The Right Temptation (2000) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

How's this for the classic film noir opening?

Sassy dame walks into the office of a private dick and asks the shamus to tail her husband. (By the way, it's the year 2000, not 1932)

Well, it gets better. It would have to.

Turns out that the dame (Dana Delaney) specifically wants a female detective assigned to the case, and we later find out that she doesn't just want the detective to find out if her husband is cheating, but wants the detective to tempt him with her own body. ("Anyone can fall to the Right Temptation").

It isn't one of my unities, but I think it's Roger Ebert who says that the sure sign of a bad script is if they say the title out loud. Personally, I don't care if they say "Then god help us, for we are both Men of la Mancha". I think it's kind of cute, unless the title is The effect of gamma rays on man-in-the-moon marigolds, or unless they repeat it several times. Y'know, I think it's OK if the southern lady says "just once, I want some desire under the elms", but if they keep repeating it, well, I might consider a unity to cover that.


DeMornay is topless (I guess) in a sex scene with Kiefer Sutherland, but I didn't have DVD, and couldn't see anything interesting in the VHS tape.
Certainly Aristotle never included this in his rules. All of those Greek playwrights used the play names in the dialogue constantly. Like Antigone, where everyone was constantly saying, "Hey, Antigone, your thong is unstrapped". They even had a whole chorus of people to say stuff like "And then Oedipus Rex knew he was into some crazy motherfuckin' shit". My translation is imprecise, but I'm pretty sure motherfuckin' was involved.

Since the detective in this story is Rebecca DeMornay, it is not long before the husband is humping the living begeezis out of her, but .....

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen anamorphic

  • no major features

Spoiler coming:

... nothing is as it seems. turns out that the husband and the wife are in cahoots (that's Cahoots, Arizona, not the better-known Cahoots, Nebraska), and they plan to fake the husband's death and frame DeMornay.

To make a long story short. She wins, they lose. Typical straight-to-vid quality, except with some higher quality performers than usual. The actors almost cover up the fact that the script twists are obvious from the start.

The Critics Vote

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 5.3
  • straight-to-vid
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, this film is a C-. Not a worthwhile film, but you won't be that bored if you catch it on cable some night when you can't sleep. It is at the very bottom of the barrel for acceptable noir detective flicks, but I don't think I can say that people who like this kind of movie will hate this one.

Return to the Movie House home page