Deuces

I found this movie Deuces also known as Duplicate, very poorly acted and no flow. The lighting was minimal and character development very weak. I searched your database and found the main actress, Tiffany Paige, in two movies. Deuces once the only one that matched the theme for Duplicate.

First of all, it's hard to define in which genre (horror, sci-fi, thriller?) we could insert 'Deuces', because the movie worked all the time with some elements of all these kind of movies but with an absolute incompetence. The story of a woman who suddenly discover that she has a double, a twin 'persona', living by her side and doing odd things - including violent acts and even murder - is not a novelty. In fact, you must remember 'Doppelganger', with Drew Barrymore, another bad movie with the same theme. And that is all the story here, punctuated with some not gripping moments of shooting, cold blood murders and eerie scenes, especially the scenes taken at the Mansfield theater, the place where the doubles seems to appear after twenty years of interval. It's very difficult to be awaken during the movie, because you'll find that the problem here is not just a problem that affects the lady in distress, the journalist Karen Adams (played with a wood faced performance by Tiffany Paige. The movie tells us a story about an evil double creature with double boring style. A complete waste of time.

I just want to set everyone straight here. This movie was written and directed by a good friend of mine and i was on set several times during the course of the shoot. By no means was any part of the budget devoted to the "cover" of the movie box. My friend Michael wrote the screenplay, produced and directed it himself. So any insinuation that the production couldn't "afford" a decent script is ludicrous. The whole movie started with the script already finished. Let me also mention that the cover art does in fact have nothing to do with the film and Michael Winnick had no part in this movie's retail. He was not even aware that it was released in any format whatsoever. The production company has the rights to use and repackage the film as they see fit and it was they who apparently played some kind of consumer game on you. No one creatively involved in the production was involved with its retailing.

Anyway, I like the movie. The hotel clerk is especially crappy, but the phone company guy was hilarious. It's kind of like an X-Files episode but without Scully and Mulder (i.e. the last 5 seasons of the show). Anyway don't miss the Special Edition with all new special effects that Michael is re-releasing in theaters next year. Because now an entire generation has grow up not knowing what the hell this movie is.

If you look at it as, a regular guy had a couple thousand bucks and wanted to produce his own TV-movie-type science-fiction thriller, then it's not a total waste.

In fact, I'll agree with others that it all began with a decent premise. But it quickly went downhill from there.

Don't waste your time with this one. The acting is below average, the script is below average, the plot is below average, the directing and execution are below average, even the sound quality is below average. Like others, I was fooled by the cover...

Incidentally, virtually nothing happens during the entire first half of the movie. Yes, folks, it's that bad.

I want to be sympathetic, but honestly I'm stretching to give it a 3 out of 10. It's one of the most unwatchable movies I've ever seen. Sorry.

The problem with this film, it seems to me, is the story. An earlier poster mentioned genre problems, and I think he or she hit the nail right on the head. If you're going to do science fiction (or horror, or mystery, or western, or what have you), you need to know something about the genre. Lip service needs to be paid to the hows and whys. Fantasy doesn't have to be realistic, exactly, but if things work differently in the film world from how they work in our world, we need some kind of explanation. Omitting details like this--at least lip service to them--is dangerous and sloppy.

That said, there's a lot to like in this film. The public location work is good, and the camera work is generally unobtrusive but occasionally impressive. The dialogue is quite good, suggesting that the director/writer has some skill in this area (I'd recommend help with the story itself in future projects though). Some of the acting was very good.

Budgetwise, the producers did a lot with a little, and the next effort might be a breakthrough. This one isn't it, and unfortunately it's the story that gets in the way ... and that's the one thing that's got to be there.