Sexe, crimes et pouvoir

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.

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.

Oh my. Imagine a Texan detective with a New Zealand accent trying to sound southern. And at that, Rachel Hunter is the high point of the movie. She looks right for the part - an accomplished and tough grown up woman who works as a cop, not a starlet. Still she soldiers her way through some of the worst writing that I've ever heard. She TWICE tells suspects - 'If I have any further questions, I'll be sure and feel free to call you." Ouch... Other than that the potential for noir is lost in the sunny settings,and a Texas without Hispanics - anywhere or ever - just doesn't seem right. So if you want to see amovie in the worst way...

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.

Rachel Hunter makes this predictable murder "mystery" watchable. We have a law school professor murdered in home as well as several prostitutes mutilated. Are the crimes connected?

This would make a good USA or TNT film so I wouldn't recommend renting it but you might want to tape it when and if it hits one of the premium channels.