|She could not see his face clearly.
hours, all those people started kicking the bucket. Oops. The
killer considered her cocktail napkin to be a license to kill.
Interestingly, this is the same way James Bond started. Some lady in a
bar was pissed off at Blofeld and Goldfinger, and you know the rest.
||Both incidents are based upon an
actual point of international law, which makes cocktail napkins
acceptable binding contracts in the World Court, where they even
supersede the evidentiary value of a deathbed confession. Plain
napkins are binding contracts, but napkins with graphics and cutesy
bar names like "Hanker's Aweigh" also provide the possessor
with full binding legal authority for otherwise illegal acts.
There was a surprise ending. The
killer here would have gotten off scot-free, but he accidentally used
a plain napkin instead of the ones imprinted by the bar.
(1999) came and went pretty much without notice. The two reviews
linked at IMDB aren't even there. One of the two who commented
at IMDB liked the titles, but had little use for any other
aspect of the film. That was the positive review of the two.
IMDb readers have it at 4.5 of 10 based on 58 votes. That is
probably all you really need to know about this one, but for the
ones who are still reading ...
Anna (Roos) has not had a good week. Her creep of a magazine
owner boss grabbed her ass, the grocery clerk was a total jerk,
her best friend made light of her problems with the boss, her
husband was much more interested in the equipment on the
waitress than in her story, and they came home to find their
baby sitter tangled up with her boy friend on the sofa. Anna
retreats to the local bar, which, we learn, has been a too
frequent occurrence, and pours her heart out to a kind stranger.
He takes notes, has her sign them, then agrees to fix
everything. Next day, her boss is murdered. Anna has no inkling
why, and even the death of the store clerk isn't enough to send
her to the police. When the babysitter is killed, she catches
on, and the list is now down to people she actually likes.
Time to stop here in case some misguided few of you elect to see
this, but I have never seen a more obvious red herring start to
finish, a less likely killer, or a lamer final twist. And to top
it off, they make no attempt at all to explain. Roos is worth
seeing naked, but maybe watching this film is too high a price
to pay. And as to the snazzy and touted MTV-style titles, I
didn't care for them.
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
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. G means that it is a Jeff Fahey movie.
Based on this
description, this film is a G.