Two Shades of Blue (1999) User Reviews

Bad but has something

[offenes_meer · 3/10 · 10 June 2010]

This film is bad: much bad acting, bad plot, bad directing. Nevertheless it has some intriguing points: Rachel Hunter, Marlee Matlin, of course, they look good and act really interestingly. But then so much of the story is just incredibly incredulous, that it hurts: who the HELL is the burnt body, how can an inept shot like the deputy police officer suddenly wake up to place a deadly shot at a distance, why would the characters of Jack Reynolds and PD Alvarez overreact so much etc.etc... BUT THEN, there are some really unimportant details that make you sit up straight in your seat: in the interrogation scene when Alvarez steps out of the room and a large black policeman passes through as if not aware of the setting - Alvarez looks all bewildered and quizzical - as if not expecting this move at all. The phone sex scene is a hoot (at least on the relay side :-)). The final twist when the story turns all cliché may be a wink by the director, it may also have been unintentional. Who knows? Summary: beware of films by James D. Deck (but you might be able to find some diamonds in the mouth of his corpse ...)

I've seen worse movies than this

[daumas · 5/10 · 22 February 2001]

It's a bad movie but not the worst I've ever seen. But everything on it is obvious. After 30 min, I told my wife that the character of Gary Busey was not dead. I was right. But at the same time, they didn't say who was murdered there. Besides, as far as I know no other operator but Susan, took the calls between the D.A. and the character of Eric Roberts (in bad acting as usual). More, the detectives were dumb! They should watch a few episodes of Law & Order!!! Thinking better: it's not the worst movie I saw but it's one of them....

routine mystery

[jaybob · 5/10 · 14 April 2001]

Oh well,here we have another film thats supposed to be a mystery But you will not be suprised at most things in it,The only original thing is the casting of a hearing impaired man as a romantic interest. I do not know the actors name ,He was both good looking & a good actor, The cast includes Gary Busey(yu can see every bit of make-up on his face) Marlee Maitlin (capable BUT)Eric Roberts doing his usual routine. & the Australian actress Rachel Hunter my rating is a low **1/2.

AS ALWAYS

jay harris

So its not a masterpiece of mystery?

[teuthis · 14 June 2002]

This film was made by a director who lacks the ability to bring any sense of realism to the screen. So if you approach it with high expectations of being entertained, you will be disappointed; and possibly upset. But don't forget, this mess has Rachel Hunter in it! She's not the greatest actress, but she's not bad. She is also gorgeous and almost six feet tall. And Marlee Matlin is there. She is compelling, and always worth watching. We have Gary Busey, leering menacingly; Eric Roberts, of evil profile and deed. And some hilarious over-acting by minor players. These people together make the film interesting for me. I love watching actors acting. Its a part of why I like films anyway. And if that isn't enough, there is the directors demented perception of reality. For instance, a police detective panics after wounding the murder suspect, and sprays two additional [large] magazines of ammunition around the room. We are treated to feather pillows being pulverized, lamps shattered and other silly things that a trained marksman can do with a gun. This same cop, mortally wounded, subsequently makes a clean shot on another suspect from almost fifty feet. And the director's attempt at "mystery" cause me to wonder if he ever did figure out the plot. There are a million little elements to watch the director miss or ignore. That's entertainment! I find such little films intriguing, if not entertaining in their original intent. But don't trust me completely. I'll watch anything with Rachel Hunter in it!

Worst film I've ever seen.

[Breogan · 1/10 · 10 December 2000]

I recommend not to see this movie.

It is a complete nonsense.

Don't spend time in this film, even Jean Claude Van Damme has better films than this one.

A MUST TO AVOID.

Marlee Matlin deserves another Academy Award

[Krypto · 9/10 · 14 January 2004]

I thought this movie was awesome! Marlee Matlin has always been one of my favorite all-time actors. It seems as if the writer knew exactly how to create the perfect role for Ms. Matlin. While the directing sucks, and the photography is fair, the screenplay is brilliantly written. I saw this movie on Showtime and the story kept me involved. Rachel Hunter is a famous author who is framed for murder. To clear her name, she changes her identity and goes undercover as relay operator 060 for the hearing-impaired, where she becomes involved in a voyeuristic relationship between the District Attorney, (Ms. Matlin) whom she hopes to reach, and her mysterious lover (Mr. Roberts) who is the real murderer. The acting was good. It was fun watching Rachel Hunter as Susan Price. Gary Busey was pretty good too. But it is Ms. Matlin who fully realizes the role she plays. My favorite scene was the steamy three-way-phone-sex scene between Ms. Matlin, Mr. Roberts and Ms. Hunter. Who ever wrote this script is a genius. Personally, I think the film would have been much better in the hands of a director like Martin Scorsese, and with a bigger budget. But as an independent film, I give it a thumbs up. Definitely worth seeing for the novelty of its stars.

Excellent performance in routine thriller

[Erich-13 · 28 May 2004]

When I rented this movie, I was pretty confident of two things beforehand: (1) Marlee Matlin would be excellent. (2) The movie wouldn't be. I was not surprised on either count.

There's nothing particularly wrong with the movie itself; it's just your standard run-of-the-mill thriller, with the usual plot twists (some more predictable than others) and double-crosses. However, Marlee Matlin is as magnetic a presence as ever; for example, in the "phone sex" scene, just watching her facial expressions is more erotic than any amount of nudity. (Not that the nudity in other scenes is unwelcome...)

One thing struck me as odd regarding the VHS release (I haven't seen the DVD version): Considering that the movie stars the screen's most prominent deaf actress and revolves around a telephone-relay service for the hearing-impaired...WHY is there no closed-captioning on the video? I know that this isn't a major label distributing the movie, but you'd think they'd spring for captioning on this one.

Don't try this at home!

[verlaan · 29 January 2001]

The only reason we had fun watching 'Two shades of blue', was because this film was objectively bad. I don't know where it went wrong, but it did. It's not the plot or the acting. They're all right. It is just that the sum doesn't work out.

Only rent this film if you want easy watching.