Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA group of female friends in San Francisco investigate a serial killer targeting newlyweds.A group of female friends in San Francisco investigate a serial killer targeting newlyweds.A group of female friends in San Francisco investigate a serial killer targeting newlyweds.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
John Reardon
- David Brandt
- (as John Henry Reardon)
Avis à la une
One might actually enjoy '1ST TO DIE' as it probably makes good background chatter during a bout of house-cleaning or roof-repair.
Only half of the principal characters are well-played. Gil Bellows, Megan Gallagher and Mitch Pileggi deserve some applause for their efforts. However, the rest of the cast play their characters either over-the-top or with the enthusiasm of a grape. The scenes with Tracy Polan (shrill) and Carly Pope (tedious) are so awful as to be beyond any credibility - the worn-out dialog can only be blamed for so much. 'The Women's Murder Club' scenes are so poorly conceived, that the entire idea falls flat early on. And what can one say about Pam Grier?
The film is a full 160 minutes long, the last twenty encompassing every tiresome twist one has come to expect. A wonderful example of truly awful writing.
Only half of the principal characters are well-played. Gil Bellows, Megan Gallagher and Mitch Pileggi deserve some applause for their efforts. However, the rest of the cast play their characters either over-the-top or with the enthusiasm of a grape. The scenes with Tracy Polan (shrill) and Carly Pope (tedious) are so awful as to be beyond any credibility - the worn-out dialog can only be blamed for so much. 'The Women's Murder Club' scenes are so poorly conceived, that the entire idea falls flat early on. And what can one say about Pam Grier?
The film is a full 160 minutes long, the last twenty encompassing every tiresome twist one has come to expect. A wonderful example of truly awful writing.
I love the comments that I'm seeing on this board. I totally agree with most of the people here that 1st to Die was horrible. While it stayed pretty faithful to the book, it was still inexplicably horrible. I can't believe it was 3 hours long! I was so mad at the performances, I couldn't even watch half of it.
The book is spectacular like all of Patterson's novels but, like others have said... filmmakers have yet to make a decent adaptation of one of them... Mr Patterson, are you actually watching these movies? Aren't you mad at what hollywood is reducing them to? This movie was basically a sweeps ratings boost. You can't have it come out that fast and not think that. Sir, please ask these screenwriters... is it that hard to do this right???
The book is spectacular like all of Patterson's novels but, like others have said... filmmakers have yet to make a decent adaptation of one of them... Mr Patterson, are you actually watching these movies? Aren't you mad at what hollywood is reducing them to? This movie was basically a sweeps ratings boost. You can't have it come out that fast and not think that. Sir, please ask these screenwriters... is it that hard to do this right???
To me there's really only one thing a filmmaker/writer should never ever do. They can use all sorts of little cheats and suspend the laws of physics for stylistic effect as much as they want, but when they use those same cheats to resolve the main mystery of the plot, then that's just too stupid. To avoid giving too much detail I'll use a hypothetical example: Suppose you're watching a suspense film and the heroine is up against the wall with killers all around her. They're armed, she isn't. She has no help and no way out, and the situation has been tensely evolving to this point for two hours. Then she just magically turns invisible and flies away with no explanation for how, when, or why she suddenly developed the ability to fly and turn invisible. The end. Good film? No. A terrible cheat. And 1st To Die is just that way. The plot's mystery is resolved by a sudden revelation that someone can do something that's impossible. Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
Any idiot can write a good mystery if you don't have to explain how it worked within the laws of physics. Imagine the old "locked room mystery" where the victim has been killed in a room that has been locked from the inside, so how did the killer do it? If the answer is that the killer suddenly developed the ability to pass through brick walls without disturbing them, then it's not a very good mystery, is it?
Any idiot can write a good mystery if you don't have to explain how it worked within the laws of physics. Imagine the old "locked room mystery" where the victim has been killed in a room that has been locked from the inside, so how did the killer do it? If the answer is that the killer suddenly developed the ability to pass through brick walls without disturbing them, then it's not a very good mystery, is it?
Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.
Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.
Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category.
Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.
Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category.
My wife wanted me to get this off Netflix on a recommendation.
Immediately I had a feeling it had been a TV movie. This must have been a very tedious experience watching this weak movie with commercials! Plus it was rate R for some reason. Why if it was on network TV?
Only Robert Patrick does a reasonable job as the villain. Even the reliable Pam Grier couldn't bring much to her role as the coroner. Tracy Pollan is really a subpar actress. Only the slight plot twists made this any small reason to waste 2 and half hours viewing this. Mitch Pileggi was very credible and Gil Bellows very disappointing. Don't was any time on this movie. There are so many other good movies to rent or purchase.
Immediately I had a feeling it had been a TV movie. This must have been a very tedious experience watching this weak movie with commercials! Plus it was rate R for some reason. Why if it was on network TV?
Only Robert Patrick does a reasonable job as the villain. Even the reliable Pam Grier couldn't bring much to her role as the coroner. Tracy Pollan is really a subpar actress. Only the slight plot twists made this any small reason to waste 2 and half hours viewing this. Mitch Pileggi was very credible and Gil Bellows very disappointing. Don't was any time on this movie. There are so many other good movies to rent or purchase.
Le saviez-vous
- GaffesWhen Nicholas Jenks escapes from the Department of Corrections car, he kicks out the rear window in order to get out. When the police are at the crash scene, the window is back in place.
- ConnexionsReferences Le fugitif (1963)
- Bandes originalesTell Me That You Love Me Tonight
Written by Joe Lervold , Larry Batiste & Dennis Wadlington
Courtesy of Master Source
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Durée
- 3h(180 min)
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.33 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant