Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

disgusting, overrated, pointless

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

There is a reasonable doubt that Samuel L Jackson was back on some rent or mortgage payment because there is no reason he'd be apart of this abomination if not to pay someone off. The plot is predictable, and you know how it will end in the first minute of the film. Its not even good escapist fun. (Avoid it)

Samuel L.'s performance was strong (as usual) however the rest of the movie was lacking. Too much of the plot was unbelievable (I'm sorry but the escape from the police station scene... yeah right) and the other actors were disappointing. It did have some exciting moments but, in the end, this movie was just another crime thriller without any real substance and with "inorganic" character development (I'm looking at you, Mr. Cooper). If you're looking for a movie to pass the time and keep you slightly entertained for an hour and a half, this fits the bill. Otherwise, I suggest you look elsewhere for something with a more believable plot and better acting.

I never include plot synapses in my reviews as you can find this elsewhere. I spend my time praising or panning movies based on their merit or lack there of. Despite my agreement of another reviewer's comment "A good idea done badly", the movie just doesn't work. I'll say that Samuel Jackson in always good, and the Co star here held up as well as could be expected given other factors, and even supporting players like the brother were well cast. Heck I'll even go so far as to say that parts of this movie were well directed and shot, and that set design was even decent -all things, including lighting and editing, that I pay attention to. But she just don't hold water. Why? Holes, bad plot devices, obvious foreshadowing, etc. I know what you're thinking - I spent the first half of my review praising this thing and now you want examples of why I panned it. Fine. Holes: For starters, a main part of the court scenes here (some of the worst ever caught on celluloid, mote on that in a bit) was Mitch's (Dominic Cooper) thick Chicago accent. Just ask the court linguist, who despite not being blind sat motionless, monotone, staring at a spot near the prosecutor's belt buckle (it was a creepy performance - obviously the money a lot Ted for that actor went to procure Jackson for HIS role). OK so Mitch's thick Chicago accent. Good idea, all well and good, except Dominic Cooper in an English actor and although he hides this well, he uses the default east coast accent that many British actors use when a dialect coach isn't used. See Daniel Day Lewis on this....he us meticulous about his American dialects. Same with Mitch's brother Jimmy (Ryan Robblins) who is from Vancouver (Seattle for all intents and purposes) - east coast sound, not Chicago. Obvious foreshadowing: at a critical point, Mitch loses a wad of business cards near a victim. Are you serious? He scoops them up hastily but you know how this will be used. Just a bad, bad idea. So many other ways to establish his presence there than dropper business cards. Obvious Bad Plot Devices: there is a killer on the prowl. The cops have all their best men on it, as does the D.A's office. It takes them seemingly forever to ascertain that ALL of the victims are linked as they are all ex-cons on parole. What's worse, they're able to link someone based on that scant fact and.....ugh. I'm just getting frustrated. As I said, Sam, Dominic, Ryan, and Gloria Reubens all put in a good effort, but a good idea was crucified by, I'm assuming, the editors or the producers, given the fact that director Peter Howitt (Antitrust) used a pseudonym (Peter Croudins) for his direction credit on this pile. Jackson, holder of a Guiness Book of World Records nod for most bankable star in film history (It's true, look it up), was the dollar- store glue that held this all together. I say dollar-store because is was BARELY held together. They were so close: decent actors, a workable plot, a decent director who managed some gorgeous shots through falling snow and night time scenes.....but alas it all falls flat. A good idea done badly, indeed.

Samuel L. Jackson must be the hardest working man in Hollywood. I love the joke: "Who's Samuel L. Jackson?" "Have you ever seen a film? He's the black guy in it." But there's more to him than just being in a lot of films. His characters always have an edge. His role in 'Unbreakable' still haunts me to this day. 'Reasonable Doubt' gives him once again another great chance to shine and he takes it.The movie itself is pretty solid. There are twists at turns at every corner and the story is more than interesting enough to keep the viewer hooked. There are of course the almost unavoidable downfalls every thriller seems to fall into towards the end, such as walking out of a police station after assaulting an officer as casually as leaving the post office and then the detective who ordered all units be sent to a house manages to beat them all there on her lonesome (without any sirens even on) just in time to put a bullet through the killers head and save the day. Clichéd and completely unrealistic. But we forgive. It's a good quality thriller worth a view.