Not even bad in a good way

Best movie ever!

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Double Exposure (1983) ** 1/2 (out of 4)Adrian Wilde (Michael Callan) is a photographer who is seeing a shrink because he's having very bad nightmares about murdering the women he takes photos of. He tries to strike up a relationship with Mindy (Joanna Pettet) but before long he begins to fear that his dreams are real.DOUBLE EXPOSURE isn't the most successful film that you're going to watch but there are enough good moments in it to make it worth watching. The best way to describe the film is saying it's a cross between the type of thriller that Brian DePalma would make but with the sleaze factor of a slasher. The two go well together and we get some nice performance that help make the film a bit better than it probably deserves to be.As far as the mystery goes, for the most part we're given some suspects and we're made to wait until the very end for the killer to be revealed. I thought the mystery aspect worked quite well, although there are some rather silly moments involving a couple cops working the case. The two of them pretty much just show up every so often whenever the film needs to remind the viewer that the murders are being investigated. What really helps the film is the fact that Callan is so good in the lead role of the troubled man who thinks he might be more damaged that he originally thought. Pettet and James Stacy both add nice support.The film works as a slasher and especially during the scenes where we see the killer talking various women including prostitutes. There's a nice sequence where we see a hooker lure the killer down an alleyway. Director William Bryan Hillman makes the film look quite good but a little more energy and a bit more suspense certainly would have helped things. As it stands, DOUBLE EXPOSURE certainly isn't a masterpiece but it's a mildly entertaining film.

Here's something a little different from Crown International Pictures: a giallo-flavoured slasher with a strong psychological angle and a decidedly nasty edge. DOUBLE EXPOSURE tells the tale of a photographer plagued by nightmares in which he kills a string of young and beautiful women, and a real-life series of killings taking place at the same time. Could he really be the serial killer responsible? DOUBLE EXPOSURE feels very much like an '80s-era giallo along the lines of A BLADE IN THE DARK or NOTHING UNDERNEATH. It has an unusually vicious edge to it for a Crown International film; it's not that it's particularly gory - and it's certainly nowhere near as gory as your average Italian giallo - it's just that the murders are ruthless and mean-spirited. Being a Crown film, there's ample nudity if you're after that, along with a very low budget that gives a schlocky look to everything that occurs.The cast give solid rather than unspectacular performances and there are supporting turns for a few familiar faces like Cleavon Little. Michael Callan is pretty good as the weirdo lead, covered in sweat and acting deranged for the most part, although anybody with any experience of this particular genre of films will guess the identity of the killer early on in the proceedings. Nevertheless, DOUBLE EXPOSURE is a breath of fresh air when compared to Crown's typical output (i.e. low budget sex comedies).

Reportedly, Crown International studios original plan for this pick-up was to give it a fairly wide release, but after a bad reaction from audiences during previews, they ended up dumping it in just a few theaters before it went to video. Watching the movie, one has to wonder why the studio heads couldn't see for themselves they had an unsuccessful movie on their hands before showing it to audiences. To be fair, it's not a terrible movie. While low budget, it never looks cheap, being well shot. It's also acceptably acted. However, it's the script that sinks this movie. The story is very slow-moving. It takes forever for the movie to set up the situation, and once that happens it continues at a crawl until the end. Also, the ending does not really explain the haunting murder dreams the hero was having throughout the movie. I guess the movie could have been a lot worse, but that's hardly a ringing endorsement.

I had to scan the credits of this movie for surnames beginning and/or ending in vowels because I'd swear it was an Italian giallo. All the signs are there: gratuitous violence and nudity, out-of-control cinematography, a completely ridiculous plot. Michael Callan is a photographer who has incredibly cinematic dreams where he murders his beautiful, half-naked models. When his beautiful, half-naked models start being murdered in real life, both the police and his psychiatrist (Seymour Cassel) begin to suspect that he is the killer. But is it him or is it his creepy brother who is missing both an arm and leg (but still gets to date former "Hee Haw" honey Misty Rowe and mud wrestle Playmate-to-be Kathy Shower)? If you've seen even one of these kind of movies, you already know the answer. Still if you love Italian giallos and 70's and 80's low-budget American exploitation flicks (a select group of people, I know) you'll be in drunken, late-night TV-watching heaven with this one.