User reviews

Not every actor was meant to play every role. Richard Gere, for example, was ideal as a high-profile, hotshot lawyer in "Primal Fear"; Melanie Griffith plays the female version of more or less the exact same role here, and she makes a valiant try, but the result is just posing, not acting. The film is watchable, thanks mostly to good direction by Randal Kleiser, who gives it the look and feel of a picture destined for theatrical release, even though it barely got any. But it is weakly plotted, and relies on all sorts of contrivances to move along (criminals who are carelessly spilling their guts out about crimes they committed, etc.). And what's worse, it doesn't play fair with the audience; the resolution is based on clues we had no way of knowing about. At least Tom Berenger proves that he is still a dependable actor. (**)

Who'd have thought that Huey Lewis would have turned out to be a pretty good actor? The supporting cast of this film really hold this movie together, under Melanie Griffith's lead. Tom Berenger gives a great performance as the ambitious DA, and some of the best moments of the film are his scenes with Melanie Griffith. Overall,

I think the writers tried too hard with some of the dialogue, but the movie has enough twists and turns and a surprise ending that will keep you thinking past the movie's ending.

I really enjoyed the chemistry between Tom and Melanie. There seemed to be just the right amount of tension between them to keep me guessing about whether they would get back together or not. Not to mention the twisted plot (not twisted enough to be unbelievable - it was perfect). Thanks! Cheryl Pinner

This is an awful film. I don't know what is worse, the acting, the exploitation or the script. The ending is a total red herring. The film is rife with references to the Simpson trial and steeped in the world of LA sleeze. Typical LA navel gazing at its worst, this film is horribly misogynistic including the 'hit' rap lyrics of the defendant. I don't get the title at all. Unless the film-makers had never heard of Alfred Hitchcock or the film Shadow of a Doubt, of which I have no doubt!

Nothing to much too add, nothing left to your imagination this is the last series of legal movies with a lot of common places. All the elements of a good commercial thriller are present: perversion, erotism, drugs, power and a woman in career well perform by Melanie Griffith. Tom Berenger it could be easily a statue or part of the furniture of certain scenes. The last political candidate for, hopefully, the last electoral campaign. A very expectable second to second film which in home video gives you a nice break. Rating: 4

Huey Lewis caught my attention in this movie. His high-tech detective was fun. The rest was fairly predictable. The production values kept it from sinking too low into obscurity. The houses were certainly a large part of the film and should have gotten credits.

This movie had the ingredients for making it a good law thriller. The writers did manage to create a suspenseful atmosphere despite the laughable performance by Griffith (whose dialogue was even more boring than usual) and Berenger (who gives a no-hitter acting). But then, as it usually happens in bad thriller, after the bad guys have apparently won and thoroughly outsmarted the defense attorney, she get a colossal break of luck and wins the case. That is so typical of writers who run out of ideas that it is pathetic. And such a blunder of an ending puts a damper in the whole film, making it very very disappointing.

I only watched it because it was on HBO in the middle of the night and nothing else was on. I cannot believe that Melaine was capable of such poor acting. Even Tom Berenger was weak. The script was poorly developed. Nothing at all good to say about this one

A surprisingly good thriller. This mystery with conspiracy theory overtones starring Melanie Griffith and Tom Berenger is well constructed. The clues to the killer could have been a touch stronger but it's basically a "play fair" mystery with lots of red herrings to keep you guessing. Berenger, as usual, is very good as the DA opposing defense attorney Griffith, whom he used to date. Griffith is very believable as the sharp attorney often underestimated due to her looks and little girl voice. Singer Huey Lewis is a very pleasant surprise as Griffith's investigator and tech expert.

I tried watching this movie a few times already, but the 'acting' of the leading lady is so awful, I start laughing so much the whole building shakes. Other times I have to stop watching because I feel sick every time miss Griffith comes into the picture. Please make a 'director's cut' that removes all scenes with Melanie Griffith and then I will be able to watch this movie to the end.

The acting is so terrible I don't even know what the movie is about. I'm giving this one 1 out of 10 and that still one point to many.

then you are a fool. The only thing more burdensome than the pace of the movie was the the performances by Melanie Griffith and Tom Berenger. It was if they were acting through mud. But that is the cost, I suppose, when you must emote instead of acting, to make up for a weak story.

This is a decent legal suspense/thriller, if you can accept sweet little Melanie Griffiths as a kick-ass sex-crime lawyer, which she pulled off pretty well. She has to juggle returned perverts from the past with perverts from the present, and althought the plot isn't mind-boggling it's fine if you aren't expecting the world. It might be the equal of Copycat with Sigournay Weaver.

A murder mystery / courtroom procedural at its heart, 'Shadow of Doubt' is finely filmed, but features a cliche story that can't hold its own weight. If you're like me, the cast is probably what landed you here. Melanie Griffith gives a valent effort as a top notch defense attorney, but she's neither believable or convincing. Tom Berenger as her ex boyfriend and the DA provides some solid ground, but he's also boxed in by this cookie cutter tale.

Red herrings, rich powerful people, threats, betrayal, political angles and the like flesh out the rest. They try to inject this inkling of an idea that the prime suspect (and her client) may be guilty, but it's see-thru much like most of the proceedings. That leaves you to enjoy spots from some notable faces in the supporting cast (Huey Lewis, John Ritter, Craig Sheffer, Tia Texada) on route to an underwhelming and unsatisfying conclusion.

Very suspenseful. Excellent cast. Good chemistry between Tom Berenger and Melanie Griffith, but I wish there had been more interaction between them. I would love to see them together again, in a little lighter story.

If you are the kind of of person that loves movies about a guy framed because he is not white you may like it. Story is supposed about white politician framing someone not white. This have been done before and was already boring 10 years ago.

If you like good acting you will hate this movie. Even Berrenger is not good.

I read it was a thriller but honestly it felt more like a very bad episode of a lawyer TV show. There is really no development in the movie and it is all very oddly constructed to fit together. The parts fit as good together as a dolphins tail would fit on a cow. Unfortunately not in a fun way.

The last 10 minutes they find out the plot of the movie sucked totally and makes a new quite unlikely twist that makes you see you wasted your life on this untalented and uninspired acting and story for far too long.

"Shadow of a Doubt" is an incredible turkey. It's so bad that it's bad; it has no redeeming value, even as camp. It should be viewed only by those who are desperate and have no alternatives. In this probably straight-to-video release, Melanie Griffith and Tom Berenger seem humiliated by their lines and appear to be trying to get through the ordeal as quickly as possible. It's impossible to understand how top-flight actors could have committed to this project.

Griffith is miscast as defense lawyer Kitt Devereux. Berenger plays Jack Campioni, the DA who is Devereux's ex-husband, and who opposes her in the trial which is the core of the film. (Prosecuting offices, particularly large ones like LA, would never assign a prosecutor to a case who has a relationship or former relationship with the defense lawyer).

The story, if it can be called that, is full of holes and is ridiculous in the extreme. It concerns a troubled young woman from a rich LA family who is murdered in her hot tub. Devereux receives a $300,000 retainer to defend Bobby Medina who is accused of committing the crime. Medina, a Latino rap artist, had sex with the victim shortly before she was killed. Although Medina would have no motive to kill the victim (quite the opposite), and despite solid evidence from the victim's roommate that exculpates Medina, Campioni immediately charges him with first degree murder. Also heavily involved is Paul Saxon, a California senator and leading presidential candidate, as well as Saxon's dragon-lady mother Sylvia. It seems that Campioni will become attorney general if Saxon wins the Presidency, so Campioni has an incentive to distract attention from Saxon's involvement in the murder. Incidentally, Saxon is given speeches to read that are so left-liberal that he would not be a plausible candidate for the San Francisco water board, much less President.

Medina's trial is probably the most ineptly written in the long history of courtroom drama on film. Devereux leads off by mentioning a failed plea bargain in her opening statement as evidence that the DA obviously doesn't think Medina is guilty. That wins you sanctions in any court, but nothing happens to Devereux aside from the court sustaining an objection. Devereux and Campioni also discuss the case over drinks in a highly improper manner.

Normally, writers of courtroom drama hire technical assistants to help guide them through the niceties of evidence and trial procedure. The writers here evidently couldn't afford advisers so they just made it all up. The blunders are too numerous to catalog. Incidentally, Devereux addresses a jury neatly dressed in suits and ties; undoubtedly accurate if the movie were set in the 50's but juries in LA these days are casually dressed.

The films works neither as a thriller nor as a courtroom drama and should never have been made at all.

Tom Berenger really loves to surprise his audience, and in Shadow of Doubt, he once again has led us to believe he's the "still in love" DA with his former wife and attorney, Melanie Griffith. He comes across as a solid citizen and promoter of justice. Nevertheless, he underestimates Melanie's abilities as an attorney, and takes for granted that her feelings for him would protect him. It was wonderful to see Huey Lewis in this movie, and we can only hope to see more of him in the future.

Or, more precise, result of good intentions. because it is a proof of decent try from director, actors and scriptwriter to give a reasonable thriller. but the web is too large and too obscure. and the resemblance with many others films, better films, is not a virtue in this case. but , the different pieces from puzzle are enough for a not bad result. Melanie Griffith knows use an old recipe for a conventional character, Tom Berger is a not real bad choice for his role and Nina Foch is an inspired choice for Sylvia Saxon. the only obvious mistake remains Craig Sheffer, in a role who seems be only a poor ornament for a too rich Christmas tree.