Home > Thriller >

Two Shades of Blue

Two Shades of Blue (1999)

June. 06,2000
|
3.7
| Thriller

Susan Price has written a #1 bestseller, a steamy novel about a woman's search for the ultimate sexual experience entitled, "The Dark Side of Judith." When Susan is framed for the murder of her fiance, billionare publisher Jack Reynolds, she eludes authorities by changing her identity and becoming the woman she wrote about in her book, Judith Anderson. To find the real killer, Susan goes undercover as a relay operator for the hearing impaired to contact District Attorney Beth McDaniels who is deaf. While relaying intimate phone conversations between Beth and her boyfriend Calvin, Susan discovers her own dark side when she becomes entangled in this voyeuristic world of deceit, intrigue and murder.

...

Watch Trailer

Cast

Reviews

Solemplex
2000/06/06

To me, this movie is perfection.

More
VeteranLight
2000/06/07

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

More
Chirphymium
2000/06/08

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

More
Ava-Grace Willis
2000/06/09

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

More
offenes_meer
2000/06/10

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 ...)

More
Erich-13
2000/06/11

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.

More
teuthis
2000/06/12

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!

More
Gustavo Bastos
2000/06/13

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....

More