Mute Witness (1995)

Simply A Masterpiece

best movie i've ever seen.

There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Hitchcock was a class apart, but many seem to believe that they can imitate him. Director Anthony Waller appears to have tried and, like Brian de Palma and other less famous names, fails, because he lacks the touch, the humor, that insubstantial quality that comes with genius. And a pity it is, because the idea is not bad: set in Moscow, a mute "American" girl (beautiful Martina Zudina is actually a Moscow-born Russian, so she was conveniently rendered mute so her accent would not give her away) working as a film production assistant witnesses a "snuff" crime committed in a studio lot, and she is chased for the rest of the film. The premise of film within a film is situated from the outset, with all manner of fake action happening with far too many props, and far too much fantasy for my liking. On positive aspect about the mute witness: there is far less shrieking than tends to be the case with movies of this type. The acting is generally appalling, with Evan Richards as the clumsiest geek you'll see. The Russian ensemble looks generally menacing... and yet less than convincing. Photography is competent enough, even if some stunts and action sequences require a vast amount of suspended belief, especially during the second half of the movie. Screenplay: reasonably gripping during the first half.The really interesting detail about this film is the Mystery Guest Star. In his memoirs entitled "MY NAME ESCAPES ME," Alec Guinness explains that he was approached by Anthony Waller to film a few scenes in the back of a car, and agreed to do so because he (Guinness) thought that it was a student film. Guinness also says that he was never offered, and never received any pay for his part, and in the above mentioned memoirs he makes it clear that he will not fall for a stunt like that again.So, the finest moment in the film was obtained under false pretenses, and that pretty much defines the entire project: as fake as the fake blood that pours throughout the film. I am giving this mediocrity a very generous 6 /10 because of Guinness, one of the finest actors ever to grace the silver screen.

I tend to chew on a fingernail or two during great fights and great movies and that doesn't happen very often. Not saying this movie is an all time classic but it is indeed a supreme nail biter and should have a place among great suspense movies. I gave it a vote of 8 just because I wanted to do my part to get this movie over the current 6.8 rating and up to a solid 7 where it deserves to be. I found this movie on a single list of top 100 best suspense movies of all time while searching the internet for same. I had no real expectations about this title but wow, this low budget movie delivers big time. Name another movie made for $2.000.000 that delivers even 10% of the thrills and chills. It feels like an American movie shot overseas even though it is a joint effort from Russia | UK | Germany. There are no over the top gore scenes and only one or two gratuitous nude scenes which for me is a big plus. I don't mind a nude scene in its place or a little blood letting but many of todays so called horror and suspense movies have absolutely nothing to offer except some weird competition to see who can be more creative (grosser) at removing body parts. Todays movie goers are lazy, they don't want to think or use their imagination, they just want everything laid open in front of them and explained down to the last detail. They have to see the knife in slow motion entering the body from every angle to be entertained. If a character says " they found her head in a hat box" I don't have to see the head, thank you, I do have my own imagination. I see many reviewers calling this director a Hitchcock wannabe but who in the business wouldn't want to be compared to a great director like Hitch. I see this guy closer to Brian De Palma with his quite, nerve twisting pace. I promise you this movie will have you on the edge of your seat almost from the title screen and constantly guessing whats coming next. SEE IT!

It is always a well-known, and important directorial device to set up the atmosphere of a film within the first 5 minutes. In the crucial opening scenes, the film should assert itself and make the viewers take notice and get interested in the rest of the film. Here, in "Mute Witness", we find a prime example of this.*Scene spoiler* In the first 5-10 minutes, the film opens to a very Hitchcockian scene of a pretty blonde lady in her apartment, with the radio on. She's wandering around, applying lipstick, dolling herself up, and ignoring the news report of a serial killer on the loose. Of course, the serial killer is in her house, and monitoring her moves, knife in hand. She hears a noise, looks in a room, and there is her partner in a pool of blood. At the very point of her screams, she turns around to be faced with the knife-wielding maniac, who stabs her repeatedly in a brutal and horrifying act.......then something odd happens. As the woman convulses in her death throes, the killer sits down and takes out a cigarette to watch his victim perish. Before he finds his lighter, his cigarette is lit...from someone else in the room! The camera pans out, and we realise that there are more and more people in the room, some taking notes, some filming, some recording the death, and that the lady is taking an awfully long time to die, and making a very hammy job of it too. When the audience realises what's going on, and the whole scene is part of a film, the suspenseful and horrific scene takes on an element of humour.*End Scene Spoiler* I have highlighted this opening scene for several reasons. Firstly, it portrays the atmosphere of the whole movie perfectly. A thriller in the style of Hitchcock or De Palma, with some very disorientating, and even blackly humorous moments. - It conveys a central subject matter (that of the difference between a 'movie screen death' and a 'snuff film death', an issue which is elaborated on later in the film), and finally, it introduces the viewer to the characters, all as silently as possible.The plot of Mute Witness centres around Billy Hughes, an American special effects make-up artist who is working on the set of the film, being shot in a large warehouse in Moscow. Billy cannot speak, but she communicates in sign language through her sister. After the end of an evening's filming, Billy inadvertently finds herself locked in the warehouse by accident, and in her attempt to escape, is witness to two of the crew making what first appears to be a porno film, but turns out to be a snuff movie. Suddenly, her escape from the warehouse is a matter of life and death.Without doubt, the first half of the film is powerful and absolutely gripping. Billy's saving grace, and her handicap is the fact that she isn't able to utter a sound. (In fact, in my opinion, one of the best aspects of the film is the fact that it isn't chock-full of women screaming). There are some utterly disturbing moments, and some superb set-pieces of real suspense (The corridoor, and the elevator shaft are perfect examples). The timing is fluid, and the whole first half is an incredibly satisfying experience in itself.The second half of the film introduces new concepts. While there are still several suspenseful moments, the focus is on plot twists. New characters are introduced, and it is ambiguous as to whose side they are on. While there is nothing wrong per se with the second half of the film, it just doesn't quite measure up to the first half. There are some neat moments of black humour that perfectly juxtapose and punctuate some very dramatic scenes, but there are also some very lame comedy moments (coming specifically from Billy's sister and her fiancée, who happens to be the director of the movie Billy is working on), that almost ruin the film, just because they are badly misplaced and/or mistimed and ruin the pace. - At the end, the twists keep coming at a rapid-fire speed, and the climax of the film is, appropriately, as tense as the first half.There are several things that really make the movie work. The barriers of communication that Billy must face, both as a mute, and as an American in Moscow, mean that even an emergency call for help becomes a dangerous situation. The actress that plays Billy, Natasha Zudina, does a wonderful job in the film, with an engaging on-screen prescence, and a brilliant performance, and finally, the direction as a whole, but most particularly in the first half of the film, which truly is a study in Alfred Hitchcock's suspense/thriller film techniques.As I have already said, though, the let-downs in the film are from some terrible comic relief moments that really do not need to be added. There is already a consistent and effective streak of dark humour that appears in the film without the need for the characters of Karen Hughes and Andy Clarke (The sister and the moviemaker) to turn their scenes into some unusual sit-com. However, despite these shortcomings, the film is a thoroughly enjoyable thriller, and ideal for a group viewing at halloween. (Certainly better than the usual slasher horror film...!)

This film is a superb technical exercise by a director who obviously has talent to spare. It's suspenseful for almost every minute of its running time. The film contains a number of very clever moments, some of which are quite funny, and all of which give the impression that the director has thought deeply about his craft. But the film has at least two major flaw. Firstly, the film is too busy, even giving the appearance of being rushed. This is, of course, intended to make the film more suspenseful, but there are sometimes too many suspense and action 'ideas' thrown together into one short sequence, and this renders a certain amount of the action quite implausible. Everything is played at the same fast pitch; there are virtually no sequences which manage to be slow-paced and dreadfully suspenseful at the same time; in other words, the kind of talent for suspense that we associate with Hitchcock. Nevertheless, for what it is and what it tries to do, this is superior as a thriller to almost anything else out there, with the possible exception of David Fincher at his very best. The other major criticism is that the film has no heart, no humanity. It's not simply that there is not time given to emotion and character development, although this is true enough. Nothing in the film ever particularly engages our sympathy, beyond wanting the heroin escape from her truly repugnant pursuers. Without humanity there is of course no real ethic or moral conflict to be found, and this in my view reduces the film to a great technical exercise which is hollow inside. There is a horrible murder scene in the film, and one desperately wants something (anything) to offset the ugliness. It's inferior to a film like 'Control Room' which balances brilliant suspense sequences with drama, created by minimal but effective exposition of the conflicting motives of the characters. In short, if you're going to be heartless and pitiless with your story and characters, you had better have the brilliance of a Hitchcock (or an Argento at his best) to make up for it. Anthony Waller is almost there, but not quite. Film trivia: Alec Guinness tells in one of his books how he came to do this cameo (which he almost immediately forgot about afterward). The director simply saw Guinness in a restaurant and begged him to do the scene. Guinness kindly obliged him by memorizing and speaking his handful of lines, which of course made no sense to him at all. Guinness' real voice is obviously not being used when we hear the Reaper giving commands via walkie-talkie in the climax. At least they could have taken the time to do a better impersonation of Guinness! It's probably the film's biggest technical gaffe, and certainly the most annoying.