Review: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

If remakes are generally a bad idea, remaking a movie by one of the greatest directors of all time would seem doubly bad. But Peter Hyams was brave enough to dare comparison with Kubrick by directing “2010”, the doomed-before-the-pitch-meeting-ended sequel to “2001: A Space Odyssey,” so why should we be surprised he has the chutzpah to make a new version of “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt,” Fritz Lang's 1956 thriller?

Of course, time has made Lang is an obscure figure next to Kubrick, outside of film buff circles, despite a filmography that includes “M,” “Metropolis,” “The Big Heat,” and several other undisputed classics. The end of his American career coincided with the beginning of Kubrick's. “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” -- his fourth-to-last feature and the last to be made for Hollywood -- came out only a few months after “The Killing,” Kubrick's first great film....hell, his first decent film. Consider it a passing of the noir touch.

Hyams updates the story, changing details and broadening the scope, even while cleaving faithfully to the essence of the story. He recreates Lang's hero, newspaper reporter Mark Garrett, as C.J. Nicholas (Jesse Metcalfe), an ambitious young TV journalist. (Is Hyams teasing us with a half-reference to O.J., whom he directed in “Capricorn One”?)

C.J. plans to salvage his fading career by bringing down Shreveport D.A. (and gubernatorial hopeful) Mark Hunter (Michael Douglas, in a crucial, but definitely supporting, role). Through his new girlfriend (Amber Tamblyn), who works under Hunter, he obtains an interrogation tape that makes him suspicious: Could it be that Hunter planted rigged DNA evidence to bolster the circumstantial cases in his unbroken string of murder convictions?

Of course -- as C.J. explains to confidante Corey (Joel Moore) -- the only way to prove this is for C.J. to plant evidence, after the fact, incriminating himself in an unsolved case. The "evidence" has to be strong enough that Hunter won't be able to resist prosecuting, but weak enough that he'll end up needing to present fake last-minute lab findings -- at which point Corey, who has photographically documented all of C.J.'s contrivances will reveal that it was all a setup.

You can pretty much guess how things go awry at that point – though not many will guess the one further twist in the plot (taken straight from the Lang film).

Unlike the challenge of making “2010,” Hyams has a big advantage here: “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt” may well be the worst film Lang ever made...certainly the worst of his Hollywood films. With a tight budget and an overbearing producer, master stylist Lang's version is nearly style-free. And it was Lang's style that finessed films like “Metropolis” past some sticky story problems. With a flat, TV-like look, his version is almost all plot. Ridiculous plot.

So, at the risk of soliciting brickbats from fellow cineastes, let me suggest that the journeyman (or hack, depending on your opinion) Hyams has bested the genius Lang on almost all fronts. While the plot is still porous, he has patched it up some; and, while Metcalfe is not a particularly strong or sympathetic screen presence, he's no worse here than Dana Andrews, whose lackluster work in the original may have been alcohol-related.

Most importantly, Douglas Morrow's 1956 script relies on a position of bad faith with audience. (I can't be more specific without spoiling.) Hyams at least tries to mitigate the problem by adding some subtle hints and shifting the narrative POV in the final third.

The result is at times genuinely suspenseful, particularly when Tamblyn takes center stage toward the end. And, if the final twist doesn't drive you crazy, the cleverness may win you over.

--Andy Klein

Photo: Michael Douglas as Mark Hunter in the movie Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Credit: Anchor Bay Films.