Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

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

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Spikeopath Beyond a Reasonable Doubt is directed by Fritz Lang and written by Douglas Morrow. It stars Dana Andrews, Joan Fontaine, Sidney Blackner, Arthur Franz and Philip Bourneuf. Music is by Herschel Burke Gilbert and cinematography by William Snyder. Plot has Andrews as a writer who hatches a plan with his future father-in-law to expose the weakness in using circumstantial evidence to send suspects to the electric chair. The ruse is to plant "evidence" that will incriminate Andrews in a topical murder and see him sentenced to death. Then the two men will reveal their own photographic evidence to prove the folly of law and the death penalty. But it's a dangerous game to play, and fate and hidden secrets may have the ultimate say on the outcome?It was Fritz Lang's last American movie, after wowing cinema fans with such excellent pictures like M, The Big Heat, Scarlet Street and While the City Sleeps, it's safe to say that Beyond A Reasonable Doubt is not the great swansong many had reason to expect. There's nothing particularly impressive about the camera work or photography, while the sets look distinctly under nourished. But veering away from our yearnings for technical smarts, film finds Lang determined to prove a bitter based point whilst enjoying dangling his protagonist above a fascinating pit of ifs and maybes.The fascination comes from the court case that underpins the movie, as we observe the law unfurling its might, privy to the dangerous ruse perpetrated by Andrews' daring Guinea Pig. It feels cold in narrative, and most certainly that is intentional because the last fifteen minutes of film pulls the rug from under everyone and finally reveals its hand. It's then, as the end card appears, that the film comes full circle and delivers on the promise of a game of human chess. Where the winner is not innocence or guilt, but something that drives many a film noir picture, that which concerns the vagaries of fate.The main cast players rightly play it sedately, with Andrews calm and understated, and Fontaine regal like and serene in dialogue delivery. Best turns come from the support slots, with Blackner most interesting as the newspaper publisher-come potential father-in-law-come the man who originated the idea for the "hoax", and Barbara Nichols who charms and entertains as the air head dancer who becomes a critical pawn in this particularly tricksy game of deceit and suspicion. It's never overtly film noir until the last quarter, and really it's a court room/legal drama sprinkled with some less than sparkly dust. Yet in spite of the undeniable contrivances that reside within the plot, this is still prime Lang for the way it observes the law and the human condition that said law brings out of the skin. 7.5/10

simonqbb Maybe not quite what it could have been, but recommended. This probably suffers most from what appears to be a low budget--and arguably a dearth of style from director Fritz Lang. But Lang could be quite flamboyant in other films, so perhaps the relatively straightforward style here is meant to suit the movie and its themes. And it's the story and themes that will have you talking afterwards: Though it's vaguely far-fetched and certainly contrived, this is quite the screenplay. I won't say anything other than the following: Dana Andrews plays Tom Garrett, a novelist who's persuaded by his newspaper mogul friend Austin Spencer (Sidney Blackmer) to pose as the suspect in a murder in order to prove the pitfalls of circumstantial evidence and politics in death penalty cases. Andrews eventually gets in over his head, and... well, see for yourself. Mildly underwhelming in route, "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" nonetheless gathers a pretty good head of steam by its surprising climax. Dana Andrews gives a typically solid performance; if that sounds like slight praise, I don't mean it like that; he's a personal favorite of mine, especially for the work he did in noirs, and he seems today rather sadly under-appreciated, if not largely forgotten. Joan Fontaine is also on hand here as Susan Spencer, Garrett's fiancé and Austin's daughter. Overall, somewhat disappointing on the level of production, but otherwise very much worth a look for classic film fans.

Hitchcoc I have no trouble with the plot twists in this movie or the ending. The thing that amazes me is that the court system would have allowed a man who manipulated the law to just walk away, even if he were found innocent of the murder. He perpetrated fraud and used the justice system so he could write an expose. This just wouldn't happen. Otherwise it's a little like "The Witness for the Prosecution" where we think we've got it and the rug is pulled out from under us. Dana Andrews emotes and prances about, self righteous to a fault. Of course, with the movie codes of the day, there are issues that need to be addressed, especially at the conclusion. Then there is basic loyalty versus the law. These are all themes. For the most part it just doesn't work that well for me.

Howard_B_Eale Sometimes, in the world of 1940s-1950s film noir, we are given a film so transparently impossible and contrived that we can see ourselves giving up on watching it half way through. But is extremely rare that we are faced with a film where the very response the viewer is having holds the key to the success, rather than the failure, of the film.Such is the case with BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, which has - to its credit - been completely misunderstood by many. When we reach the film's conclusion, we realize that even the title of the film itself is a joke, perhaps the ultimate prank on the viewer. Yet to offer analysis of the film would be to destroy its main and most sinister motive; you can't "explain away" the glaring plot holes and contrivances without revealing the twist the film takes in its climax, and to do would rob the viewer of a genuine experience. So... I won't.Suffice it to say, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT is far more than it seems and is nothing without the sum of its parts, in total. Lang tackles the story of a person who creates a fictitious role for himself in order to, essentially, pull a fast one on the legal profession for personal gain (or, as it appears on the surface, someone else's). In the world of film noir, of course, we know that such a character won't get away with it, but when Lang depicts the tragedy the viewer knows will come, he majestically turns the entire premise on its head. As a result, it's a cold slap in the face - a devastating critique of the complicity of the audience in following along, hungrily, with such contrivances in cinema.Every part of the film fits perfectly by not fitting at all. Even the visual style of the film is a cold, rarely pleasing one, almost daring you to suspend your disbelief just a little bit longer without even granting the pleasure of emotionally charged close-ups at key moments. The editing is brutal and jarring, cutting away practically mid-sentence and moving to a similar conversation elsewhere.As a swan song to his Hollywood career, BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT does to the audience what Billy Wilder does to the industry in SUNSET BLVD. - biting the hand that feeds. The result is a total masterpiece.