Murder in Mind

A good cast... A good idea but turns out it is flawed as hypnosis is not allowed as evidence in courts. So many good actors and they are all acting so badly! So why did they all get attracted to this mess... And yes it has its good points such as lighting etc... But ultimately I wondered two things.... How could so much talent lead to such a bizarre mess? What is that accent that Nigel Hawthorne is putting on? He is/was a great actor and so what is that accent all about? It is impossible to identify? What was he trying to do? Maybe it is his subtle indication as if to say to us: 'I've got involved with a turkey so here's a crap accent to go with it!'

If this film is an accurate display of J. Smits acting skills, I think he made a big mistake leaving television. Hasn't he watched any films "starring" David Caruso, especially "Cold Around the Heart"? Along the lines of acting ability, what about Mary-Louise, she has done much, much better. Yes, it is a terrible script, ineptly edited, and totally lacking in continuity, but skilled actors can and have overcome similar obstacles. A very big disappointment.

Someone should teach the people who made this movie that there is a difference between "presenting multiple twists" and "screwing the audience over". They even use hypnosis as a tool to cover up the plot holes; whenever they can't find their way into or out of a scene, they just say "she is regressing to her past now" or "she's snapping out of it now", and they think that explains everything. This movie is a dishonest cheat and in the last 20 minutes becomes a full-blown fiasco. (*1/2)

Confused murder suspect cannot remember if she murdered her rich husband.

Against the better judgment of hard-bitten "throw the book at her and save tax-payers' money" type police department, smooth psychologist/hypnotist (Nigel Hawthorne) helps her to relive the night of the murder by means of regression into her past.

However, as she relives life with her husband she begins to notice that lots of details don't quite match her memories. What really happened?

This is NOT a fantastic film, I wouldn't pay money to see it in a cinema, for example. The depiction of hypnosis is bizarre enough to initially seem quite funny.

Once you get over that rather shaky plot device though, the various layers of reality brought up by the hypnosis are quite interesting in a "what is reality?" way. It reminded me the teensiest little bit of "Memento" and even though it was late at night I ignored the film's more pretentious angles and sat through the entire thing. Mainly to see why the memory discrepancies occurred and so on.

The lighting and photography are also quite nice.

The plot of this movie is as dumb as a bag of hair. Jimmy Smit plays a character that could have been upset by the ridiculousness of the story. He is evil and a wife beater. It's a character as far from his NYPD and LA Law roles as you could possibly get.

If you've thought he had the looks and the acting chops to play the really bad boy role, her's your present.

But!!!!!!!! Mary Louis Parker wears black miniskirts and little black minidresses throughout the movie.

She has always had some of the greatest legs in the history of the movies. This makes the movie well worth it for this leg admirer.

I'd buy the DVD for this reason only if it was available.