Leofwine_draca An interesting adaptation of the Edgar Allan Poe short story, THE MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE concentrates heavily on costumes (which are admittedly classy) and scenery at the cost of atmosphere and suspense. That's not to say that it isn't a good film, but it does lack that necessary oomph needed to drive it into being something really good. The main reason I found the film had no suspense was that I had read the short story previously and so I already knew the identity of the killer (which is kept ambiguous throughout the film).The acting here is superb, and much of the weight lies on the shoulders of the late, lamented George C. Scott, who is perfectly cast as the fussy and brilliant detective Dupin (a forerunner of Sherlock Holmes), and has all the mannerisms and intelligence down to a tee. He is given able support by the fresh-faced Val Kilmer in a supporting role, while Rebecca De Mornay, better known to audiences for her role as a psychotic nanny in THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE, is the token female caught up in the danger. Also appearing is the comedy gent Ian McShane, star of TV's LOVEJOY! Sadly he is not flogging any antique paintings in this film.The gore is light, with some blood splashed over the walls being the main highlight. One interesting aspect is the murder scenes in a park dotted through the film, which serve no real purpose and are a result of the '80s slasher craze, which don't really fit in with the rest of the murder mystery format. There are some great animatronics in the film too. If you're a fan of crime fiction or of Poe then this film is worth seeing as an above average adaptation. It's also a lot similar to a Sherlock Holmes story (with Scott as Holmes and Kilmer as Watson) so if you're anything at all a fan of this kind of classic locked-room murder story (like I am) then this one might be worth a look, even if only for Scott's presence.

anonreview2 This movie is PATHETIC and BORING!. Kilmer and Mornay are stiffer than concrete. the plot is ridiculous--nothing but the worst caricatures and uninformed stereotypical behaviors ever portrayed in a film. the illogical events in the film are untenable--e.g., having sworn to protect the young virgin, the young detective then leaves her alone in the dark park, to be subsequently attacked, even though he knows the murderer is still at large and supposedly in the park! Moreover, it is factually untrue that the "murderer" could have committed this crime, as this species is completely vegetarian and non-violent towards humans unless directly attacked. Check out writings by Birute Galdikas if you have any doubts.It is shameful to perpetuate such outdated notions about a fellow primate that is on the verge of extinction because of humans.

Steve Skafte When the basic story of a film is good, you naturally want to like it. But, sometimes, about half of the way through, you realize that it hasn't lived up to expectations. Edgar Allan Poe wrote a fantastic tale, no doubts there. But this film is sadly misguided.Several factors contribute to this. First, David Epstein's screenplay effectively rips all the subtlety out of the source material. Second, director Jeannot Szwarc makes absolutely no attempt to film this in a way that takes advantage of its low budget and venue. Finally, the casting is utterly random. Accents and nationalities are thrown together with total abandon.In spite of all that, some the cast members manage to put in good performances. George C. Scott (as Auguste Dupin) is really excellent, with great command of his dialogue. Naturally, he is miscast, but acts as if he is in a far better film. A very young Val Kilmer (as Phillipe) is good, but has almost nothing to work with. He too, is miscast, though the main reason I originally watched this. Ian McShane is certainly entertaining, but his character has no subtlety.After the acting, there's little to say. The only quality the film has left it owes to its source material. This might have been acceptable for an original script, but as a badly adapted story, it is simply disappointing.The editing seems haphazard at points, either that important scenes were removed, or never filmed. Dupin's realization of the culprit is never explained, nor the contents of his newspaper ad, or any of his deductive process for that matter. Phillipe's process of discovering Adolphe's unfaithfulness is also never explained.Finally, the intelligence of the script dips considerably by the final scenes. I won't elaborate, but they have all the brains of a 1950s horror B movie. Really weak.RATING: 6.2 out of 10

ccthemovieman-1 Considering the fine start in this film, the movie overall was a huge disappointment. Part of that great beginning was the cinematography, a real eye-grabber particularly in the first 5-10 minutes.The story begins to drag after awhile and it wasn't worthwhile sticking with it all the way - even though I did - because the ending is very unsatisfying.I didn't recognize Rebecca deMornay, she looked so young. Val Kilmer, too, must have been at the beginning of his career. Being a TV movie, the language was pretty tame, which was nice, but the story just didn't deliver. It's not something I would give a second look.