Another serial killer, called The Roper, is hard at work. Hot-shot detective Treat Williams is hard on his trail. The killer seems to know a bit about police procedure and Williams suspects the pathologist, William Macy. But in pursuit of a suspect Williams bonks his head and loses his memory. There are the usual intermittent black-and-white flashbacks lasting a second or two, but otherwise Williams' memory of the case is ablated. He tries to put it all back together again with the help of the sympathetic doctor, Margaret Colin.
The film is not an unabashed failure. It's not an insult to the intelligence. The performances are at least up to expected professional levels and the direction is competent. The story itself is interesting, in the way that all serial-killer movies are interesting. We can understand murdering someone you love. That person is someone who's opinion we care about, who's in a position to hurt us. But the deliberate murder of complete strangers has a preposterous quality. We can't get inside the murderer's head.
But serial-killer movies are a genre unto themselves. There are now more movies about serial killers than there are serial killers. If there were as many of them running about as the movies would have us believe, they'd be organized and they'd have annual conventions in places like Palm Beach and Aspen.
And this is no more than a routine example of the genre. There's not an original note in it. You'll figure out who the killer is long before the Big Reveal.
The photography is too dark. I blame "The X Files" for that. This movie was released in 1995 and "The X Files" first aired two years earlier. It was a huge commercial success. For a period of about ten years, every crime story ever filmed imitated its visual style, which was characterized by lots of darkness punctuated by a couple of roving flashlight beams. In this movie, the PATHOLOGIST'S ROOM is dark! All style and little substance or, to put it another way, plenty of heat but no light. Pfui.
Treat Williams isn't a bad actor but his performances seem to be knee-capped by a high, weak voice. It suits him for secondary roles or for leads that are filled with uncertainty and self doubt. He was fine as the tormented squealer in "Prince of the City," but lacks something as an obsessed detective.
Margaret Colin is splendid as the doc who finally yields to her patient's charm. She resembles Elizabeth Perkins but is more earthy in looks and demeanor. She's slow and deliberate in everything she does and says, and she combines strength with sex appeal.
It's too bad she never found her niche. It's certainly not in this formulaic movie. Even the title, "In The Shadow of Evil," is routine. It belongs on the list of generic titles along with "Guns of Darkness," "Another Dawn," "On The Edge," "No Way Out," "The Big Mistake," "In The Middle", and "Kiss My Beluga." There is a scene in which Williams' detective pushes too much on the case and is made to hand over his badge and gun to his boss. Ho hum.
The film is not an unabashed failure. It's not an insult to the intelligence. The performances are at least up to expected professional levels and the direction is competent. The story itself is interesting, in the way that all serial-killer movies are interesting. We can understand murdering someone you love. That person is someone who's opinion we care about, who's in a position to hurt us. But the deliberate murder of complete strangers has a preposterous quality. We can't get inside the murderer's head.
But serial-killer movies are a genre unto themselves. There are now more movies about serial killers than there are serial killers. If there were as many of them running about as the movies would have us believe, they'd be organized and they'd have annual conventions in places like Palm Beach and Aspen.
And this is no more than a routine example of the genre. There's not an original note in it. You'll figure out who the killer is long before the Big Reveal.
The photography is too dark. I blame "The X Files" for that. This movie was released in 1995 and "The X Files" first aired two years earlier. It was a huge commercial success. For a period of about ten years, every crime story ever filmed imitated its visual style, which was characterized by lots of darkness punctuated by a couple of roving flashlight beams. In this movie, the PATHOLOGIST'S ROOM is dark! All style and little substance or, to put it another way, plenty of heat but no light. Pfui.
Treat Williams isn't a bad actor but his performances seem to be knee-capped by a high, weak voice. It suits him for secondary roles or for leads that are filled with uncertainty and self doubt. He was fine as the tormented squealer in "Prince of the City," but lacks something as an obsessed detective.
Margaret Colin is splendid as the doc who finally yields to her patient's charm. She resembles Elizabeth Perkins but is more earthy in looks and demeanor. She's slow and deliberate in everything she does and says, and she combines strength with sex appeal.
It's too bad she never found her niche. It's certainly not in this formulaic movie. Even the title, "In The Shadow of Evil," is routine. It belongs on the list of generic titles along with "Guns of Darkness," "Another Dawn," "On The Edge," "No Way Out," "The Big Mistake," "In The Middle", and "Kiss My Beluga." There is a scene in which Williams' detective pushes too much on the case and is made to hand over his badge and gun to his boss. Ho hum.