BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT
A film review by James Berardinelli
Copyright 1993 James Berardinelli
Rating: 4.1 out of 10 (D, *1/2 out of ****)
Date Released: 7/16/93 Running Length: 1:30 Rated: R (Language, violence, sex, mature themes, nudity)
Starring: Donald Sutherland, Amy Irving, Rider Strong, Graham Greene, Christopher McDonald Director: Jonathan Heap Producers: Michael Spielberg and Brad M. Gilbert Screenplay: Jeffrey Polman and Christopher Keyser from a story by Michael Lieber Music: Gary Denton Released by Miramax Films
The memories are no longer clear, but Karen Braswell (Amy Irving) knows that it was her testimony twenty-two years ago that sent her father Frank (Donald Sutherland) to jail. Essentially, it was her word against his, and the jury believed her. For over two decades, she has never once doubted that Frank killed her mother but, after he visits her following his release from prison, she has cause to wonder. She then confronts the District Attorney who put her on the witness stand. From him Karen learns that her testimony had been coached, and that the man she has hated since the age of twelve might be innocent of the crime she caused him to be convicted of.
Sounds like a pretty good basis for a psychological thriller/drama, right? The premise is good and, given a well-written script, the execution could have produced a memorable film. However, somewhere before the midpoint of this movie, things go so badly wrong that BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT collapses, changing from an intriguing motion picture into a formula-riddled, ghoulish disaster.
Usually, it's up to independent movie distributors like Miramax to give us unique thrillers (such as THE CRYING GAME). However, in this case, Miramax has reached into its grab-bag and drawn out something that couldn't possibly be any more Hollywood-like. With little to claim in the way of originality (except perhaps the setup), BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT is a cross of a number of recent thrillers. The most obvious source material comes from THE STEPFATHER, which is ripped off shamelessly and ineffectively.
Exactly who is the intended audience for this movie? Simply put, the picture involves a lot of the murder and exploitation that appeals to mass audiences, but there are too many slow-moving sequences to effectively draw from that portion of the film-going population. Also, BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT is opening in a small number of "select" theaters including, of all places, several "art houses". This is definitely not a picture for the viewers who frequent those venues. It appears that Miramax, normally known as a genius of marketing, has made a major blunder here--not only in distribution, but in backing the production in the first place.
From a certain point, BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT gets continuously worse. Once it starts down the slippery track of cinematic ugliness, it seems to embrace the descent. Plot twists cease to make sense, characters lose the tentative three-dimensionality they had been striving for, and the audience stops caring about what's going on. And, of course, the body count mounts. We're treated to several rather bloody and brutal murders.
Amy Irving, hardly looking like herself with straight blonde hair, gives a reasonably effective performance, but eventually the script and dialogue get the better of her. Similarly, Donald Sutherland starts out strong, but as the plot grows progressively more ridiculous, his part becomes flat. Graham Greene is uniformly unimpressive in a role that is completely superfluous.
The only thing that BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT is adept at is showing off the Arizona countryside. So much running back and forth goes on that it's impossible not to get an eyefull of the sand, buttes, and canyons. Unfortunately, as the movie progresses, the scenery becomes far more interesting than a story that becomes as ridiculous as it is predictable.
- James Berardinelli (blake7@cc.bellcore.com)
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews