Omicidio allo specchio

The critics for this movie in the local newspaper and also on IMDB said this movie is a give away thriller. I totally disagree. It may be true that it takes too much time before we are confronted with the new personage Steenburgen has to play, but overall this is a nice Mousetrap. The actors are very well casted on I was sometimes surprised with the plot twists. Music helps keeping up an eerie atmosphere. Don't watch this movie if you're alone at night

Enjoyed the 1945 film, "My Name is Julie Ross", 1945 starring Nina Foch, which was a great thrilling film for 1945. However, this 1987 remake held my interest from beginning to the very end. It was full of horror, thrills and plenty of chills in a very winter time of year with plenty of snow and howling winds and a creepy old home. Mary Steenburgen, (Julie Ross) plays the role of a struggling actress and tries out for an audition and secures the acting position and is required to stay in the producers home. Roddy McDowell, (Mr. Murray) guides Julie Ross into a large spider web of murder, torture and secret panels in the walls and plenty of blood. Jan Rubes, (Dr. Joseph Lewis) plays the so called doctor and producer who simply adores Julie Ross and simply does not want her to leave and go home to her husband. Mary Steenburgen gave an outstanding performance along with the great former actor, Roddy McDowell. Enjoy

This Arthur Penn-directed remake of My Name Is Julia Ross represents yet another attempt to revive an old Hollywood formula, in this case the lady-in-distress thriller. There are of course some new, kinky wrinkles in this film, which has some grisly moments. For the most part the movie worked well for me. Mary Steenburgen makes an attractive and sympathetic heroine as a woman trapped in a snowbound mansion by two very strange men. There are some shocks along the way but in the end the movie is fairly conventional, a technical exercise, if you will, featuring some good, offbeat performances. The movie, in other words, delivers the goods, and is unashamedly old wine in a new bottle. It's no classic, but if its genre appeals to you, it's reasonably effective in its quiet way.

In terms of camera work, lighting, pace and direction in general, this is a fine piece of film-making. Penn knows all the bells and whistles as usual and Mary Steenburgen is quite amazing in her roles. I'm put off as I am so often by the many critics who look to film for verisimilitude (the "if it couldn't or wouldn't ordinarily happen in real life" brigade) that sets us so far behind our European counterparts. The film has a remarkable sense of entrapment and claustrophobia in the dead of winter in the middle of nowhere. As far as whether the events really could happen like that, I suppose I was more interested in the style, craftsmanship and general concept than of probabilities or even possibilities. The camera work and rhythm at the end of the film are magnificent. As for the "damsel in distress" nonsense, how many thousands of movies fall into that genre anyway? Are they all uniformly bad because they use a successful formula? This is the kind of movie where it's fun to sit back and enjoy the fireworks without bothering about split infinitives and the like.

Curtis Stotlar

Even for 1987, "Dead Of Winter" still comes across as surprisingly old-fashioned. In fact, it reminded me a lot of those early 1970s made-for-TV movie thrillers. Those who enjoy such movies will find this seeming tribute nicely nostalgic.

However, unlike those made-for-TV movies of that era, DOW does not run a lean 75 minutes or so. It runs 100 minutes, and in this case less definitely would have been more - the movie clearly could have been tightened somewhat. However, there are hints that the rough unedited cut possibly had the answers to some glaring holes in the plot (like: Why does our heroine go outside at one point to hike for a long distance WITHOUT PUTTING ON A COAT?) There are also a few other instances where she could have saved herself from her predicament had she just used some common sense.

By the way, if anyone knows why this movie was rated "R", I'd appreciate hearing the explanation. Everything in the movie - even the blood and language - is pretty tastefully presented, and doesn't seem to deserve even a PG-13 rating.