Le tueur des nuits de noces

I love the comments that I'm seeing on this board. I totally agree with most of the people here that 1st to Die was horrible. While it stayed pretty faithful to the book, it was still inexplicably horrible. I can't believe it was 3 hours long! I was so mad at the performances, I couldn't even watch half of it.

The book is spectacular like all of Patterson's novels but, like others have said... filmmakers have yet to make a decent adaptation of one of them... Mr Patterson, are you actually watching these movies? Aren't you mad at what hollywood is reducing them to? This movie was basically a sweeps ratings boost. You can't have it come out that fast and not think that. Sir, please ask these screenwriters... is it that hard to do this right???

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.

An okay thriller. Not great. Not good, really, just okay. Based on the cheesily provocative novel by James Patterson, this three-hour movie event brought to you by the peacock network is about a women's coffee-klatsch trying to bust a serial killer who preys on newlyweds. This klatsch includes a very competent Tracy Pollan (L & O; SVU), the great Pam Grier (Jackie Brown), perky and pretty Carly Pope (Orange County) and veteran TV HITG Megan Gallagher (Hill Street Blues, Larry Sanders, and everything in between). Their chief suspect is a highly desirable undesirable named Nicholas Jenks (Robert Patrick of X-Files). Some of the good things about this movie: Carly Pope's imitation of a skank, Mitch Pileggi (X-Files) showing off his leg (Grazie!), Eddie, the flower delivery boy, the saucy vintner ("His restaurants are terrible!"), the Cleveland wedding spectacle, Pam Grier and, yes, Robert Patrick. I wish the movie could have just been Robert Patrick and Pam Grier. Here's an idea for a series: he's a crook in L.A. who's been flipped by the Feds, she's a no-nonsense Fibbie assigned to be his handler as he skulks the underbelly of the City of Angels, snitching... Ah, where was I? Right. The bad things about this movie: the romance between Gil Bellows (The Agency) and Pollan, the "You go, girl!" attitude of the Murder Club, Pileggi's mustache, Patrick's earring, the plot, the ending, the cheesy CSI effects and Gil Bellows. O, Gil! You were so fine in Love and a 45 and now DEK's gone and crushed your finesse under his well-manicured thumb. Damn you, DEK! Damn you to hell! Ahem. Michael O'Hara (Murder in the Heartland) does a fair job adapting a poor novel into something somewhat entertaining and wisely changes the ending. It's not the ending I would have wanted but it was a hell of a lot better than Patterson's original idea. Russell Mulcahy, meanwhile, is wise to return to his beloved genre of Scots & SciFi (The Highlander: The Source) after this so-so effort. Not even Sean Young's violent death or Angie Everhart's breasts could save this movie from mediocrity. Now, about that series...

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.

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?