful. Everything seems to come out of a made-for-TV or direct-to-video movie featuring Cheryl Ladd or some other has been.

Michael Douglas only has a few scenes and gives by far the best performance but that's not saying much in this present case, because everybody else is just terrible. Really awful. On top of that, several lines in the script are embarrassing, which makes the actors' job harder. Jesse Metcalfe and Amber Tamblyn are both the real co-leads of this flick and do absolutely nothing with their screen time. Orlando Jones is terribly miscast.

While the premise and basic sketch of the whole plot could have been interesting, neither the writers or the director made it believable. The twists along the way of the story might have been surprising for an average moviegoer in 1984. A quarter of a century later, even a lobotomized hamster will see it from a mile (provided you don't fall asleep before that).

There are so many negatives to this movie that usually it would be worth a 1. But I am raising it by one point for Michael Douglas giving a decent performance and by another point for the interesting seed of a story.

3/10 for the last movie by director Hyams I will ever watch

Good enough for my taste

[barrys82 · 7/10 · 22 December 2010]

Remake of the 1956 film in which a writer's plan to expose a corrupt district attorney takes an unexpected turn. The movie is a good thriller with very good suspense, action and adventure. The story is very interesting, it will catch you from the very beginning, the plot is very well developed. The rhythm at the beginning of the movie is kinda slow and makes the movie a little boring but it began to get better near the end and also the twist at the end was really surprising. The cast is good. Michael Douglas is very good, this type of movies suits him very well. Amber Tamblyn was very convincing also and Jesse Metcalf gave a decent performance as well. In conclusion, It was a good enjoyable movie, could be better but one can be satisfied with the result.

Poor on Many Levels

[smorin-611-996461 · 3/10 · 18 December 2009]

So having watched this I can't help but feel that this could have been so much more. The story is engaging enough (if a little obvious) and does offer some suspense. However it's badly let down by poor performances, poor production and some obvious plot twists. I was particularly let down by Michael Douglas' performance. It has him going through the motions for much of the film. Jesse Metcalf is completely unconvincing as the lead character. You don't feel his character is in any way authentic and simply don't care about him. Some of the other minor performances are heavily stereotyped and particularly bad to the point where they ruin important scenes (the overly camp witness who owns the Jack Russell, the anti social computer geeks who help uncover the doctored photographic evidence). If you were like me you were just waiting for Corey (Joel Moore) to be killed meaning the conviction of CJ would be inevitable (yaaawn). Lets not get into the poor camera work and appalling mucic score played throughout. The film even employs a poor "deus ex machina" to rescue the hapless Ella (Amber Tamblyn) from being killed, after she discovers the truth. While we are on that scene....... when she's hiding from the car behind the concrete pillar you just want to scream "RUN STRAIGHT AHEAD.....IDIOT".

I don't want to sound too negative as the film is still watchable and the final plot twist does give some satisfaction. Keep your expectations low and try not to imagine how good this film could have been.....

Quite good in a daft way

[alpinefinland · 7/10 · 6 August 2017]

Typical Michael Douglas fayre. Sleezy lawyer faking evidence so he can win more cases. Jesse Metcalfe investigates, stupidly framing himself for a murder he didn't commit and see if Douglas messes with the evidence.

He has a friend to help him and he stupidly doesn't bring the evidence to the court at the time so we have an uneccessary care chase.

Some of the dialogue is daft. No swearing until the very last line which seems out of place.

Its good enough. Could have been done a lot better though. Good story.

Thankyou Michael Douglas

[eoinej · 4/10 · 16 November 2009]

Fantastic story and plot, pathetic acting. What could have been was not and for me this just about achieves a TV afternoon thriller rating. Saved only by a sterling performance by Michael Douglas in portraying someone who could have counted Gordon Gecko as a friend.

Sadly, Michael's efforts only serve to highlight lame attempts at action, drama and humor from the rest of the cast as they blunder through a great story, sorely wasted, even trivialized in places. And somehow, even the settings seem low budget and artificial although they obviously are not. Much blame must lie with the director, but the unconvincing portrayals of the other main characters must be due to the cast as well. Watch out for a tired late night policeman and an older, female bank official for some great lesser cameos however.

The story is so good that I would gladly watch another remake although this version is in itself a "spoiler". Let the French do it next time!! Watch this movie, but don't pay.

A Superb Remake....

[namashi_1 · 8/10 · 17 December 2009]

Remake of the 1956 noir film with the same name, Peter Hyams directed 'Beyond A Reasonable Doubt' is a superb remake without a shed of doubt.

'Beyond A Reasonable Doubt' has tremendous shock value, which makes this thriller a winner all the way. Very surprisingly, this film has not gained any popularity, which is really sad. This film has the potential to keep hooked, but god knows what went wrong! As a Viewer, I am glad I gave this applaud-able attempt a chance.

Coming to performances,Michael Douglas is fabulous as the calculative DA. Jesse Metcalfe is first-rate. Amber Tamblyn is very sincere; very good. Joel Moore leaves a mark in a brief role. Others lend able support.

on the whole... this thriller has what it takes. The end is sure to leave you awe-struck. Must watch!

Michael "Gekko" Douglas made this quite entertaining

[fredtee · 7/10 · 2 July 2017]

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.

Plot full of holes, plus acting full of nothing equals bad movie

[natw · 3/10 · 22 January 2010]

Gee, let's see... 1. Why didn't C.J.'s defense attorney subpoena C.J.'s boss at the TV station, who would have told the jury that C.J. had been pushing a story about the DA planting evidence? That would have at least put reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds. 2. Michael Douglas warns C.J. that prison phone calls are monitored (duh...). But apparently his flunky co-conspirator detective wasn't aware that parking garages serving the DA's office would probably be videotaped. Besides, the donut-creating "terror" scene was stupid. 3. C.J. was smart enough to develop a brilliant plot involving a fake interview that earned him a journalism award, but so dumb he gives his girlfriend a copy so that she could later make the connection between his fake story and the murder. Take these mistakes, throw in some poor acting and a totally unnecessary car chase and you have "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." Better yet, don't watch the movie in the first place, and save yourself an hour and a half.