A decent script with innovative (and believable) plot twists can be found if one dusts away the substandard acting and directing. Sadly, Moriarty appears to be barely able to stand during most scenes. The once beautiful Pakula is too old to play this role, and exhibits the enthusiasm of a beaten mule. Peter Onorati is pedestrian as a villain who should be played as a maniac. Interesting the wish list for casting in this was: Gene Hackman (in Moriarty's role) Alec Baldwin (as Tony) Rachel Ward in Pakula's role, and Willem Dafoe in Onorati's role. (script was written in mid -eighties) The original setting was Charleston, South Carolina, with the principles members of the southern aristocracy.
11 Reviews
Art isn't the word for this turkey
sol-kay29 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** Almost impossible to follow made for TV Lifetime Network movie about this falling on his face as well as butt drunk Cole Sheridan, Michael Moriarty, who seems to be the real thing a drunken sop then him trying to act like one. It's Cole's old lady Elizabeth, Joanna Pacula, who has to put up with him and feels that his drinking is soon going to land him either in a hospital drunk tank or in his grave if he doesn't stop. While all this is going on Elizabeth is having a secret affair with her husband's top man at the shipping company-Mexko-that he runs Tony Blanchard, Boyd Kestner, who's father and partner he bought out a few years ago.
The movie goes from the ridicules to the sublime and back to the ridicules again with all the double crossing that's going on in it that's enough to fill a half dozen tic tact tow games. We also have the sleazy and in your face Willie Kassel, Peter Ononati, who photographed and video tapes both Elizabeth and Tony engaging in a hot and heavy as well as nude sex that he's now using to blackmail the two with. It's later that it becomes apparent that Willie is working both sides against the middle to his own advantage until his luck runs out.
****SPOILERS**** As hard as the movie tries to make any sense it never ties up all the loose ends in it making the ending seem to come from scenes from another movie that was inserted into it. We have Cole getting killed and his killer getting control of his shipping company-Maxco-with Cole's,before he was whacked, full authorization in a will that he left before he was murdered. Even though at the time Cole knew full well that the person who in fact was trying to screw him out of control of the very company he gave him to become the CEO of! The very confused ending didn't clear up any of the many inconsistencies in the film in fact it made them even more confusing then they already were. Especially in the fact that Cole's wife Elizabeth was completely cleared of his murder base on a video tape that in fact really if you think about it had nothing to do with it! It had to do with the falling out of those who we were made to think murdered Cole with Elizabeth very possibly being the one who secretly both staged and video taped it.
P.S I saw in the credits that the great and very underrated comedian the late Frank Gorshin was an extra in the movie. In just how boring the movie was I had great difficulty noticing him in me trying to stay awake and watch it.
The movie goes from the ridicules to the sublime and back to the ridicules again with all the double crossing that's going on in it that's enough to fill a half dozen tic tact tow games. We also have the sleazy and in your face Willie Kassel, Peter Ononati, who photographed and video tapes both Elizabeth and Tony engaging in a hot and heavy as well as nude sex that he's now using to blackmail the two with. It's later that it becomes apparent that Willie is working both sides against the middle to his own advantage until his luck runs out.
****SPOILERS**** As hard as the movie tries to make any sense it never ties up all the loose ends in it making the ending seem to come from scenes from another movie that was inserted into it. We have Cole getting killed and his killer getting control of his shipping company-Maxco-with Cole's,before he was whacked, full authorization in a will that he left before he was murdered. Even though at the time Cole knew full well that the person who in fact was trying to screw him out of control of the very company he gave him to become the CEO of! The very confused ending didn't clear up any of the many inconsistencies in the film in fact it made them even more confusing then they already were. Especially in the fact that Cole's wife Elizabeth was completely cleared of his murder base on a video tape that in fact really if you think about it had nothing to do with it! It had to do with the falling out of those who we were made to think murdered Cole with Elizabeth very possibly being the one who secretly both staged and video taped it.
P.S I saw in the credits that the great and very underrated comedian the late Frank Gorshin was an extra in the movie. In just how boring the movie was I had great difficulty noticing him in me trying to stay awake and watch it.
good in start ..... gets super stupid in the end....
afterdarkpak16 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
If this movie came out in early 90s or mid 90s then it would consider a good. but such a crap plot n weird acting and OK production quality of late 90s?
yeh its B low budget VHS or early CD quality movie. there are some simialr B type movies in 90s with same plot.
the start is somehow good, a dumb wife of rich businessman having an affair with husband's assistant. later someone try to blackmail the lovers. later they killed and then story goes totally crap.
almost half movie the wife plays like dumb who having an affair. but once she knows that her lover is behind everything, she suddenly goes Einstein. then in the end she even try to save the person who tried to destroy her life.. pfffff
if she also got caught in the end. then it may good ending.
yeh its B low budget VHS or early CD quality movie. there are some simialr B type movies in 90s with same plot.
the start is somehow good, a dumb wife of rich businessman having an affair with husband's assistant. later someone try to blackmail the lovers. later they killed and then story goes totally crap.
almost half movie the wife plays like dumb who having an affair. but once she knows that her lover is behind everything, she suddenly goes Einstein. then in the end she even try to save the person who tried to destroy her life.. pfffff
if she also got caught in the end. then it may good ending.
Awesomely awful
rps-231 January 2001
This is awesomely bad and awesomely embarassing for a Canadian. We grow good wine. Our writers and poets are among the world's best. The National Ballet is rated among the top five companies in the world. BUT WE MAKE BLOODY AWFUL MOVIES! This one isn't especially bad. It's especially typical and typically bad, shot in two bit hotels and public parks with thin direction, high school level acting and "gee whiz...lets see what this button on the camera does??" photography. If Michael Moriarity was so intent on doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation, couldn't he at least have done a GOOD Jack Nicholson impersonation? And if the movie was shot in Vancouver, truly one of the loveliest cities on earth and also a centre of yacht building (part of the "plot") why in God's name do we let that endemic Canadian inferiority complex dictate that it be disguised as Seattle??? Not only am I mad about this film, I'm embarassed and more than a little ashamed. The Australians turn out some splendid stuff. We produce pretentious second rate piffle. Gawd!!!!!
A film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched
sam_319 June 2001
Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, "Well, that's not what I expected." But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again?
To stare wonderingly, often with the mouth open.
msoucie9 December 2000
This was a truly bad film. The character "Cole" played by Michael Moriarty was the biggest reason this flopped, the actor felt that conjuring up an unbelievably awkward southern drawl would make this character more evil, it didn't. After about 20 minutes I had wished for a speech therapist to make an appearance, this would have added some sincerity.
Yuck!
- 1) badly acted - 2) unsympathetic characters - 3) razor thin plot line
Yuck!
Pathetic nudity scenes
petershum16 March 2010
The various nudity scenes that other reviewers referred to are poorly done and a body double was obviously used. If Ms. Pacula was reluctant to do the scenes herself perhaps she should have turned down the role offer.
Otherwise the movie was not any worse than other typical Canadian movies. As other reviewers have pointed out Canadian movies are generally poorly written and lack entertainment value, which is what most movies watchers are hoping to get. Perhaps Canadian movie producers are consciously trying to "de-commercialize" their movies but they have forgotten a very important thing - movies by definition are a commercial thing....
Otherwise the movie was not any worse than other typical Canadian movies. As other reviewers have pointed out Canadian movies are generally poorly written and lack entertainment value, which is what most movies watchers are hoping to get. Perhaps Canadian movie producers are consciously trying to "de-commercialize" their movies but they have forgotten a very important thing - movies by definition are a commercial thing....
Tonight's Episode: "The Art of Murder"
NoDakTatum27 November 2023
Suffering from a title that sounds like an old episode of "Murder, She Wrote," this typical straight-to-video erotic thriller is neither erotic, nor thrilling, nor good. Elizabeth (Joanna Pacula) is married to old drunk Cole (Michael Moriarty). Elizabeth is also sleeping with Cole's younger business partner Tony (Boyd Kestner). Elizabeth also dabbles in painting, mostly anonymous seascapes of the surrounding Seattle set, Vancouver BC shot area. Willie (Peter Onorati) arrives on the scene with some photos of Tony and Elizabeth, er, opening each other's galleries, and blackmails the duo. At the first payment drop, things go bad. Elizabeth ends up shooting Willie. Tony and Elizabeth hide Willie's body in the lake, but curiosity gets the better of our Liz. She goes to Willie's isolated cabin and finds more photos of herself. Concluding that Willie was obsessed with her, she burns the place to the ground. Tony finds out and rejects Elizabeth, both wanting to avoid prison for murder AND arson. To reconcile, Cole promises to quit drinking, and he and Elizabeth get back together again. Is it me, or is this reading like a soap opera plot summary you find in the newspaper TV listings?
The video box claims Elizabeth "seems to have it all." It mentions the rich hubby, the big manse, and the affair. This is what a woman having it all gets? Are women supposed to cheer for Elizabeth's predicament, instead of tiring of a spoiled adulterous seascape painter? Michael Moriarty plays a drunk well. In fact, I would hazard to guess that is not just iced tea in the glasses of booze he swills. He looks physically ill, his voice is a raspy whisper, and I would worry about this actor if I were a friend or family member. Poor Boyd Kestner is handsome and dashing, but is asked to play a dumb pretty boy role. Onorati is also a talented actor I have seen before, but he gets the one note jerk villain role here. Comparisons to a soap opera are not that far off. Cut the too few nude scenes and a couple of curse words, and you would have a special hour and a half episode of "Passions." The direction here is very standard, television episode quality, Preuss does not try to do anything with the bland script. Despite the title, "The Art of Murder" has little to do with art. Sure, there is murder, but watching that old episode of "Murder, She Wrote" might be more challenging than this shallow take. I can guarantee the acting and writing would be on the same level.
The video box claims Elizabeth "seems to have it all." It mentions the rich hubby, the big manse, and the affair. This is what a woman having it all gets? Are women supposed to cheer for Elizabeth's predicament, instead of tiring of a spoiled adulterous seascape painter? Michael Moriarty plays a drunk well. In fact, I would hazard to guess that is not just iced tea in the glasses of booze he swills. He looks physically ill, his voice is a raspy whisper, and I would worry about this actor if I were a friend or family member. Poor Boyd Kestner is handsome and dashing, but is asked to play a dumb pretty boy role. Onorati is also a talented actor I have seen before, but he gets the one note jerk villain role here. Comparisons to a soap opera are not that far off. Cut the too few nude scenes and a couple of curse words, and you would have a special hour and a half episode of "Passions." The direction here is very standard, television episode quality, Preuss does not try to do anything with the bland script. Despite the title, "The Art of Murder" has little to do with art. Sure, there is murder, but watching that old episode of "Murder, She Wrote" might be more challenging than this shallow take. I can guarantee the acting and writing would be on the same level.
Joanna Pacula makes this worth watching
Brian B-213 January 2001
Worth watching for a smart and sexy performance by Joanna Pacula, which stands out from the otherwise wooden performances , although Peter Onorati, as usual, plays a quirky character well. The plot has several clever twists, but is slow , and the dialogue lacks sparkle . I'd rather rent Body Heat, but wouldn't change the channel if this comes on cable.
Adultry and Murder
nonjudgemental24 October 2003
I saw this movie for the first time this week. I was sadly disappointed. It was the worst I think I've seen in a long time. Poor acting, some of which just didn't get off the ground. Boyd Kestner's character just didn't click. And the nudity scenes could have been deleted because they really didn't add much to the movie.
Terrible and then some
kitkatthat200312 November 2003
This movie had potential but it just never gets off the ground. The actors/actresses come across as bored with the script and this results in just a bad movie that is not worth watching. I like Boyd Kestner and seeing his name on the cast was what attracted me to watching the movie. The movie just doesn't work. The nude scenes were unneccessary and could have been deleted completely without losing zilch from an already bad picture.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
