Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

edwagreen What wonderful plot twists here in this film where a writer is convinced by the newspaper owner to have information planted on him so that he may be arrested in a murder, only for the owner to die in a car crash and the defendant have to go it alone in proving his innocence.This all comes about due to the editor's fierce opposition to the death penalty. The irony of irony is that it spark's our guy into quite a bit of action. Dana Andrews is the writer who joins in the plot concocted by Sidney Blackmer. Joan Fontaine, Andrews's fiancé and daughter of Blackmer, doesn't know what to believe at first until she comes around, only to have to reverse herself at film's end.Barbara Nichols really steals the show here in the scenes she is in. With that craggy, annoying, irritating, sarcastic voice, she is the perfect foil for the intentions of Andrews and Blackmer.

secondtake Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (1956)An early wide screen black and white drama that marks the end of Fritz Lang's American career and also shows the winding down of two great stars, Joan Fontaine and Dana Andrews. The film is no send off, exactly, but it is slightly tired, as if the formula of movie-making needs a twist and it isn't here.That's not the point, of course. This is now the mid-fifties, crisis time for Hollywood, and with widescreen (and widescreen color) movies making a final jab at the rise of television. The plot is sensational, and not too far from what an extended early television drama might try, with mostly interior shooting and a staged (sometimes stagey) presentation. In all it's not Lang's best, and he was a master at both noir/expressionist drama and at getting to the human dilemma of fate and murder. Andrews and Fontaine are not a bad pair—both are matched in calm and sophistication, and beauty, even, though Fontaine seems like an accessory until the very end. Andrews rules the plot, which makes him out to be a writer desperate for a new story. So desperate he's going to pretend to commit a murder just to test the justice system.It's all so outrageous you want to believe it, though your mind says it just wouldn't happen. It's too convenient, and one man's suggestion from the newspaper turns out to be the other man's reality. Enough said!Oddly enough, this is an RKO distribution even after the studio's demise (I don't know the reasons there) but it might point to a less than perfect crew. Certainly the cinematographer, which Lang relied on greatly in earlier films, is no one with credentials. Likewise the editing and writing are fairly routine, even lackluster. And so if a movie that depends on some psychological intensity is really a bit of a grunt effort, whatever the star power involved, it's a bit doomed. So watch this if you are curious about any of the parts. I'm a fan of all three of the principles here, and so had to watch it. But I didn't walk away impressed.

seymourblack-1 "Beyong A Reasonable Doubt" is an offbeat thriller with a fascinating plot about two men who devise a dangerous scheme to expose the flawed nature of the legal system, the uncertain value of circumstantial evidence and the inherent dangers of using the death penalty as a form of punishment for certain crimes. The clever set-up for the story, a number of entertaining plot twists and a good deal of suspense make the whole film compelling to watch and compensate greatly for some of its shortcomings which appear to be attributable mainly to its low budget.Newspaper publisher Austin Spencer (Sidney Blackmer) is an opponent of capital punishment who's become concerned about the conduct of his local D.A. Roy Thompson (Philip Bourneuf) who regularly uses circumstantial evidence to secure convictions for crimes which are punishable by the death penalty. Austin's concerns relate to the unreliable nature of the evidence, the risk of an innocent man being executed and the belief that the D.A. is more concerned with gaining publicity to advance his political career than he is about ensuring that the justice system operates fairly.Austin explains his concerns to Tom Garrett (Dana Andrews) a novelist who used to work for him as a reporter and suggests a plan that could lead to an innocent man being sentenced to death for a crime he didn't commit. If the plan could be carried out successfully and the man's innocence could subsequently be proved, the use of capital punishment could be effectively discredited.Tom, who's engaged to be married to Austin's daughter Susan (Joan Fontaine), agrees to be framed for the murder of a nightclub dancer and as he plants various items of phony evidence, Austin takes photographs which could later be used to prove that Tom's not the murderer. The plan seems to work well and Tom is eventually arrested and tried before the jury withdraw to consider their verdict. At this point, as planned, Austin gathers together the various documents and photographs that will prove Tom's innocence but before he's able to present them to the appropriate officials he's killed in a car crash and all the material that he's carrying which is pertinent to the case is burned in the wreckage. This leaves Tom in an incredibly tight spot and the developments that follow are genuinely surprising.It's deeply ironic that the two men whose scheme is intended to highlight the unfairness and deficiencies of the justice system actually have no concerns about misleading the police by planting false evidence, wasting their time in processing the case or impeding them in their pursuit of the real culprit. Furthermore, both men have no scruples about their plans to exploit the scheme for their own profit as it will provide good material for Austin's newspapers and Tom's next book."Beyond A Reasonable Doubt" is a real no-frills production with some acting performances which are rather perfunctory in nature. The main strengths of this movie however, are its lively pace, its wonderfully bizarre plot and the unexpected twists which make it so intriguing and enjoyable to watch.

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