A Thief of Time

Being a big fan of this PBS series, I am shocked at how awful this "episode" actually is. The direction is pedestrian, the supporting cast is TERRIBLE, and our favorite characters are extremely uninteresting. As others have stated, I do believe this third film actually takes place BEFORE the second in the Hillerman series on PBS.

Perhaps it is Hillerman's original material, I don't know, but this latest edition could possibly kill future Leaphorn/Chee adaptations. The previous "Coyote Waits" is far, far superior. Frankly, I am shocked by how much I hated this film. It is totally off-the-mark in every way. Even it's one-sided portrayal of Christianity is offensive. (And, yes, it IS biased.)

I hope they film more in the series, because this would be a terrible conclusion.

The movie was a waste of time and a waste of great actors. I love Adam, Wes and the other actors. Tony is lying restless in his grave. I has a weird sense of continuity. The editing was mediocre. If you read Tony and saw other video presentations you would understand the continuity.

The action was episodic and there was no narrative thread to tie the episodes together and move the story forward. The plot plods along. With few exceptions (e.g., Graham Greene) the acting was uninspired, and pedestrian at best. The actors seemed to have something on their minds, other than the scene they were in. It is boring to observe a man driving a car through the semi- desert country of this movie's setting, whether he drives poorly or well. Such scenes are typical of the level of tension in the video. So there was nothing about this video to engage or draw the observer in, to make him or her care about the characters and the out comes. I am doubly disappointed because I rented this movie based on the reputations of the executive producer (Redford) and the writer of the novel on which it was based (Hillerman). I note that the jewel box reports that funding is provided by PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as Carlton International. I would hope that this video was as disappointing to them as it was to me and my wife, to the point that they will not fund any more disasters coming from the same source.

I like Wes Studi & especially Adam Beach, but whoa is this movie a load of pretentiousness. Ponderously slow. Overly cryptic to the point of obfuscation, not because the plot warrants it but because there is almost no plot. Even less in the way of characterization. This is almost like one of those creaky old Charlie Chan mysteries (the cheaper Monogram studio versions) with lots of red herrings & oddball characters (like the old ex-senator with the checkered past who is now a recluse) & loads of people getting killed over objets d'art that you wouldn't look twice at in the mall. Great scenery, though. Pretty hair on the redhead, too, although I never did figure out what she was doing in this at all. Neither could my wife. Sheesh, at least the old B-movies had the decency to be short.

There is NO Esperanto in this movie

I watched this movie specifically because IMDb lists Esperanto as one of the languages used. But IMDb is mistaken about the languages used in this film. There is absolutely no Esperanto at all. It's almost all English with a couple of words of Navajo. Do not watch this film if you're looking for Esperanto movies. Other options instead are "Idiot's Delight" (with Clark Gable) which has a bit of Esperanto, "Incubus" is all Esperanto (although completely mispronounced), and there are some Esperanto street signs in Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator." There was supposed to be some spoken Esperanto in "Gattaca" as well, but I never heard any.

Aside from that, the other reviewer is right. This movie is a complete mess.

Spend your time elsewhere.