This movie is built upon the worst premise. It is completely preposterous. The entire scenario, the entire movie was unreal. It should've been branded a fantasy. But let's pretend for a moment that we are in a parallel universe where the events of this movie can occur. Here we go.
Demond (Deh-mAHnd) Doyle (Jo D. Jonz) had already been tried and convicted for the rape and murder of Rachel Castlemore (Rachel Hayward). We begin at the sentencing hearing where the deputy DA Ned Stark (David Caruso and not Sean Bean from "Game of Thrones") was making the case for the death penalty. Demond's attorney brought in his father Jacob Doyle (Charles S. Dutton) as a character witness to try to fend off the death penalty. This is where the movie goes Twilight Zone.
Jacob, instead of touting his son's better qualities and how this was one big mistake, gets on the stand and starts railing on the justice system and insisting that his son was innocent.
Let's pause and analyze. Jacob was a former corrections officer at San Quentin, he had to know that what he was doing was not helping his son avoid the death penalty. The jury had already convicted him, so the time for protesting his innocence was over and done with. The last thing the jury or the court wants to hear at that time is a riot act about how money buys a better defense. That doesn't prove your son is innocent, it only proves you're broke.
Continuing with the plot. Jacob goes into such a frenzied state that eventually he grabs a bailiff's gun, rushes the entire jury into a room and holds them hostage. Irrational, yes, but not impossible or even improbable for a frazzled father. So even though I don't like the action and it was only going to make things worse, it was a desperate act from a desperate man so I'll roll with it.
Next, he tells the deputy DA, Ned, that he has 24 hours to undo the conviction or he starts killing jurors because he knows "his son is innocent."
Pausing again. What in tarnation does he hope to accomplish? This numbskull actually thinks that a singular deputy DA can overturn a conviction in a matter of 24 hours! Never mind that the prosecutor is the one who made the case against Demond; I wouldn't care if the real killer stepped into the courtroom with a truckload of accusatory evidence, no legal processes happens in America in a matter of 24 hours. The best this fool could hope for is that he's not dead in 24 hours because the ordeal just went from a courtroom trial to a hostage situation. Now it's all in the hands of S.W.A.T. Regardless of how much pleading and dealing Jacob did with Ned, Ned was powerless once Jacob took hostages. If he really believed in his son's innocence, then it could've all been fleshed out in the appeals process. It's not like a death sentence means a person gets killed that same day.
And his pronouncements of his son's innocence were so hollow. He hadn't seen his son in four years, yet he shows up at his sentencing hearing claiming that he "knows" his son is innocent. Where were you when your son was being tried? You could've been seeking the evidence to exonerate him then.
Then when Ned Starks told him that the evidence is squarely against his son, Jacob's response was, "I don't give a damn about evidence!"
Are you serious? How, exactly, do you think trials work? Are they supposed to ignore evidence and just ask the defendant's father? Jacob was clearly 5150 and should've been neutralized at the first opportunity, but because this is a dumb movie we had to follow this fantasy out to its predictably stupid conclusion.
As the movie goes on we find out more about the case. It seems our "innocent" defendant said nothing in his defense, he just submitted to the will of the justice system. You can conclude one of three things here:
A.) He was guilty, but guilty people even offer alibis no matter how flimsy.
B.) He was suicidal and wanted to be killed at the hands of the state.
C.) He was covering up for someone.
C seemed like the most likely scenario to me because what innocent man says nothing to defend himself. Well, the answer was D, none of the above. He was just plain stupid. He, inexplicably, hadn't said a word throughout his entire trial and all of a sudden he became a chatty Kathy once he was in the hostage situation with his dad. It was totally illogical. Due to the inane actions of his father we find out that Demond was having an affair with the victim and it was very easy to prove because he gave her a locket that she had in her house.
This information completely enraged me. First, I don't know how a Medical Examiner couldn't deduce she was not raped (yes, there are indicators of consensual sex as opposed to rape). Second, how could investigators not find out that the suspect and the victim were having an affair for A YEAR?
In the end, Jacob Doyle's suicidal move works. Ned Stark essentially reinvestigated the entire crime in less than 24 hours and was able to ascertain Demond's innocence. It was one last wholly fictional act, but at this point who cares because everything else up until now was the extreme of fictional so what's one more fantastical event? This movie was on shaky ground from the start and its foundation just kept eroding away. By the end the premise of this movie was being held up by magical spells because there was certainly nothing rooted in reality holding this movie up. After the final scene I was left flustered, frustrated, and furious wondering who possibly thought this was a good idea because this was beyond bad.
Demond (Deh-mAHnd) Doyle (Jo D. Jonz) had already been tried and convicted for the rape and murder of Rachel Castlemore (Rachel Hayward). We begin at the sentencing hearing where the deputy DA Ned Stark (David Caruso and not Sean Bean from "Game of Thrones") was making the case for the death penalty. Demond's attorney brought in his father Jacob Doyle (Charles S. Dutton) as a character witness to try to fend off the death penalty. This is where the movie goes Twilight Zone.
Jacob, instead of touting his son's better qualities and how this was one big mistake, gets on the stand and starts railing on the justice system and insisting that his son was innocent.
Let's pause and analyze. Jacob was a former corrections officer at San Quentin, he had to know that what he was doing was not helping his son avoid the death penalty. The jury had already convicted him, so the time for protesting his innocence was over and done with. The last thing the jury or the court wants to hear at that time is a riot act about how money buys a better defense. That doesn't prove your son is innocent, it only proves you're broke.
Continuing with the plot. Jacob goes into such a frenzied state that eventually he grabs a bailiff's gun, rushes the entire jury into a room and holds them hostage. Irrational, yes, but not impossible or even improbable for a frazzled father. So even though I don't like the action and it was only going to make things worse, it was a desperate act from a desperate man so I'll roll with it.
Next, he tells the deputy DA, Ned, that he has 24 hours to undo the conviction or he starts killing jurors because he knows "his son is innocent."
Pausing again. What in tarnation does he hope to accomplish? This numbskull actually thinks that a singular deputy DA can overturn a conviction in a matter of 24 hours! Never mind that the prosecutor is the one who made the case against Demond; I wouldn't care if the real killer stepped into the courtroom with a truckload of accusatory evidence, no legal processes happens in America in a matter of 24 hours. The best this fool could hope for is that he's not dead in 24 hours because the ordeal just went from a courtroom trial to a hostage situation. Now it's all in the hands of S.W.A.T. Regardless of how much pleading and dealing Jacob did with Ned, Ned was powerless once Jacob took hostages. If he really believed in his son's innocence, then it could've all been fleshed out in the appeals process. It's not like a death sentence means a person gets killed that same day.
And his pronouncements of his son's innocence were so hollow. He hadn't seen his son in four years, yet he shows up at his sentencing hearing claiming that he "knows" his son is innocent. Where were you when your son was being tried? You could've been seeking the evidence to exonerate him then.
Then when Ned Starks told him that the evidence is squarely against his son, Jacob's response was, "I don't give a damn about evidence!"
Are you serious? How, exactly, do you think trials work? Are they supposed to ignore evidence and just ask the defendant's father? Jacob was clearly 5150 and should've been neutralized at the first opportunity, but because this is a dumb movie we had to follow this fantasy out to its predictably stupid conclusion.
As the movie goes on we find out more about the case. It seems our "innocent" defendant said nothing in his defense, he just submitted to the will of the justice system. You can conclude one of three things here:
A.) He was guilty, but guilty people even offer alibis no matter how flimsy.
B.) He was suicidal and wanted to be killed at the hands of the state.
C.) He was covering up for someone.
C seemed like the most likely scenario to me because what innocent man says nothing to defend himself. Well, the answer was D, none of the above. He was just plain stupid. He, inexplicably, hadn't said a word throughout his entire trial and all of a sudden he became a chatty Kathy once he was in the hostage situation with his dad. It was totally illogical. Due to the inane actions of his father we find out that Demond was having an affair with the victim and it was very easy to prove because he gave her a locket that she had in her house.
This information completely enraged me. First, I don't know how a Medical Examiner couldn't deduce she was not raped (yes, there are indicators of consensual sex as opposed to rape). Second, how could investigators not find out that the suspect and the victim were having an affair for A YEAR?
In the end, Jacob Doyle's suicidal move works. Ned Stark essentially reinvestigated the entire crime in less than 24 hours and was able to ascertain Demond's innocence. It was one last wholly fictional act, but at this point who cares because everything else up until now was the extreme of fictional so what's one more fantastical event? This movie was on shaky ground from the start and its foundation just kept eroding away. By the end the premise of this movie was being held up by magical spells because there was certainly nothing rooted in reality holding this movie up. After the final scene I was left flustered, frustrated, and furious wondering who possibly thought this was a good idea because this was beyond bad.