Déclics

Greetings And Salutations, and welcome to my review of Double Exposure; before launching into my critique, here's a breakdown of my ratings:

Story - 1.00 Direction - 0.75 Pace - 0.75 Acting - 1.00 Enjoyment - 1.00

TOTAL - 4.5 out of 10

William Byron Hillman is his own worst enemy, and it's his double exposure as a writer and director that damages the movie. He has a good basic idea, which is similar to other films - aren't they always(?) The trouble is the red herrings and misdirection. There's not enough or none at all. That goes for both the story and the directing. I'll be amazed if you've not figured out who the slasher is halfway through. It wouldn't have taken too much to strengthen the whodunnit part of the story as there are four suspects it could be. All Hillman had to do was cast suspicion on them all at different times. Doing this would pull the audience into the film more as they try to figure out who the killer was. But he didn't.

No, he had a different approach. Confuse the audience with the direction. He intersperses the dream sequences in a way you're unsure of the order of the dream and the murder - which came first? Making the film awkward and disjointed is never a good idea. Seldom few directors make this style work. Hillman is not one of the few. The harshness also tars the tempo, adding to the disarray. Apart from this substantial mishap, the rest of the filming is passable. In all truth, the dream sequences are respectable too; it's just their arrangement in the movie.

The cast is the shining light of this picture, which isn't saying too much. Generally, all the actors and actresses deliver decent performances. However, there are a couple of moments when the lead man gets too whacko. His joy is in overkill mode when he fantasises about the pool killing. The grin should have been chilling, but it was over-the-top ludicrous. Then there's the scene where he has a breakdown juncture. Instead of offering insight into the mind of a mentally disturbed man, it comes across more as a comedy moment, which isn't funny.

Double Exposure is a messy below-par Dark Thriller come Chiller that could have risen above averageness. I'd say it's worth a look-see if there's nowt else on the box. But, I wouldn't suggest buying it, let alone hunting it down.

Please feel free to visit my Killer Thriller Chiller list to see where I ranked Double Exposure.

Take Care & Stay Well.

A photographer in Los Angeles (Michael Callan) has troubling dreams as he juggles visits to a shrink (Seymour Cassel), dealing with his amputee brother (James Stacy) and establishing a new romantic relationship (Joanna Pettet). Meanwhile a serial killer is on the loose.

"Double Exposure" (1982) is a psychological murder mystery with some slasher elements. Think of movies like Shatner's "Impulse," "The Centerfold Girls" or "Haunts" mixed with a little "Nightmare" from the year prior. It's basically a quasi-remake of Callan's own "The Photographer" from eight years prior.

The quality cast is rounded out by the likes of Pamela Hensley, Cleavon Little, Robert Tessier and Don Potter with the female cast highlighted by Misty Rowe (Bambi), Debbie Zipp (Toni), Sally Kirkland and Victoria Jackson (her cinematic debut in a bit part).

It runs 1 hour, 34 minutes, and was shot in the Los Angeles area, including Ventura Boulevard in Sherman Oaks and Tarzana, Burbank and Santa Monica Beach.

GRADE: B-

Michael Callan plays a smarmy photographer who seems, nonetheless, to be regarded as a perfect "catch" by any woman that runs across him; could this have anything to do with the fact that he also co-produced the film? He's a "hero" whom it's very difficult to empathize with, so the movie is in trouble right from the start. However, it's troubles don't end there. It has the production values of a TV-movie (check out that head made of clay or something, near the end), and the ending cheats in a way that I can't reveal, in case anyone wants to see the movie (highly unlikely). Let's just say that the killer knows more than we were let to know he knows. (*1/2)

I had to scan the credits of this movie for surnames beginning and/or ending in vowels because I'd swear it was an Italian giallo. All the signs are there: gratuitous violence and nudity, out-of-control cinematography, a completely ridiculous plot. Michael Callan is a photographer who has incredibly cinematic dreams where he murders his beautiful, half-naked models. When his beautiful, half-naked models start being murdered in real life, both the police and his psychiatrist (Seymour Cassel) begin to suspect that he is the killer. But is it him or is it his creepy brother who is missing both an arm and leg (but still gets to date former "Hee Haw" honey Misty Rowe and mud wrestle Playmate-to-be Kathy Shower)? If you've seen even one of these kind of movies, you already know the answer. Still if you love Italian giallos and 70's and 80's low-budget American exploitation flicks (a select group of people, I know) you'll be in drunken, late-night TV-watching heaven with this one.

A good old early eighties slasher film with a distinct giallo flavour to it, Double Exposure does what it sets out to do, but adds a little character to the proceedings too. Adrian Wilde is a photographer who suffers from bad dreams, especially those where he's killing the models who work with him. His brother, a stunt man whose career cost him an arm and a leg (literally), offers support but seems to be increasingly bitter and angry at the world. Wilde meets a girl called Misty, but his dreams and failing grip on reality threaten the relationship, and when the models start turning up dead in real life, Wilde reckons he's got a big problem on his hands.

The giallo side of things rears it's head as it become apparent that the true life killer is a photographer, but in the giallo style, just about every male character wields a camera at some point, from Wilde and his brother, the local barman, the psychiatrist and a gay colleague of Wilde's. Some of the killings seemingly take place in Wilde's dreams, and although the gore level is low the nasty level is quite high, especially when one model has her head forced into a bin bag that contains a snake.

So, is Wilde a nutter or is there some other utter nutter muttering in the background (with a camera shutter covered in butter)? I'll leave that up to you to find out, but I enjoyed this film, although I'm kind of getting fed up watching middle aged men getting it on with the chicks, like.