Alicia I love this movie so much

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

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.

cartman_1337 Peter Hyams may not be the most respected director in the game, but I've enjoyed several of his movies in the past none the less. I've also always liked Michael Douglas as an actor, and I've always had a soft spot for courtroom dramas. This is actually not the first time these three ingredients have been mixed up in a movie. In 1983 Michael Douglas starred in Peter Hyams' The Star Chamber, where he plays a judge tired of seeing guilty people run around free due to technicalities rendering damning evidence inadmissible after the law. In retrospect I should have just stuck with that, and given this one a pass. But finding it in the bargain bin it was hard not checking it out.A reporter who've followed the cases of the district attorney (Michael Douglas) for some time suspects the D.A.'s perfect track record to be a lie, and that the D.A. in several of the cases have manufactured the damning evidence, in the form of DNA evidence pointing to the man on trial, planted several days after the crime. His editor doesn't believe him, so with the help of a friend he sets out on a potentially dangerous mission; the next time a murder is discovered, he'll plant circumstantial evidence (sans DNA) pointing to himself, having the friend video tape it in order to destroy the D.A.'s case at the point he knows for sure that he has planted DNA evidence against him. In the mix is also a female lawyer from the D.A.'s office, who becomes romantically involved with the reporter.The premise sounds promising enough. And sure enough, it's a remake of a 1956 movie by the same name, helmed by Fritz Lang, who if you ask me is responsible for the greatest movie ever made; Metropolis, as well as a steady stream of other masterpieces. The best thing I can say about this version of the movie is that it made me aware of the original, and made me want to see it. When I bought it I was unaware of the original's existence.As many others have pointed out before, this version of the movie is full of plot holes, some harder to ignore than others. The flow of the movie is extremely streamlined and predictable, and with the exception of Michael Douglas, who has a much smaller part than I had hoped, no one really delivers any good acting performances either. Douglas isn't really very remarkable in this movie either, but I'd bet that even at his worst it would be obvious he's in a different league than the rest of the cast, and here he isn't even at his worst... The movie looks dark on dull, and has limited production values. I can certainly understand the poor reputation and user score that made me skeptical to the movie to begin with. In fact, I'm surprised it isn't rated even lower.Not having seen the original yet I think it's still safe to say; stick with the original. I'll certainly be checking it out. After all, the premise does have promise, if it's executed correctly and have reasonable explanations for its plot holes. This movie doesn't even try to explain any of them...

Adriano Torres I thought a good movie, with a plot very good, but should have been a little better harnessed. The end also found very fast, should have at least 10 more minutes. In short, it is a good movie, I found the actions of Amber Tamblyn very good. Another actor who appeared somewhat unfortunately, but had a satisfactory performance was Orlando Jones, he should have had a bigger hook in history. Michael Douglas did well when it was used. The main character made ​​by actor Jesse Metcalfe was a little empty, missed more emotion from him, especially in his scenes in prison and when your best friend dies. Anyway, I liked the direction of Peter Hyams, like the way he drives and he always puts on a show in part as a cinematographer. A note 8 the plot and direction, sinned a little, because it could have been better.

roboticteacher I was intrigued by the plot synopsis on Netflix. It sounds like the premise of a good, if go-by-numbers, thriller. And indeed it is a fine premise....and that's it. It's as if someone thought, "Hey I have a great idea for a film - it's based on an older film that we can cannibalize for inspiration and provide a hip-retro vibe...and...Hey, look, who brought chips? I love chips, mmmmm. Anyway, that movie thing let's do it this weekend...bring those chips...mmmm, delicious."And the acting? Ouch. Only Michael Douglas and Orlando Bloom act. The other cast members read without stuttering. I suppose that's something.Sample witty macho leading man dialogue: Leading Man: "What happens to that nose ring when you sneeze?" Biker Gun Dealer: "It gets snot on it."I'm watching the movie right now...I don't see it getting any better. If anything, it provides some white noise while I'm surfing about the interwebs.