Tick Tock (2000) from Tuna

Tuna's comments:

Tick-Tock (2000) is the best thriller I have never heard of. 

I admit to being put off at first by one of the director's techniques, but, in the end, decided it was a good idea. He shows part of the story from the from the standpoint of a few characters, then shows a clock moving backwards a few hours, and shows the same event, but different point of view. In this way,  he builds suspense and provides misdirection in a very new way.  

Add lots of twists and turns and a great surprise ending, and you have a film well worth watching. Throw in lengthy nudity, including full frontal from Kristin Minter, and this is a must-see. 

Scoopy's comments:

I agree. One of the very best grade b movies I've ever seen. It's not slick and atmospheric, like Welles' A Touch of Evil, which is the all time King B, but lacking Welles' directorial genius, it probably has a better story with a more interesting narrative technique than Welles' masterpiece.

And there ain't no bare-nekkid women in A Touch of Evil.

My reaction was exactly the same as Tuna's. "Oh, no, he's going to keep telling the same story over and over from different POV's." By God, that's pretty much what he did, and, by God, it was dynamite. Each of the restarts reveals a little bit more about the story. Which players are really working together, and what is the real crime? At first we don't know either answer. Is one crime being used as an alibi for another worse one? Lots of twists, very clever script about not-too-bright people trying to pull of a perfect crime so complex that the IM team couldn't do it. And then they have to do a lot of improvising.


Kirsten Minter is stark naked for several minutes in the center of the film. 

DVD info from Amazon.

bare bones

If this story were told any other way, it would be another run-of-the-mill made for cable film, and that's pretty much what I thought after the first 10 minutes. But once I got into the film's revelations, I was completely hooked, and then I actually watched it again to pick up all the nuances.

Good stuff. Lurid, pleasureable, film that will please you greatly if you like twisty thrillers with plenty of hidden details. 

The film doesn't make very good use of atmosphere and music, and doesn't get very creative with the camera work, but it does some slick story-telling, and I loved the completely appropriate ending, although it dragged a bit just before that.

The Critics Vote

  • no major articles online

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 7.1 
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, we both say a high C+

Return to the Movie House home page