What do you think of Double Jeopardy (1999)?

I rewatched it again, after not seeing it since it's release, not remembering much of it, and I'm kind of split down the middle on it. The first half starts out very promising and I love the twist that brings us in to the second act.

However, I feel the movie perhaps didn't make due on it's promise. In the movie :


SPOILER


The woman is frame for her murder by her husband who fakes his death and frames for her for his murder.
Then in prison she learns about the law and finds out about double jeopardy and how she can kill her husband out of revenge, and the law wouldn't be able to touch her even if they could prove her guilty, because she had already been tried for the crime.

But I feel the movie never pays off on his this and just forgets about the double jeopardy idea, and all the opportunities that could have arose from it. I mean the movie's title is even Double Jeopardy and the movie seems to forget that idea about half way through.

And also the husband tries to kill her by locking her in a coffin, and hoping she will die, but this came off as very James Bond-ish to me, where the villains lock the characters in a place, hoping they will die, instead of escape, when they can just kill themselves.

So that took me out of it as well. But still a very promising, solid first half. But what do you think?

I do not that qualifies as Double Jeopardy. The murder of her husband was a diffeent crime in a different state.

__________________
"Bowels in, or bowels out?"

Like the film, very entertaining at a time when ashley judd was in her prime, the twist is good and overall the film is very entertaining as i said

But the ex-lawyer she met in prison says it counts as double jeopardy. So they already set it up that it counts in world of this movie, so I thought they would therefore pay off on it... especially in a movie that is actually titled Double Jeopardy.

If they set up double jeopardy with the ex-lawyer character and do not pay it off, then why give the movie that title?

I guess I just felt the ending would have been much more unique if she did what the lawyer said she could get away with, and actually shoot her husband in the middle of a bunch of a witnesses, and still get off on double jeopardy, and that would have been a much more interesting ending. I mean especially since the movie is called Double Jeopardy. There is the saying don't judge a book by it's cover, but when they put a title on like that, and don't pay it off, it feels intentionally misleading.

I guess I have a hard time when a film ignores obvious things for the sake of the premise. Basic Instinct ignores DNA evidence at crime scenes and this film ignores what Double Jeopardy actually is.

If I were to ignore the fact that this film doesn't be true to the title, then it's a decent 90's thriller. Then again, I probably saw this over 15 years ago and my views on it would probably rate it a little lower if I were to see it again.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

What if in Basic Instinct Katherina Tramell dowsed the apartment with gasoline and burned it, or cleaned everything with bleach, would that get rid of the DNA? Seems like an easy plot fix.

I'm sorry, but a great many of us knows what Double Jeopardy is.

Took away much of my enjoyment of the film.