This movie is not a wonderful surprise, but a solid thriller with an interesting twist on the "psycho-killer" style, with good performances by the lead actors. The idea of a man from a far and wild land in a big city is not new, or the pairing of a female detective with a victim's relative, but here these elements are presented in a simple and convincing plot that makes you keep interested all the way. Robert Patrick is perfect for the role of a lonesome hunter, and Lauren Holly is both strong and sexy. I really don't understand why so many people here wrote negative reviews about this movie, it works for me as a late night filler perfectly. If you want to see a decent thriller, don't miss the chance. Recommended.
28 Reviews
Intriguing, but falls short of a convincing thriller
~AleXa~14 June 2005
The opening credits combined with music do a nice job of setting the tone for the movie. Then we cut to the first glimpse of the city, and it becomes blatantly apparent it is being shot with an awful brown filter. I hate filtersthey're nothing more than a cheap way to set the mood of the scene.
This is the 2nd HBO original movie I've rented the DVD of in the past two days, and they must be shot with digital cameras because the picture quality is astounding it's as if you're in the film. The editing give you a sort of off-balance distorted feel which aids you in feeling what the main character is feelingvery impressive. The music is engaging and successfully established a feeling of suspense. However, the slow-motion love scene was a bit random and pointless.
I enjoyed the subtle humorous moments between Sam (Patrick) and Buckley (Holly). I couldn't help but wonder how Buckley is a detective when Sam does her job better than her. As a die- hard fan of "The X-Files", I am well-versed in how to make a seemingly unexplainable phenomenon make sense and have the appropriate facts to support it. Buckley's revelation on the road after they track the killer through the woods for the second time was impressive it finally showed her true color as a detective.
The film's momentum is disrupted by the fact that Alex Duncan just can't act. As a result, the last scene felt corny and contrived. But the main characters push the story along, so this divergence, while highly noticeable, remains minor.
VERDICT: Adequate character writing, however the plot, while intriguing and thought-out, remains underdeveloped. Simple and yet surprisingly cleverit certainly maintained my interest. Recommended to anyone who likes crime mysteries, but if it's a thriller you long for, you should look elsewhere.
5.5 out of 10.0
~AleXa~
This is the 2nd HBO original movie I've rented the DVD of in the past two days, and they must be shot with digital cameras because the picture quality is astounding it's as if you're in the film. The editing give you a sort of off-balance distorted feel which aids you in feeling what the main character is feelingvery impressive. The music is engaging and successfully established a feeling of suspense. However, the slow-motion love scene was a bit random and pointless.
I enjoyed the subtle humorous moments between Sam (Patrick) and Buckley (Holly). I couldn't help but wonder how Buckley is a detective when Sam does her job better than her. As a die- hard fan of "The X-Files", I am well-versed in how to make a seemingly unexplainable phenomenon make sense and have the appropriate facts to support it. Buckley's revelation on the road after they track the killer through the woods for the second time was impressive it finally showed her true color as a detective.
The film's momentum is disrupted by the fact that Alex Duncan just can't act. As a result, the last scene felt corny and contrived. But the main characters push the story along, so this divergence, while highly noticeable, remains minor.
VERDICT: Adequate character writing, however the plot, while intriguing and thought-out, remains underdeveloped. Simple and yet surprisingly cleverit certainly maintained my interest. Recommended to anyone who likes crime mysteries, but if it's a thriller you long for, you should look elsewhere.
5.5 out of 10.0
~AleXa~
Entertaining Mystery
whpratt110 October 2008
This film starts out with Sam Brown, (Robert Patrick) tracking a wild killer of a wolf in Alaska and is attacked by the wolf while on the phone with a call from his headquarters that his sister has been killed in San Francisco. Sam arrives in San Francisco and finds out that his sister was murdered in a very horrible way and he decides to track down his sister doing it his way. Sam meets up with a police woman, Buckley Clarke, (Lauren Holly) who thinks Sam is crazy with his methods of tracking a killer like a wolf in the wild. However, Sam's method starts finding results in this murder and quite a few other crimes that are similar. The relationship between Sam and Buckley becomes very torrid and there is a very sexy love scene between the two of them. This film will hold your interest from the very beginning to the very end. Enjoy.
Unpretentious But Excellent Cop Film
teuthis13 December 2002
The plot, development and resolution of "Pavement" were excellent. The suspense kept my interest from start to finish. The characters were realistic and dimensional. The action was good too. I think the director was a little free with police officers as fodder for various occasions; but beyond that I liked what I saw. I enjoy those gritty, realistic, but not overblown cop films, and this is a good one. The element of the tracker as an imaginative addition to the plot was excellent.
I am a total Lauren Holly fan; and I thought she played her role flawlessly as a determined and professional detective, who is still very much a woman. She pulled it off with great aplomb. She is always a great pleasure to watch in anything she does.
If you like really exciting and suspense-filled cop movies, see this one. To say any more might spoil the impact of all the elements that come together in this intriguing film. Just sit back and enjoy it.
I am a total Lauren Holly fan; and I thought she played her role flawlessly as a determined and professional detective, who is still very much a woman. She pulled it off with great aplomb. She is always a great pleasure to watch in anything she does.
If you like really exciting and suspense-filled cop movies, see this one. To say any more might spoil the impact of all the elements that come together in this intriguing film. Just sit back and enjoy it.
Very ordinary stuff
=G=17 December 2002
"Pavement" is a very ordinary serial killer flick which sticks Holly out in front as a homicide investigator who teams up with Patrick as an Alaskan wilderness tracker (yeah, right) and together they set out to solve a killing spree with Capetown standing in for San Francisco. The film is full of nonsequiturs and plot holes, does nothing to distinguish itself, and fails to beg an emotional investment leaving the viewer little more than a detached voyeur. In addition the whole tracking thing is silly, the brief sex scene is hokey, and the production is slapped together with a scene here and a scene there cropped tightly so as to not reveal the Capetown environs. In spite of all that, the film does gather momentum, delivers some action and a wisp of suspense, and should make for a nominal no-brainer couch potato watch for those into murder mysteries. (C)
Not Bad
thirteenprime3 June 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this one because Robert Patrick was in it. He plays a tracker from Alaska who goes to San Francisco to find whoever killed the sister who raised him. He soon teams up with detective Lauren Holly, and of course some of one rubs off on the other. In the course of the film we see why Robert Patrick is such a great tracker. We also learn to admire him for how he manages to get busy with Lauren Holly even though she keeps all her clothes on during the film's mandatory sex scene. They didn't spend a lot of money on this one, but the stars carry it -- Patrick is always good, and Holly gives this thing her considerable best -- and the result is really not bad. Unfortunately, the ending is abrupt, as if the equipment rentals expired all at once. We're given no indication of what's next for the happy couple, and the fact that you might care a little about that is an indication that the film's a good one.
Left us shaking our heads...
Bschorr22 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
It's an interesting idea and it's well filmed, but there are so many little plot problems that it became almost comical. "Sam" is supposed to be an expert tracker, but just about everybody gets the drop on him. The "FBI" folks are predictably inept and [MINOR SPOILER]my wife and I figured out that the killer was using the handicap buses very early.[END SPOILER]
The police seem to overlook the most basic of procedures (find out the connection between the victims?) until the 11th hour while they're extremely impressed with the most basic capabilities (they zoomed in on a photograph; wow, imagine that.)
A few B-movie cinematic effects don't help matters. At least the acting is decent; I feel sorry for Robert Patrick who probably deserves better.
The police seem to overlook the most basic of procedures (find out the connection between the victims?) until the 11th hour while they're extremely impressed with the most basic capabilities (they zoomed in on a photograph; wow, imagine that.)
A few B-movie cinematic effects don't help matters. At least the acting is decent; I feel sorry for Robert Patrick who probably deserves better.
Effective TV crime thriller
xredgarnetx5 June 2007
The oddly named PAVEMENT has a lot going for it: a bizarre serial killer is on the loose, which brings together an attractive female detective (Holly) and an Alaskan tracker (Patrick) hot on his or her trail. Patrick and Holly play very nicely off each other. The serial killer is certainly a piece of work, but you will have to see the film to understand why. The film was shot in South Africa and is a foreign production, so as a result it doesn't always work as well as it should. The music also leaves something to be desired. The incredibly suspenseful ending makes things worthwhile, however. Some blood, a touch of gore, but otherwise nothing we haven't seen in a million TV movies. A love scene between Holly and Patrick is nicely played, but the scene is mooted by the fact that they keep most of their clothes on! Say what? Holly is meant to be seen naked, while she's still got something worth seeing.
I'm looking for maggots!
sol-kay29 November 2008
Warning: Spoilers
***MAJOR SPOILERS*** Not that believable of a detective movie involving an Alaskan tracker of wolves and Kodiak bears using his expertise in the wild to track down a serial killer in San Francisco.
Were given a hint to what were in store for in the very first moments of the movie with Dr. Orenbach,Andrew Brendt, refusing to abort a new born baby because he has "Conroddy Syndrome". Were told by Dr Orenbach's assistant Dr Green, Gerald Randolf,that a child with that illness never goes full term. How wrong Dr. Green turned out to be!
The film starts out with a brutal murder in San Francisco that takes the life of Jenny Brown, Lynita Crofford, a nurse in one of the city's municipal hospitals. The word of Jenny's murder gets to her brother Sam, Robert Patrick, up in the wilds of Alaska and he shoots down to SF to help in finding his sister's killer. It's then that things get a bit entangled with the SFPD not wanting this outsider to get involved in the biggest murder case in it's history since the Zodiac Killer! Uncovering not only clues about the killer that the police missed Sam, ruggedly handsome devil that he is, also becomes very romantically involved with the top cop on the case Det. Buckley Clarke, Lauren Holly. Det. Clarke is not only turned on by Sam's ruggedly good looks and pioneering 19th century lifestyle, he doesn't believe in using modern bathroom facilities, but also his unique ability in digging up clues about the killer. It's that uncanny tracking ability-with a walking stick- on Sam's part that Det. Clarke, against the wishes of her superiors, in no time at all let's him take over, off the record, the entire investigation!
As it turns out the killer had a deep grudge against those in the medical profession who were responsible from bringing him into the world. Were somehow made to feel that the doctor who in accordance to his upholding the Hippocratic Oath, as well as the child's mother's wishes, in his deciding to let the child, regardless of the condition that it finds itself in, to be born is some kind of crazed mad scientist or religious fanatic! Where in reality he was only doing what he was sworn to do as a man of medicine!
Sam's ability to track the killer down leads to a brick wall as his trail seems to come to a sudden end every time he and his partner and now lover Det. Clarke get out of the dark woods, where the killer always makes his escape, and into civilization which for some reason it suddenly ends at a bus stop or shelter! Even though it should be obvious to someone like Sam who's especially good in tracking down fugitives, or wild animals, what the significance of the bus stop is it takes almost the entire movie for him to find that out! And it's not Sam but Det. Clarke, being more in touch with big city life, who ends up uncovering that great mystery!
Once the cat, or serial killer, is out of the bag, or intensive care, the movie starts to get going into full toddle. The frail killer who's supposed to be a total invalid ends up taking on an entire unite of the SFPD with a squad of tough as nails SWAT personnel thrown in and ends up making mince meat out of them! So much in him being, according to Dr. Green, not fit or healthy enough to be allowed to be born!
What the killer's real problems were turned out to be mental not physical which took years to manifest themselves and could not have been discovered at the time of his birth. This all made the assumption that his suffering from "Conroddy Syndrome", whatever that is, which was supposed to prevent from living past infancy, according to Dr.Green, turned out to be totally unfounded!
Were given a hint to what were in store for in the very first moments of the movie with Dr. Orenbach,Andrew Brendt, refusing to abort a new born baby because he has "Conroddy Syndrome". Were told by Dr Orenbach's assistant Dr Green, Gerald Randolf,that a child with that illness never goes full term. How wrong Dr. Green turned out to be!
The film starts out with a brutal murder in San Francisco that takes the life of Jenny Brown, Lynita Crofford, a nurse in one of the city's municipal hospitals. The word of Jenny's murder gets to her brother Sam, Robert Patrick, up in the wilds of Alaska and he shoots down to SF to help in finding his sister's killer. It's then that things get a bit entangled with the SFPD not wanting this outsider to get involved in the biggest murder case in it's history since the Zodiac Killer! Uncovering not only clues about the killer that the police missed Sam, ruggedly handsome devil that he is, also becomes very romantically involved with the top cop on the case Det. Buckley Clarke, Lauren Holly. Det. Clarke is not only turned on by Sam's ruggedly good looks and pioneering 19th century lifestyle, he doesn't believe in using modern bathroom facilities, but also his unique ability in digging up clues about the killer. It's that uncanny tracking ability-with a walking stick- on Sam's part that Det. Clarke, against the wishes of her superiors, in no time at all let's him take over, off the record, the entire investigation!
As it turns out the killer had a deep grudge against those in the medical profession who were responsible from bringing him into the world. Were somehow made to feel that the doctor who in accordance to his upholding the Hippocratic Oath, as well as the child's mother's wishes, in his deciding to let the child, regardless of the condition that it finds itself in, to be born is some kind of crazed mad scientist or religious fanatic! Where in reality he was only doing what he was sworn to do as a man of medicine!
Sam's ability to track the killer down leads to a brick wall as his trail seems to come to a sudden end every time he and his partner and now lover Det. Clarke get out of the dark woods, where the killer always makes his escape, and into civilization which for some reason it suddenly ends at a bus stop or shelter! Even though it should be obvious to someone like Sam who's especially good in tracking down fugitives, or wild animals, what the significance of the bus stop is it takes almost the entire movie for him to find that out! And it's not Sam but Det. Clarke, being more in touch with big city life, who ends up uncovering that great mystery!
Once the cat, or serial killer, is out of the bag, or intensive care, the movie starts to get going into full toddle. The frail killer who's supposed to be a total invalid ends up taking on an entire unite of the SFPD with a squad of tough as nails SWAT personnel thrown in and ends up making mince meat out of them! So much in him being, according to Dr. Green, not fit or healthy enough to be allowed to be born!
What the killer's real problems were turned out to be mental not physical which took years to manifest themselves and could not have been discovered at the time of his birth. This all made the assumption that his suffering from "Conroddy Syndrome", whatever that is, which was supposed to prevent from living past infancy, according to Dr.Green, turned out to be totally unfounded!
I'm looking forward to the hail of bullets.
lastliberal-853-2537084 January 2014
I have seen Robert Patrick (From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money, The Marine, Cop Land) many times, but I cannot remember once where he was a good guy. This will make this film interesting, to say the least.
As to Lauren Holly, I haven't seen her since Picket Fences.
Naturally, the FBI comes in and bungles things. Why do they pick on the FBI? Oh, I know, because they act like they know everything.
Of course, Holly learns to track like a pro after a couple of lessons. Yeah, right.
Well, it didn't end the way the killer wanted.
This would make a good TV show.
As to Lauren Holly, I haven't seen her since Picket Fences.
Naturally, the FBI comes in and bungles things. Why do they pick on the FBI? Oh, I know, because they act like they know everything.
Of course, Holly learns to track like a pro after a couple of lessons. Yeah, right.
Well, it didn't end the way the killer wanted.
This would make a good TV show.
Ninety one minutes I'll never get back
MelodyWilson6624 August 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe I sat through this entire film, even though I had complete control of the DVD remote control. Sadly, those are ninety one minutes of my life that I'll never get back. I could have been doing something more exciting like beating my head against the wall. What MIGHT have been an interesting story line was lost in horrible direction, bad scripting, even worse acting. My apologies to Lauren Holly and Robert Patrick, but it seems that they just weren't given anything to work with. It was as though they gave up on creating anything remotely watchable very early in the movie. As a Criminal Justice major, I love serial killer flicks...psychological thrillers, but this was just a waste of film. Did I mention how bad the scripting was?? Miss Holly spent the entire hour and a half parroting back with question, everything her leading man said. For example: RP: I'm a tracker LH: A tracker?!?!? RP: I'm from Alaska. LH: Alaska?!?! RP: I should have never made this film. LH: A film?? Of course those aren't actual lines, but you get the point. Save your time, save your money, there are sooo many better things to do. (I'll refrain from suggesting "watching paint dry" and other clichés)
SamHeartsMovies is fulla CRAP : ) This is a very good film!
lathe-of-heaven10 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I mean really, with the tons of absolute mind numbing drivel out there, to call this movie 'Horrible' is just plain goofy! (Notice my stunning logic at play...) Seriously though, for a pretty much straight forward crime thriller WITHOUT a lot of cutesy self-referential style overkill that we see CONSTANTLY today, it is a good, sold, entertaining film. In a word (or a few) the STORY is good. The writing is just fine; I mean, we're not talking David Mamet here or anything but the writing is solid. The acting is perfectly fine too; no Oscar winning performances but they fit the parts. This isn't a spoiler but as far as the acting and writing only are concerned in a VERY minor scene, I really liked the little interplay between the two leads when she tells him that she is 'in charge'; her delivery is great and his responses are perfect.
The direction is very competent and somewhat stylized but without detracting from the story.
The Alaska locations along with the city are used quite well. The cinematography is above average with some nice and contributory stylization without overdoing it. In other words, there are some photographic stylizations, but there aren't like a friggin' TON of edits just 'because'...
Yes, okay... if you want to be TOTALLY anal about it, the premise is a bit far-fetched, but what the hell, it is a decent, fairly gripping thriller. I like Robert Patrick; he just has a nice laid back style which fits his role well. And, the killer, when you do figure out who the person is, is kind of a neat reveal, although perhaps a little far fetched. Definitely original though!
Also, something that I personally really appreciate is that there is a refreshing lack of 'cliches', thank Goodness! The lead woman although strong, as she has to be to do her job, THANKFULLY does NOT come across as some superficial b*tch with an attitude (Gee, how many times have we seen that one...?) She has a genuine self-effacing sense of humour which is VERY refreshing. She pulls that off well. Even the 'love' scene (c'mon, you KNOW there is gonna be one) is introduced fairly believably, again thankfully WITHOUT all the cutesypie, vomitously (I know that's not a word but it should be) phony 'foreplay' that we normally have to endure. In a minor related note, to show the director's subtlety, the love scene itself is well photographed and edited with nice dissolve shots of Alaska. Sounds corny, I know, but it works very nicely : )
Believe me, there are a LOT worse ways to spend your time, even where watching movies are concerned. I guess 'competent' and 'entertaining' are the words best to describe the film. Like I mentioned before, with all the TRULY horrible, lame, and insulting stuff out there I think this film is a good go! Oh, to comment back on the scene which involves the 'first' suspect, I COMPLETELY disagree with Mr. SamHeartsMovies. I thought that was a neat little stylized and very entertaining insertion into the film; it provided not only some basic straight forward action but I personally thought the character and his 'surroundings' had a nice surreal touch (of course I LOVE David Lynch too : ) So, I would say that out of the hundreds, if not thousands of crime thrillers that I've seen, this one solidly falls in with the better ones. Just don't expect the brilliance of 'THE USUAL SUSPECTS' or 'CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND' or something at THAT level. But, compared to the usual police thriller it is definitely above average,fun, and entertaining.
I gave this an '8' to compensate a little for what I consider an inaccurately LOW 5.x that it has now. Honestly, I would give it a solid 6.5.
The direction is very competent and somewhat stylized but without detracting from the story.
The Alaska locations along with the city are used quite well. The cinematography is above average with some nice and contributory stylization without overdoing it. In other words, there are some photographic stylizations, but there aren't like a friggin' TON of edits just 'because'...
Yes, okay... if you want to be TOTALLY anal about it, the premise is a bit far-fetched, but what the hell, it is a decent, fairly gripping thriller. I like Robert Patrick; he just has a nice laid back style which fits his role well. And, the killer, when you do figure out who the person is, is kind of a neat reveal, although perhaps a little far fetched. Definitely original though!
Also, something that I personally really appreciate is that there is a refreshing lack of 'cliches', thank Goodness! The lead woman although strong, as she has to be to do her job, THANKFULLY does NOT come across as some superficial b*tch with an attitude (Gee, how many times have we seen that one...?) She has a genuine self-effacing sense of humour which is VERY refreshing. She pulls that off well. Even the 'love' scene (c'mon, you KNOW there is gonna be one) is introduced fairly believably, again thankfully WITHOUT all the cutesypie, vomitously (I know that's not a word but it should be) phony 'foreplay' that we normally have to endure. In a minor related note, to show the director's subtlety, the love scene itself is well photographed and edited with nice dissolve shots of Alaska. Sounds corny, I know, but it works very nicely : )
Believe me, there are a LOT worse ways to spend your time, even where watching movies are concerned. I guess 'competent' and 'entertaining' are the words best to describe the film. Like I mentioned before, with all the TRULY horrible, lame, and insulting stuff out there I think this film is a good go! Oh, to comment back on the scene which involves the 'first' suspect, I COMPLETELY disagree with Mr. SamHeartsMovies. I thought that was a neat little stylized and very entertaining insertion into the film; it provided not only some basic straight forward action but I personally thought the character and his 'surroundings' had a nice surreal touch (of course I LOVE David Lynch too : ) So, I would say that out of the hundreds, if not thousands of crime thrillers that I've seen, this one solidly falls in with the better ones. Just don't expect the brilliance of 'THE USUAL SUSPECTS' or 'CONFESSIONS OF A DANGEROUS MIND' or something at THAT level. But, compared to the usual police thriller it is definitely above average,fun, and entertaining.
I gave this an '8' to compensate a little for what I consider an inaccurately LOW 5.x that it has now. Honestly, I would give it a solid 6.5.
another serial killer & the tracker who solves the case
jaybob19 December 2002
Pavement---starts off quite disturbingly as a premature baby is being born, Now whats going to happen??NEXT we meet ROBERT PATRICK a so-so actor whose main claim to fame was as alien life form killer. This time he is a tracker of animals in Alaska. he is informed that his sister has been killed, & off he goes. With the help of a Female police officer they solve the case. Oh me, Oh my, we have seen this film before many time in many guises. Pavement is no worse of better than others in this genre.
Rating **1/2 73 points/100 IMDB 6
Rating **1/2 73 points/100 IMDB 6
Forgot to mention...
Bschorr22 December 2002
Pavement also features the most incompetent police SWAT officers captured on film. They're lousy shots, their procedures are comicly flawed and apparently any psycho with a gun can get the drop on them and kill half of them without difficulty.
Unfortunately this adds a very "Mystery Science Theater 3000" flavor to the film; the better parts of the movie tended to get overshadowed by the irresisitible urge to make sarcastic comments.
Unfortunately this adds a very "Mystery Science Theater 3000" flavor to the film; the better parts of the movie tended to get overshadowed by the irresisitible urge to make sarcastic comments.
If you like this movie, you'll like anything
alecspade13 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
**MINOR SPOILERS HEREIN**
I ran across this movie while looking for something to watch late night. This was the only thing on at the time that was even remotely interesting. Ugh I should have just gone to bed.
Robert Patrick stars as a wilderness tracker who assists a homicide detective (Lauren Holly) to find a serial killer who is bumping off doctors and nurses. Holly was a horrific choice for the female lead and was terrible in this role. Patrick was stiff throughout, thanks in large part to the writing of his character which really makes him a very unsympathetic lead.
Speaking of the writing, it's really awful, especially in the detective's case. Her lines are atrocious and her delivery was comical. Similarly, the killer was entirely bad. You shouldn't be laughing at the end, should you?
Also, the police force in this movie would be hands down the worst department in the world. The SWAT team several times gets lit up like a Christmas tree without coming even close to hitting the perpetrator while the perps can't miss. One scene in particular towards the end with the two cops at a suspect's house, they might be legally retarded.
The tracking used in the movie seems pretty ridiculous. Patrick's character can figure out which way someone went by their tracks, okay fine. But that's literally ALL he does, as he does it over and over again while people watch on with amazement. And where did police work go? I guess when you employ the dumbest cops on the planet in one department, you're not apt to figure things out on your own. The cops seem baffled with every crime despite apparently doing no actual investigating. I suppose they were hoping the killer would still be there when they got there, maybe he fell asleep on the couch or something.
I give this movie a 2/10.
I ran across this movie while looking for something to watch late night. This was the only thing on at the time that was even remotely interesting. Ugh I should have just gone to bed.
Robert Patrick stars as a wilderness tracker who assists a homicide detective (Lauren Holly) to find a serial killer who is bumping off doctors and nurses. Holly was a horrific choice for the female lead and was terrible in this role. Patrick was stiff throughout, thanks in large part to the writing of his character which really makes him a very unsympathetic lead.
Speaking of the writing, it's really awful, especially in the detective's case. Her lines are atrocious and her delivery was comical. Similarly, the killer was entirely bad. You shouldn't be laughing at the end, should you?
Also, the police force in this movie would be hands down the worst department in the world. The SWAT team several times gets lit up like a Christmas tree without coming even close to hitting the perpetrator while the perps can't miss. One scene in particular towards the end with the two cops at a suspect's house, they might be legally retarded.
The tracking used in the movie seems pretty ridiculous. Patrick's character can figure out which way someone went by their tracks, okay fine. But that's literally ALL he does, as he does it over and over again while people watch on with amazement. And where did police work go? I guess when you employ the dumbest cops on the planet in one department, you're not apt to figure things out on your own. The cops seem baffled with every crime despite apparently doing no actual investigating. I suppose they were hoping the killer would still be there when they got there, maybe he fell asleep on the couch or something.
I give this movie a 2/10.
CONRODDY SYNDROME--OH Nooooooooohhhhhh!!!
rdwrrior-123 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
We could have gone to bed early and passed into month-long COMAs and have better spent our time!!! Condroddy Syndrome: No Such Thing. How does Robert Patrick find out where the cops are going, show up and anticipate his next moves including fer-shure foreknowledge that the FBI's number one suspect was not their man?? Who needed Lauren Holly in this Mish-mash anyway. Did her boss the Lieutenant pack tube socks in his cheeks? Why did the coroner have a ring in her nose, she appeared to be still in her early twenties. And doesn't that position require twenty years of med school at least? No one on the force appeared to have any other case open, this was their ENTIRE EFFORT for at least a week or two. The killer was suspiciously lacking in any visible impairments except for a churlish bad temper and a complexion reminiscent of Powder. Which could explain the bad temper. So, Maybelline it up and try out for Band little buddy!
Interesting movie for a bit of escape
walt-tarpley7 February 2024
I doubt Film locations are Cape Town SA as stated in IMDB - but rather in San Francisco. I cannot place the mansion in the movie supposedly in Pacific Heights at 1923 Pacific Ave in the movie. Many shots are around different areas in SFO. The wolf attack early in the film is obviously a husky, much too small for a wolf and has wrong markings. Acting lacks chemistry between Lauren Holly and the tracker - leaving me with Direction/Production impression of 'Lifetime' TV movie feel - with a bit higher quality production could have been much stronger movie. Reflecting on dates, was made in 2002, so made just before original high def TV of 1080p in 2004 - yet not grainy or pixelated.
robert patrick is the man, but if ur lookin for T2 quality this was not it
joebezslu14 December 2002
on a scale of 1-10 i give this movie a 5. robert patrick was great in this movie but it felt more like a big X-file, but without mulder and scully. i'm guessing it was a made for TV movie, it seemed to lack a full storyline. good action at times though and suspensefull. its worth a quick watch on tv, but ya, don't go rent it.
it's not bad despite made for TV
jordondave-280858 May 2023
(2002) Pavement
THRILLER HORROR
Made for TV movie and is available for rental starring Robert Patrick as a Professional tracker Sam Brown living in Alaska, and he's just learned that his sister had been murdered. So he goes back to the very city where it originally happened meeting homicide cop Buckley Clarke played by Lauren Holly who's assigned to the investigation, succumbing to work together. Although, the low budget shows, it's still interesting to see how a tracker and a cop can work together to solve a case which is like crime shows like "The Mentalist" or the short lived series "Lie To Me" in which the protagonist is a body language expert.
Made for TV movie and is available for rental starring Robert Patrick as a Professional tracker Sam Brown living in Alaska, and he's just learned that his sister had been murdered. So he goes back to the very city where it originally happened meeting homicide cop Buckley Clarke played by Lauren Holly who's assigned to the investigation, succumbing to work together. Although, the low budget shows, it's still interesting to see how a tracker and a cop can work together to solve a case which is like crime shows like "The Mentalist" or the short lived series "Lie To Me" in which the protagonist is a body language expert.
Birth Defect to Serial Killer
cppearce320 July 2014
A detective and a hunter/tracker team up to find a serial killer. The movie opens with a pregnant woman screaming in an OB clinic, and doctors are debating whether to save the fetus or not. The baby had Conradi–Hünermann syndrome, not Conroddy Syndrome.
He/She grew up to become a serial killer seeking revenge on those involved in failing to abort him/her as a fetus.
The dialog seems contrived and Lauren Holly is not convincing in her detective roll. Robert Patrick does a fair job as the tracker and brother of the first victim. The action was decent. The FBI and local police interactions were weak and not believable. The cops techniques for building a case was no really convincing or credible.
He/She grew up to become a serial killer seeking revenge on those involved in failing to abort him/her as a fetus.
The dialog seems contrived and Lauren Holly is not convincing in her detective roll. Robert Patrick does a fair job as the tracker and brother of the first victim. The action was decent. The FBI and local police interactions were weak and not believable. The cops techniques for building a case was no really convincing or credible.
Nothing Special...Kinda Bad
patrickhenry-582937 November 2023
This is a very basic movie written and produced for the simpletons who watch and enjoy any of the dozens of primetime procedural crime shows on nowadays.
Cheesy overacting, formulated plot, reeeeally absurd villain. If you like those tv shoes, you'll like this movie.
I normally like Robert Patrick. He's predictable and sticks to that in this. He did his normal thing here.
Lauren Holly...yikes, I guess I never realized that she really can't act. She was better in Dumb n Dumber.
I had this movie on as background noise as I was doing something else...just another easily forgettable amazon movie.
Cheesy overacting, formulated plot, reeeeally absurd villain. If you like those tv shoes, you'll like this movie.
I normally like Robert Patrick. He's predictable and sticks to that in this. He did his normal thing here.
Lauren Holly...yikes, I guess I never realized that she really can't act. She was better in Dumb n Dumber.
I had this movie on as background noise as I was doing something else...just another easily forgettable amazon movie.
unbelievable and not worth the time
opd65222 December 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This may contain spoilers
This movie fails in the suspension of disbelief arena. If this was a science fiction movie I might believe a police department like San Francisco PD would allow a person that tracks wild animals, (like wolves), in Alaska to help find a serial killer. The part that killed it for me involved the dialog. Immediately after 6 or 7 SWAT/FBI team members are brutally shot by a suspect, some guys walks up to the detective and goes, "Detective, their's something here you have to see." While these guys are bleeding to death and the suspect is hanging out of a window, and immediately after the detective is shot at, some moron is going to say something as ridiculous as that? From that point I decided to skip until the end to find out who the killer was.
This movie fails in the suspension of disbelief arena. If this was a science fiction movie I might believe a police department like San Francisco PD would allow a person that tracks wild animals, (like wolves), in Alaska to help find a serial killer. The part that killed it for me involved the dialog. Immediately after 6 or 7 SWAT/FBI team members are brutally shot by a suspect, some guys walks up to the detective and goes, "Detective, their's something here you have to see." While these guys are bleeding to death and the suspect is hanging out of a window, and immediately after the detective is shot at, some moron is going to say something as ridiculous as that? From that point I decided to skip until the end to find out who the killer was.
Great mystery and psychological thriller
PUNISHER_1 January 2004
I just watched this movie on HBO with my friends on New Years. I must say that this movie is great in a way that you see that it is a new kind of killer. The motive is the scary part. I liked how they showed a great way to figuring out the killer by using simple tracking methods. If you are really into mysteries, this movie is good to watch because you also want to figure out the motive. Lauren Holly was good. However, this was one of the first films in which I saw Robert Patrick star with a great and sophisticated role. I would recommend this film to those that are into sophisticated mystery films.
For a mystery movie, I would have to give this movie a 4.8 out of 5.
For a mystery movie, I would have to give this movie a 4.8 out of 5.
You must be kidding...
lons20028 July 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I can't believe how positive most of the comments on this board are about this film. This is honestly one of the worst police procedurals I have ever seen...ever.
Nothing is well thought out, and there is very little payoff or follow-through. The police are totally inept, and very rarely believable. As well, they all spout out the most tired, boring cop cliches stolen from every episode of "Law & Order" and "NYPD Blue." As for the element of the Alaskan tracker who hunts down the serial killer, this would only work if the killer confined him (or her) self to a small area of forest, which thankfully he (or she) does.
Finally, the solution to the mystery (which I won't reveal, in case someone is foolish enough to rent this steaming pile) rests upon the silliest premise imaginable for a serial killer film. Seriously. It's that bad. I want to blow it for you, to tell you all how stupid it is, but I won't, because I hate spoilers. You've been warned...
Nothing is well thought out, and there is very little payoff or follow-through. The police are totally inept, and very rarely believable. As well, they all spout out the most tired, boring cop cliches stolen from every episode of "Law & Order" and "NYPD Blue." As for the element of the Alaskan tracker who hunts down the serial killer, this would only work if the killer confined him (or her) self to a small area of forest, which thankfully he (or she) does.
Finally, the solution to the mystery (which I won't reveal, in case someone is foolish enough to rent this steaming pile) rests upon the silliest premise imaginable for a serial killer film. Seriously. It's that bad. I want to blow it for you, to tell you all how stupid it is, but I won't, because I hate spoilers. You've been warned...
so horrible you just cant look away!
samheartsmovies12 November 2004
man. this movie is bad. bad bad bad. there are so many things wrong with it i don't know where to begin. first of all, the writing is AWFUL!!!! it makes me want to shake someone. the acting is not the best either. i mean, i'm sure they are doing the best with what they have, but still. the plot is just plain stupid. its the worst reason i ever heard of for a killer to kill people. except maybe for "Saw". the situations are dumb too. the whole deal with the first suspect: what?!?!? they were trying to make this movie all edgy and bizzaro and they only accomplished one of those things. i recommend renting "Pavement" on a nite when you and your friends feel like getting drunk and making fun of something. spare the weird kid down the street. just watch this movie. here's a head start for you eagle eyed watchers: the killer's eyes change color in the last scenes.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
