Acosado por su pasado

BUT - I wanted to thank John Gartner of Portland for his hilarious (and sometimes educational) comments!

I'm not sure which Berenger film I saw first, but he has warmed the cockles of my heart (to be genteel) from the first. In this flick, the shot where he reveals to his lover the dirty little secret underneath his shirt was worth the whole movie! - See, we gals can salivate over just a hint of the rest of what's there - or maybe it's just me, I'm an easy mark for a certain type of... ahem... torso, shall I say? But I'll never understand why guys are even attracted to that Daisy Mae-type critter - so obvious, so over-the-top; and here, she was really, really annoying, and just wouldn't go away! I, for one liked Berenger's deceptively easy-going southern man characterization. It doesn't have to be revolutionary if it works. As for his crying scene, I didn't think it was bad at all, as it was sudden and unexpected. To me, it was his lover's reaction that came across as forced and unconvincing.

What I like about this actor is that he often plays roles as what I consider a real man - he's a man's man, yet fully capable (sooner or later, often gradually) of connecting with a woman in a palpably tender way. If you think about it, there aren't many actors who can achieve this. They're either too intense at being tough to switch gears believably, or they're too obsessed with being proper at all times...sorta like a lot of actual people...

So, I guess I'll not heartily defend the script or the plot, etc., but I will vouch for Tom Berenger. In my book, he reliably adds quality to any film.

From the first frame, this film glues you to the screen, with a gripping plot that is full of potential. As we learn more about the victim's wife and the university professor she employs in the role of reluctant detective, we are determined to delve further into the minds of this mysterious woman and the laconic southern gentleman, who is forced to confront his own past demons.

Regrettably, this strong foundation is undermined by the failure of the film to shine any light on the personalities of the victim or his abducted companion - elements that are essential to understanding the fate which overtakes them. And sadly the denouement is glaringly obvious - a limp ending to what should have been a superb thriller.

The plot of An Occasional Hell can be summarized as follows:

Dewalt is a former police detective and has, after an arrest gone wrong, become a crime novelist and university guest professor. Just before Christmass, he's asked Italian-American Mrs Laughton to investigate the murder of her husband and the disappearance of his mistress. He soon discovers that the murder weapon is a stolen Civil War musket. But who is the perpetrator and what is the motive?

In the local thrift store I could buy An Occasional Hell from 1996 for EUR 1.50. A film with only a score of 4.8/10 and mostly negative reviews. Is it really a bad movie?

To be honest, no. Although I follow most of the criticisms of other reviews (the plot is a bit weak, the acting is a bit mediocre, there are continuity errors such as cars changing color, holes in the story...) I still have to say that I think the film is a success as a mystery thriller. Find. Yes, this direct to video low budget film rightly didn't win any awards, but I did like it! Now I admit that 90s movies have reached a point where they evoke nostalgia, which certainly helps to soften my mood. But without contradiction, this film is beautifully filmed (especially for the limited budget!), the Southern atmosphere comes into its own, the characters are interesting and everything is sufficiently deep not to become too cliché. The ending is satisfying, though a bit out of the blue.

In short, if you like 90s TV thrillers, An Occasional Hell is a fun movie.

An Occasional Hell is one of countless cable TV crime melodramas that start to blur together if you've seen enough. They don't often have high budgets, and as such usually only contain a few elements: a handful of actors, a murder mystery, deception, eroticism and very little in the way of fancy special effects. This one has a solid lead in Tom Berenger, who can make anything watchable, and great supporting players who pitch in as well. The story, or lack thereof, is where the problem arises. Berenger plays an ex cop and forensics wizard turned college professor, who is hired by sultry widow Valeria Golino (remember her from Hot Shots? Lol) to solve the murder of her husband and his hot young mistress (Kari Wuhrer), who has vanished. It turns out the mistress may have been involved with drug runners (random) the state troopers get involved and it's all one big mess that neither Berenger nor the plot can seem to figure out. There's a cynical lead Trooper played by a snarky, laid back Robert Davi, and other assorted people including Richard Edson, Ellen Greene, Geoffrey Lewis and a kooky Stephen Lang, who shows up in flashbacks as Golino's eccentric civil war enthusiast husband. None of it makes all that much sense or seems to flow in a way that's believable, but Berenger makes it somewhat worthwhile, as do that other players. Just below average stuff.

As the opening credits roll, there is a montage of Civil War photographs flashing on the screen. This is a definite reminder of two facts. the movie you are about to see takes place in the deep South ( as if that needed explaining), and that two Confederate Officers from the fabulous film "Gettysburg" are in "An Occasional Hell". So you get Tom Berenger and Stephen Lang, with Berenger given very little to work with, and Lang barely in the movie. Suspects abound but with little logic as to why they might commit a murder. I found this film to be confusing, unsatisfying, with a rushed conclusion, that makes little sense. Throw in the unending flashbacks, and what you are left with is a mess of a movie. Avoid. - MERK