Double Exposure

Double Exposure (1983)

** 1/2 (out of 4)

Adrian Wilde (Michael Callan) is a photographer who is seeing a shrink because he's having very bad nightmares about murdering the women he takes photos of. He tries to strike up a relationship with Mindy (Joanna Pettet) but before long he begins to fear that his dreams are real.

DOUBLE EXPOSURE isn't the most successful film that you're going to watch but there are enough good moments in it to make it worth watching. The best way to describe the film is saying it's a cross between the type of thriller that Brian DePalma would make but with the sleaze factor of a slasher. The two go well together and we get some nice performance that help make the film a bit better than it probably deserves to be.

As far as the mystery goes, for the most part we're given some suspects and we're made to wait until the very end for the killer to be revealed. I thought the mystery aspect worked quite well, although there are some rather silly moments involving a couple cops working the case. The two of them pretty much just show up every so often whenever the film needs to remind the viewer that the murders are being investigated. What really helps the film is the fact that Callan is so good in the lead role of the troubled man who thinks he might be more damaged that he originally thought. Pettet and James Stacy both add nice support.

The film works as a slasher and especially during the scenes where we see the killer talking various women including prostitutes. There's a nice sequence where we see a hooker lure the killer down an alleyway. Director William Bryan Hillman makes the film look quite good but a little more energy and a bit more suspense certainly would have helped things. As it stands, DOUBLE EXPOSURE certainly isn't a masterpiece but it's a mildly entertaining film.

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-

A photographer Adrian Wilde (Michael Callan) doesn't know of he is dreaming or awake when people are being killed while he is taking pictures. In the meanwhile he's the 'stud' of them all and all the ladies are falling for him. But in the town girls, some he photographed, are actually being murdered. Of course the question Adrian asks is if he's the killer.

More a thriller then a horror this is rather low on the killings. The first whore being killed looked a bit tame. There's a bit of nudity here and there and even some full frontal but I was never in full force with this flick. I just couldn't care what happened, the killings I did care but Adrian himself I just couldn't care.

The biggest name here is Seymour Cassel as Dr. Frank Curtis. For a slasher made in the heydays of horror and slashers this is extremely low on all aspects to be called a horror. It has more a television film look. Still unavailable on DVD or Blu Ray, only on VHS.

It's only the fact that Adrian is a playboy that makes this a failure. All girls want him and that makes it a bit unbelievable. Almost no blood or gore to see in a period when the red stuff and gore were the big thing.

Gore 0/5 Nudity 1,5/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5

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 keeps having bad dreams where he has visions of him murdering many of his models. His amputee stuntman brother tries his best to keep his head afloat as the photographer starts a relationship with the woman of his dreams. Is the photographer really the killer? And will he make his new girlfriend his latest victim?

Double Exposure is a wonky and uncomfortable mix of drama, police procedural, and slasher/giallo cliches. It wants to be a character driven psychodrama, but it's never quite deep enough. It doesn't succeed much as a slasher either due to the poorly paced suspense/attack scenes that tend to end on more of a whimper than a bang. To make matters worse, the final twist is telegraphed from a mile away and triggers more eye rolls than gasps.

That said, Double Exposure looks like about 50 million bucks. There's clearly a ton of talent involved in this film and every shot looks like something from a film that's got a ton of money behind it. When all else fails, just turn off the sound and enjoy how the film looks.