The Art of Murder

This is awesomely bad and awesomely embarassing for a Canadian. We grow good wine. Our writers and poets are among the world's best. The National Ballet is rated among the top five companies in the world. BUT WE MAKE BLOODY AWFUL MOVIES! This one isn't especially bad. It's especially typical and typically bad, shot in two bit hotels and public parks with thin direction, high school level acting and "gee whiz...lets see what this button on the camera does??" photography. If Michael Moriarity was so intent on doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation, couldn't he at least have done a GOOD Jack Nicholson impersonation? And if the movie was shot in Vancouver, truly one of the loveliest cities on earth and also a centre of yacht building (part of the "plot") why in God's name do we let that endemic Canadian inferiority complex dictate that it be disguised as Seattle??? Not only am I mad about this film, I'm embarassed and more than a little ashamed. The Australians turn out some splendid stuff. We produce pretentious second rate piffle. Gawd!!!!!

A decent script with innovative (and believable) plot twists can be found if one dusts away the substandard acting and directing. Sadly, Moriarty appears to be barely able to stand during most scenes. The once beautiful Pakula is too old to play this role, and exhibits the enthusiasm of a beaten mule. Peter Onorati is pedestrian as a villain who should be played as a maniac. Interesting the wish list for casting in this was: Gene Hackman (in Moriarty's role) Alec Baldwin (as Tony) Rachel Ward in Pakula's role, and Willem Dafoe in Onorati's role. (script was written in mid -eighties) The original setting was Charleston, South Carolina, with the principles members of the southern aristocracy.

This was a truly bad film. The character "Cole" played by Michael Moriarty was the biggest reason this flopped, the actor felt that conjuring up an unbelievably awkward southern drawl would make this character more evil, it didn't. After about 20 minutes I had wished for a speech therapist to make an appearance, this would have added some sincerity.

• 1) badly acted - 2) unsympathetic characters - 3) razor thin plot line

Yuck!

I saw this movie for the first time this week. I was sadly disappointed. It was the worst I think I've seen in a long time. Poor acting, some of which just didn't get off the ground. Boyd Kestner's character just didn't click. And the nudity scenes could have been deleted because they really didn't add much to the movie.

This movie had potential but it just never gets off the ground. The actors/actresses come across as bored with the script and this results in just a bad movie that is not worth watching. I like Boyd Kestner and seeing his name on the cast was what attracted me to watching the movie. The movie just doesn't work. The nude scenes were unneccessary and could have been deleted completely without losing zilch from an already bad picture.