Sexe, crimes et pouvoir

It is amazing how Hollywood keeps pushing the envelope on making unwatchable movies. Every time I think I've come to a new low in film making, something comes along and proves me wrong. That is the case with this movie. As many have mentioned the writting is truly bad. Couple that with less than believable performances from the cast, and we are left with a movie without a leg to stand on. The lead in the movie , who I've not seen before, seemed out of place with her poorly done "American" accent. I later found that she was from New Zealand which could be an excuse. However, I don't feel there is an excuse for poor acting. There are many English or foreign actors that can pull off the "American" accent without problem, she is certainly not one of them. To compound all these factors, they were attempting to make a film noir type movie. Something that was so poorly done, it's almost not noticeable. Later in an attempt to save the movie they add some purportless nudity. At this point I think they should have just gone ahead and made it into a porn flick, as the writting was about that level. I give this movie 1 star out of ten.....only because I can't give it a lower rating on this system.

There is very little good to say about this movie and I will not try to. Lots of bad camera-work, bad acting, bad script, and bad ideas all combine to make this into a truly awful flick.

I'm not sure who said that masses of ankle-shots were a good idea, and unless there are a group of sock-fetishists out there who have a penchant for bad lighting and jumpy camera work, this movie has NO validation whatsoever.

In a Just world, the makers of this garbage would be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act for calling this a "Movie", and I really feel that my time would have been better spent in a coma.

Apparently there was a plot to this, but it was completely unfathomable, so good luck finding it.

The pendulum swung right off the watchable chart. It is not that it was that awful but there was more nudity than necessary, and it finished with a questionable ending showing once again that Hollywood has forgotten what makes a good movie.

Also, once again, the Christian faith has been assaulted by the leftists in Hollywood. A woman, wearing a cross very visibly around her neck, is requested to do unsavory acts on a man. Why have a cross if not to insult the Christians that Hollywood seems to hate? Why not the Star of David? Why not a Muslim crescent symbol? Because Hollywood is anti-Christian, and every chance the leftists have a chance, they will denigrate Christians.

The first howler in this is the notion that Texas hosts the 'finest law school in the south,' as if it were possible - and if would matter if it was. Of course, once we are introduced to a DA running for Congress, we know who the villain is. Having made that scriptwriting error, we wait to see whether the author will redeem himself with suitable twists along the way. And he nearly satisfies. There is a rather interesting red herring in an old case of 'justified' homicide which is cleverly introduced. There are the double red herrings of two fishy lesbians, obviously engineered for prurient seasoning and to reference Eszterhas's 'Instinct.' There is an unexploited narrative fold: we see the murder through a witness's eye and then see the detection through a detective's eye.

It comes pretty close to being acceptable storywise. All the acting and directing is much worse except for one example, a woman with the mellifluous name of Scarlett McAlister, who has the appearance of a young Nichole Kidman. If this were an intelligent film, say a Lynch project, her role as double narrator and provider (as librarian) of the backstory would have been a fine opportunity for folded acting. The director is oblivious of course, but either she or her acting coach knew - and you can tell she tried this difficult approach. She's on my list to look out for.

Though the murderer is easy to spot, the meaning of the title is not. I suppose it refers to the exhusband, who (we assume) swings both ways.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Pendulum is a murder mystery, or rather two murder mysteries. Rachel Hunter plays a detective originally assigned to investigate the brutal murders of several street prostitutes, then reassigned to investigate the murder of a prominent law school professor.

Hunter's character is not exactly "Colombo," and there are several red herrings along the way. The film is set in a milieu of prostitution, lies, kinky sex, corruption, violence, etc., which is why I consider it a "film noir."

This movie isn't a classic, but it keeps you interested. If you enjoyed "Presumed Innocent" you'll enjoy this one.