Two Shades of Blue (1999)
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
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 ...)
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.
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.
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.