Murder in Paradise (TV Movie 1990)
5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:10
An honest review from neither a fanboy or a hater...
BASIC PLOT: Charlie Raski (Kevin KilnerKevin Kilner]) is hiding. He's hiding from his job, from the death of his wife, from his alcohol problem, but mostly from his guilt. Charlie's NYPD, and a few years ago, while hunting a serial killer, his wife was targeted. The killer decided playing with the lead detective, and his life, was better than the average hunt - more of a challenge. Charlie did everything right, he put his wife in protective custody, he was more than careful. He thought he took every precaution, but it wasn't enough. His wife was murdered, by the killer Charlie was pursuing. He hasn't been able to forgive himself, even though he eventually gunned down the serial killer. The outcome brought him no peace. He hightailed it to Hawaii, crawled inside a bottle, and has been slowly killing himself ever since. A barstool in paradise is where he's been, until the nightmare started again. People are dying on the island, and the killer is using the same M. O. as the one who killed Charlie's wife. The police don't know if they should ask for Charlie's help, or make him a suspect. Charlie's decided to end the nightmare for good, even if it kills him. Can he stop the next "Murder In Paradise"?
WHAT WORKS: *KEVIN KILNER DOES A GREAT JOB PORTRAYING AN A-HOLE Kevin Kilner does an adequate job as Charlie Raski, a grief stricken burn-out, hiding out in Hawaii. Charlie is also hiding out in jerk mode, drinking away his grief. I found myself empathizing with Charlie, and talking to the screen, so it can't be a complete failure. Two of the hardest things to do as an actor are to authentically portray grief and intoxication. Kevin Kilner manages to pull off both. Is it the best performance ever? Hell no! This is a straight-to-video movie people! STOP expecting Oscars!
*THE ENDING IS GREAT I'm talking about the realistic ending between Charlie Raski (Kevin Kilner) and Diane Mahona (Maggie Han). I'm glad the filmmakers didn't try to tack on some happy, candy ass ending. The sincere, realistic one is much better
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *THE SERIAL KILLERS AREN'T SCARY It's unfortunate, because with just a little work, this movie could have been elevated to a true thriller, reminiscent of the movie, Resurrection (1999). Resurrection (1999) worked so well, because the serial killer was SCARY and DISTURBING. In this movie, it's a guy who puts some paint on people's faces, before he kills them. There's nothing frightening about him.
*THE SCRIPT KINDA MEANDERS This script needed some minor rewrites. Barbara Carrera's character, Emma Danton, is fine, but the way we get there, doesn't quite work. First she hates Charlie, then she calls him, and jumps his bones, at a scenic overlook. I get she's supposed to be a bit crazy, but her character needed to have someone at the reigns. As it is, she's all over the place.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *If (and that's a big IF), you like 80's and 90's made-for-tv movies, or straight-to-video movies, AND you like light thrillers, you'll probably like this. It's a middle of the road, time waster. It's not trying to be anything else. So, if you like those kinds of movies, give this a try. If not, give it a pass (and don't write long, pointless reviews about how you hate this type of movie, but continue to watch and rate them anyway).
CLOSING NOTES: *This is a straight-to-video movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. Straight-to-video movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
An honest review from neither a fanboy or a hater...
BASIC PLOT: Charlie Raski (Kevin KilnerKevin Kilner]) is hiding. He's hiding from his job, from the death of his wife, from his alcohol problem, but mostly from his guilt. Charlie's NYPD, and a few years ago, while hunting a serial killer, his wife was targeted. The killer decided playing with the lead detective, and his life, was better than the average hunt - more of a challenge. Charlie did everything right, he put his wife in protective custody, he was more than careful. He thought he took every precaution, but it wasn't enough. His wife was murdered, by the killer Charlie was pursuing. He hasn't been able to forgive himself, even though he eventually gunned down the serial killer. The outcome brought him no peace. He hightailed it to Hawaii, crawled inside a bottle, and has been slowly killing himself ever since. A barstool in paradise is where he's been, until the nightmare started again. People are dying on the island, and the killer is using the same M. O. as the one who killed Charlie's wife. The police don't know if they should ask for Charlie's help, or make him a suspect. Charlie's decided to end the nightmare for good, even if it kills him. Can he stop the next "Murder In Paradise"?
WHAT WORKS: *KEVIN KILNER DOES A GREAT JOB PORTRAYING AN A-HOLE Kevin Kilner does an adequate job as Charlie Raski, a grief stricken burn-out, hiding out in Hawaii. Charlie is also hiding out in jerk mode, drinking away his grief. I found myself empathizing with Charlie, and talking to the screen, so it can't be a complete failure. Two of the hardest things to do as an actor are to authentically portray grief and intoxication. Kevin Kilner manages to pull off both. Is it the best performance ever? Hell no! This is a straight-to-video movie people! STOP expecting Oscars!
*THE ENDING IS GREAT I'm talking about the realistic ending between Charlie Raski (Kevin Kilner) and Diane Mahona (Maggie Han). I'm glad the filmmakers didn't try to tack on some happy, candy ass ending. The sincere, realistic one is much better
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *THE SERIAL KILLERS AREN'T SCARY It's unfortunate, because with just a little work, this movie could have been elevated to a true thriller, reminiscent of the movie, Resurrection (1999). Resurrection (1999) worked so well, because the serial killer was SCARY and DISTURBING. In this movie, it's a guy who puts some paint on people's faces, before he kills them. There's nothing frightening about him.
*THE SCRIPT KINDA MEANDERS This script needed some minor rewrites. Barbara Carrera's character, Emma Danton, is fine, but the way we get there, doesn't quite work. First she hates Charlie, then she calls him, and jumps his bones, at a scenic overlook. I get she's supposed to be a bit crazy, but her character needed to have someone at the reigns. As it is, she's all over the place.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *If (and that's a big IF), you like 80's and 90's made-for-tv movies, or straight-to-video movies, AND you like light thrillers, you'll probably like this. It's a middle of the road, time waster. It's not trying to be anything else. So, if you like those kinds of movies, give this a try. If not, give it a pass (and don't write long, pointless reviews about how you hate this type of movie, but continue to watch and rate them anyway).
CLOSING NOTES: *This is a straight-to-video movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. Straight-to-video movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
