Two Shades of Blue

I thought this movie was awesome! Marlee Matlin has always been one of my favorite all-time actors. It seems as if the writer knew exactly how to create the perfect role for Ms. Matlin. While the directing sucks, and the photography is fair, the screenplay is brilliantly written. I saw this movie on Showtime and the story kept me involved. Rachel Hunter is a famous author who is framed for murder. To clear her name, she changes her identity and goes undercover as relay operator 060 for the hearing-impaired, where she becomes involved in a voyeuristic relationship between the District Attorney, (Ms. Matlin) whom she hopes to reach, and her mysterious lover (Mr. Roberts) who is the real murderer. The acting was good. It was fun watching Rachel Hunter as Susan Price. Gary Busey was pretty good too. But it is Ms. Matlin who fully realizes the role she plays. My favorite scene was the steamy three-way-phone-sex scene between Ms. Matlin, Mr. Roberts and Ms. Hunter. Who ever wrote this script is a genius. Personally, I think the film would have been much better in the hands of a director like Martin Scorsese, and with a bigger budget. But as an independent film, I give it a thumbs up. Definitely worth seeing for the novelty of its stars.

The only reason we had fun watching 'Two shades of blue', was because this film was objectively bad. I don't know where it went wrong, but it did. It's not the plot or the acting. They're all right. It is just that the sum doesn't work out.

Only rent this film if you want easy watching.

This film was made by a director who lacks the ability to bring any sense of realism to the screen. So if you approach it with high expectations of being entertained, you will be disappointed; and possibly upset. But don't forget, this mess has Rachel Hunter in it! She's not the greatest actress, but she's not bad. She is also gorgeous and almost six feet tall. And Marlee Matlin is there. She is compelling, and always worth watching. We have Gary Busey, leering menacingly; Eric Roberts, of evil profile and deed. And some hilarious over-acting by minor players. These people together make the film interesting for me. I love watching actors acting. Its a part of why I like films anyway. And if that isn't enough, there is the directors demented perception of reality. For instance, a police detective panics after wounding the murder suspect, and sprays two additional [large] magazines of ammunition around the room. We are treated to feather pillows being pulverized, lamps shattered and other silly things that a trained marksman can do with a gun. This same cop, mortally wounded, subsequently makes a clean shot on another suspect from almost fifty feet. And the director's attempt at "mystery" cause me to wonder if he ever did figure out the plot. There are a million little elements to watch the director miss or ignore. That's entertainment! I find such little films intriguing, if not entertaining in their original intent. But don't trust me completely. I'll watch anything with Rachel Hunter in it!

It's a bad movie but not the worst I've ever seen. But everything on it is obvious. After 30 min, I told my wife that the character of Gary Busey was not dead. I was right. But at the same time, they didn't say who was murdered there. Besides, as far as I know no other operator but Susan, took the calls between the D.A. and the character of Eric Roberts (in bad acting as usual). More, the detectives were dumb! They should watch a few episodes of Law & Order!!! Thinking better: it's not the worst movie I saw but it's one of them....

I recommend not to see this movie.

It is a complete nonsense.

Don't spend time in this film, even Jean Claude Van Damme has better films than this one.

A MUST TO AVOID.