Mystère au Grand Nord

This workmanlike adaptation of a Nora Roberts novel doesn't have much to recommend it, unless you're a sucker for cosy mystery yarns. There's the usual amalgamation of tragedy, skeletons in the closet, romance, obsession and a murderer and nothing much new to get excited about. I liked the snowy backdrop to the action but didn't care much for the square-jawed simpleton hero, Eddie Cibrian, and his cold-as-ice love interest Leann Rimes. Ironically, the two actors fell in love while filming, but they have zero chemistry on screen.

Rosanna Arquette appears, but is unrecognisable from earlier in her career, having gone under the knife. I'm not a guy who can usually spot the identity of the murderer in these sorts of films, but he was glaringly obvious here, even to me, right from the very beginning, so it was a chore to keep watching.

The surprising thing about this movie is the quality of the cast and the acting within. I was mostly surprised by Leann Rimes who can hold her own in the female lead here and fits in well. I've heard her superb vocal ability and never knew she has thespian talents also, based on this film I would quite happily watch anything else she's done.

The only cringeworthy scene was when Meg Galligan (Leeann Rimes) tells her mother Charlene (Rosanna Arquette) that her father, Charlene's true love, is dead. Arquette goes way over the top at this news and totally wrecks the scene; though to be fair, Mike Robe who directed should've stepped in to give her some better direction and tone down the theatrics a little - sometimes less can be better.

That said, the rest of the film is very well acted by all, though I have to say Jayne Eastwood who portrays Mayor Hopp is on top form. I first saw her in Haven as the no-nonsense coroner, and she has the same kind of believable tenacity in this role also, a joy to watch as she brought a smile to my face.

Robe does a decent job of keeping the mystery and suspense rolling as the story of the new Chief Of Police Nate Burns (Eddie Cibrian) in Lunacy, Alaska finds he has a fifteen-year-old murder case to solve; worse yet, the murder victim is his love interests, father; worst still, it seems that most of Lunacy could be the potential killer. You're never too sure as the viewer as not many clues are given, in fact, you have to be pretty observant and quick-sighted to spot and remember a certain scene to work out the killer's identity before the Chief of Police. The resolve of the story is quick, it may have been better to slow this section down and create a little more tension.

Not having read the Nora Roberts novel I cannot say how well it's been adapted, though in its own right Janet Brownell the Teleplay writer does give the audience one hell of a story filled with believable and interesting characters.

If you like murder mysteries then you should like this one, it is definitely a curl-up with your loved one on a Sunday afternoon movie, while the world passes by outside. Worth at least one viewing.

Someone should tell LeAnn Rimes that simply reading the lines with a bitchy attitude doesn't make you an actress. I was never a huge fan of Meg in the novel, but Rimes managed to suck what I did like right from the character.

I understand that an adaptation has to change things in the screen version, but is it necessary to strip all the good stuff? I made it through the first half hour of this mess and I had to turn it off. A complete disappointment with none of the atmosphere that sucked me in while reading the book. Eddie Cibrian was fine as Nate, but I missed the setup to the story that had been done in the novel -- with Nate settling in as sheriff that really made the book for me. It was a murder mystery sure, but there were more to it in the book and I missed that in this adaptation.

This is just like the 2007 collection that aired -- I could only get myself through one of out of the four movies more than once. They keep taking Nora Roberts and pairing her wonderful novels to barely anything at all. Why does a mediocre guy like Nicholas Sparks get all of his novels on the big screen and Nora gets no special treatment beyond stunt casting?

That's a quote from after Nate was watching a movie, but it pretty much applies to this film.

The story is passable for a mystery and romance.

The acting, however is bad. It is stiff and lacks feeling. There is no real chemistry between Nate and Meg. LeAnn Rimes just never seems sincere in any of her lines. There was very little humor, although I did like the scene with Nate talking to the dog and him talking back. I think the directing had a lot to do with all of that and the climatic scene was very badly staged.

If you can stand lifeless acting, the story might be enough to make this movie worth watching.

"They keep taking Nora Roberts and pairing her wonderful novels to barely anything at all. Why does a mediocre guy like Nicholas Sparks get all of his novels on the big screen and Nora gets no special treatment beyond stunt casting?"

I agree with this sentiment 100%.

I read a lot, always have. I've never been a big romance or mystery lover but the first time i picked up a Nora Roberts novel I absolutely loved it and have read every book of hers I could find overseas since. I especially like her titles under her J.D. Rob pseudonym. The In Death line of books are fantastic! I just wish they could take such wonderful work.. and make a movie of at least near equal quality.