Exposure

NUMBER ONE: The evil twin.

Now an evil twin is bad in any circumstance. For example, when we think that the deformed evil twin was killed at birth, and it turned out that he lived. Or when the doctors thought they killed the evil twin, but they actually killed the good one. Or any possible crcumstances where the one that we think is the evil twin is actually the good one. Or people that just look enough alike that they can pretend to be twins and change lives.

The mystique of the evil twin, in some of its many permutations, is as old as literature itself. In Homer, the Gods were always taking the form of humans in order to effect their manipulations. In folktales, evil spirits would disguise themselves as familiar humans or even familiar pets. (Some day, I'm going to use the evil twin puppy!) Even some of the greatest literary masters have fallen prey to the temptation. Two thoughts: A Tale of Two Cities, and The Prince and The Pauper. And there you're talking about the most renowned English author of the 19th century, and his American counterpart. Of course, in Dickens' case, the ol' identical strangers trick was more plausible than his usual plots. But I digress.

At any rate, this mystery movie uses the worst possible permutation - the murderous twin who is completely unknown until the very last minute, and is then used to explain all the inexplicable plot points. Oh, no. The gemini ex machina. The split personality, except in two bodies. The great thing about this is that no matter how hard you tried to follow the script, you couldn't possibly solve the crime along with the protagonists, because you didn't know about the existence of the twin. In fact, and this is another great twist, the twins were orphans separated at birth, and didn't know of each other, so even the good twin could not have solved the crime. Of course, this would have been difficult anyway, since her death was the crime.

By the way, add three points to your own script if the evil twin has an eyepatch.

Add five points if the eyepatch prevents people from telling they are twins, ala Clark Kent and Superman

Yup, I just had a flash of the perfect movie. Damn, I have to start writing it. Don't steal my ideas.

We have twin vampires, but one of them wears an eyepatch, so people don't know that they are twins. (Except their dentist, and he's bound by patient-dentist confidentiality.) Or maybe they should be twin antichrists. I can't decide whether I like vampire movies more than antichrist movies. One of them is a good twin vampire, torn apart inside by his need for blood. The other one is an evil twin vampire. He likes killing.

He will only kill beautiful young naked women with big racks, like Laeititia Casta and Jennifer Love Hewitt and Kirsten Dunst and Katie Holmes. And even though he's a vampire, he likes plenty of bright light, so we can clearly see them all naked .

Both vampires will be played by Eric Roberts. It will be shot entirely with a hand-held camera, and the entire movie will be told through narration - no dialogue at all.

Except for the songs.

"I gotta wash that blood right out of my cloak".

I wonder what Lars von Trier is doing next year. Anyone know his number?

NUMBER TWO: The impossible contradiction, never explained.

In this film, the photographer thought the boyfriend must have killed the model, because the model called him a bit before the murder to say that the boyfriend was upset and was on his way over. The boyfriend thinks the photographer must be the murderer, because he was actually in Seattle that day and did not make the calls, and therefore knows that the photographer is lying.

But at the end of the film, neither of them was the murderer. Huh? So why did the model call to say her boyfriend was on his way over? Are we supposed to think the evil twin made the call? But we know she didn't, because the camera shows us clearly who is making the call, and we can see the hooded murderer stalking her while she is on the phone - and they are two different people!

As it turns out, the model told the truth about getting the calls from the boyfriend. But the boyfriend also told the truth about not making them. How can that be?

DVD info from Amazon

Gee, if you haven't guessed yet, it's a grade-c hyphen flick (straight-to- or made-for-) starring the powerhouse cast of Ron Silver and Alexandra Paul. Silver is the photographer, Paul is in an irrelevant sub plot, and keeps her clothing attached to her body.

TUNA's THOUGHTS

This is a mediocre direct to vid Blockbuster exclusive whodunit with the answer being the "Double Secret Evil Twin."

Ron Silver is a freelance photographer in the Portland, Oregon area. His wife was killed in some South American country while he worked as a war correspondent. Now, he seems to shoot mostly naked women. He hears a noise in his boathouse, and finds a naked Susan Pari wrapped in fishnet. Seems she had a fight with her lawyer boyfriend, and swam ashore nude. Silver gives her some coffee and loans her some clothes. When she returns them, she sees some of his photos, and asks if he will shoot her. These come out so well, she decides she wants to make a living modeling, and Silver lands her (and himself) a gig shooting a layout, cover and billboard from a new men's magazine.

After the billboards hit the street, she is brutally murdered.

Police suspect Silver, Silver suspects her boyfriend, and we know it is actually someone else. The killer then takes out the magazine publisher, and starts going after Silver. Silver has several flashback sequences of the death of his wife.

While there was very little notably good or bad about the film, one element was done perfectly. For Silver to be working steadily as a fashion photographer, he would have to be very good, so the modeling scenes had to be special, and they were. The framing and balance are perfect, the lighting is also perfect, there are interesting shadows on the left, and the depth of field has everything in perfect focus.

The Critics Vote

The People Vote ...

With their votes ... IMDB summary: 4.3/10

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, Tuna says. "This is a low C-, partially because the evil twin reduces the score in any film". Scoop says, "Since it looks good in some respects, it can't be an F, so this film is an E. So poor it is irritating, but not really the right kind of bad to be good. Some T&A, but very modest exposure."