1st to Die

Okay, so I thought this movie would be interesting despite that it was made for TV. But, my God I have not seen a worse movie! The fact that it was entirely predictable throughout the entire thing made it much worse. I thought I was going to watch a movie that had plot twisters. Wrong again.

Another thing was the horrible acting! Now, I am a huge fan of Robert Patrick because of his work in the Terminator and the X-Files. But his performance greatly disappointed me. Along with another X-Files mate of his, Mitch Pileggi, who didn't do much better. Tracy Pollan definitely can pull of the not so ditzy but nevertheless dumb blonde.

I was glad when the disgustingly abrupt ending came, the final words being from one of the "girls".

"It must have been terrible." Yeah, it was terrible. Let me give you some advice. Don't waste 3 hours on this movie. It's not worth 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.

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?

I read the book 1st to Die a few months ago and I really enjoyed it. When I heard a movie was being made about the book I wasn't quite sure what to think, usually movies are totally different from the book. I have to admit 1st to Die was pretty much like the book. Of course there were a few changes made but basically the movie tends to stick closely to the book. The movie was good. If you're a Patterson fan I recommend it and even if you're not. It's a good thriller.

...he has to be a better writer than this movie portrayed.

The actors and actresses were excellent. Especially noteworthy, as has already been mentioned, were Tracy Pollen and Robert Patrick.

But...by the time I got to the end of this movie, I was totally confused. Who did what/why/when/how?? I got what the final motive was supposed to be, but that was about all.

And could someone explain to me the meaning of the Russian roulette scene?

I guess I need to get one of Patterson's books to read before I sit through another Patterson adaptation. Usually seeing a good made-for-TV movie makes me want to go buy the writer's work for enjoyment. In this case, I feel the need to go read this book so I can understand what I just spent the last 2+ hours watching. I'm not so much intrigued as annoyed.

Five stars out of ten for casting. Nothing for storyline. What I got most from this movie was a frustrating headache...