Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Simply A Masterpiece

Good concept, poorly executed.

A different way of telling a story

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.

I enjoyed this tale of a writer, Dana Andrews, who arranges an indictment of "circumstantial evidence" by picking an unimportant murder case out of the newspaper and, with the aid of the newspaper's editor, plants clues that point to him as the murderer. The editor, however, is busily taking photos with a "self-developing camera" of Andrews cheerfully planting the fake evidence.But -- the best laid plans. Andrews is convicted of the murder, but the editor dies in a car accident and burns up, along with all the evidence of fakery. That leaves Andrews pacing nervously back and forth on Death Row facing two eggs of hydrogen cyanide.His girl friend, Joan Fontaine, does everything she can to help him. When he explains the scheme, she enlists the aid of a detective Arthur Franz, to find any exculpatory evidence. Everyone is nervous.I can't say it's Fritz Lang's best American movie. I saw it in the El Camino Theater in San Bruno, California, and enjoyed it. It's still enjoyable but for a more experience and critical viewer, certain holes in the plot may be apparent.Also, Joan Fontaine, enchanting in her youth, here seems stiff and perfunctory, and wrapped up in the ugliest women's clothes imaginable. My God, the styles were terrible. And make up didn't help. They've tied her blond hair back into a severe bun or whatever it's called.Dana Andrews is his grim and solemn self, but he's older too, and he was in the grip of alcohol and looks puffy.For whatever its weaknesses may be, it's worth catching. It would have made a perfect episode on Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt (1956) ** 1/2 (out of 4) Frustrating film about a journalist (Dana Andrews) who decides to show that the current court system has a lot of holes in it by framing himself for the murder of a dancer. The plan is to be convicted by a jury and sent to death row where he, along with the help of his girlfriend's father (Sidney Blackmer), will admit that they were just trying to bring down the system. Lang's final American film has a terrific idea but none of it really comes together and when the end credits come up you can't help but be very, very disappointed. All of the elements for a great film are right here but I guess Lang was in a hurry to get back home because his direction is way too laid back and he really never brings any life or energy to the film. The biggest problem is the first hour where the investigation and trial take place because we know what's going to happen and we know to expect a twist in the story. When this twist does happen it comes as no surprise because it's the exact same twist anyone would be expecting to happen. When this twist finally appears it actually kick starts the movie a bit but by this time it's way too late. The final twenty-minutes of the film finally gets some drama going and we get yet another twist that I certainly didn't see coming. Lang appears to have snapped out of his sleep-walking and it's a shame more detail and thought wasn't given to the first portion. The performances are a mixed bag as the usually reliable Andrews pretty much goes through the motions here. Not once did I see any real emotion coming from him as he appears bored and just walking through the bit. Joan Fonataine turns in a fine performance as the girlfriend and Blackmer is good as her father. Philip Bourneuf is also good in the role of the prosecutor. There are many good things in this film but sadly there are some bad ones that keep this movie from being a masterpiece. It's hard to believe that the first part of this movie could be so flat but perhaps the filmmakers should have had the first hour trimmed down to twenty-minutes and then make the final moments stretched out and centered the majority of the movie on them. This is still a noir worth seeing but I really wish I could have called this a masterpiece.

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.