Presumed Dead (2006)

Excellent, a Must See

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

The first must-see film of the year.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

After the death of her police officer husband Detective Mary Ann Cooper - "Coop" - (Fenn) is reluctant to take leave and throws herself into her work, much to the distress of her young daughter. On the night of her husband's death, he was called out to a domestic disturbance at a local writer's home. Sharing his thoughts about the man and the situation with Coop, she is left with the impression that the writer is not to be trusted. So when she hears about a possible murder at the house she rushes to the crime scene and inserts herself into the case. This is where the twists and turns begin.This is a very clever mystery tale. However, there are times when it feels as though the writer, Lindsay James (Keith Shaw) struggles with some of the plot twists and their culmination. Which is a shame as it adds a sloppiness to the project. Though the courtroom scene is very well structured as you get to see how a writers mind can rework the facts to meet a different scenario. Loved this section of the story. Then you get the ending which feels rushed and spoils the mood and aura of the film.The director, George Mendeluk, is adept at creating atmosphere, though a little more tension at times wouldn't have gone amiss. Also, a change of pace would have been good. There are a couple of scenes that would have improved from a different approach, especially the two in the woods.I liked Fenn as the cop on a mission, she did well in portraying her. Fenn has had a lot of hits and misses in her career, this one is a hit. The rest of the cast also do a good job with their characterisations. Though, I wouldn't have chosen Regehr to play the writer, Seth Harmon. This character calls for a cool and cocky air to him, Regehr gets nowhere near to these traits. Then when he starts to break, Regehr struggles with pulling off this psychological side. Though, this could be what the director envisioned and asked for. However, I cannot help but think how much better the film would have been with a stronger bad guy.This is a movie I'd recommend all mystery and thriller fans and whodunnit pundits to watch, at least once. Once the plot twists have been exposed then the power of the film has been expunged.

The year is coming to a close and I have a sure winner for the worst of the year. The only movie I voted 1 in 2010.I took notes of my thoughts (as I usually do) but after 15 minutes I had listed so many problems that I decided to stop it: the list had gotten way too long. From that point on I just sat back and watched, asking myself if I should trust my eyes and ears: could a movie be that bad?The story is ridiculous. Written by Keith Shaw under the name of Lindsay James (would that be the name he signs when he writes something that even he is ashamed of?)Should I bother to disclose this? Well, the person we think will end up being right is - surprise! - right. Evidences are tampered, a venal "expert" is bought off - selling his "expertise" to the highest bidder -, a forensic lab technician also breaks the law, but the end justify all those less than laudable means. And, talking about laudable, the person who orchestrates all that is commended for doing that. (In 2 other movies I've watched recently where the cops planted or tampered with evidence, at least they ended up dead and looked upon in shame). I can only hope that law enforcement in my city works a little bit differently.Direction is confusing. The director tries hard to makes us think in certain directions intending to surprise us. It certainly didn't work in my case. Performances are laughable. I actually liked John Tench as the butler. Do you think you ever saw a stereotypical butler? The butler that jokes are made about? Well, think again and watch him. His scenes made the movie look like a spoof of horror movies. I thought Leslie Nilsen would show up next.I may keep the DVD: it provides valuable lessons on how NOT to make a movie.

Spoilers beware, readers. Every film student, every future film maker, should run out and locate a copy of this movie. It is a masterpiece of inept, hole ridden, movie making of the very worst kind. Yes, grab a copy of this utterly absurd piece of far fetched junk and it will demonstrate, as you sit with you jaw dropping towards the floor, how not to make a movie! The acting is in a class of it's own. See the mad writer go to pieces (along with the plot). See the henchman who is only short of being called Igor! Or is that Egor? See the near retirement chubby cop allow the defective detective into the evidence room without supervision thus allowing her to liberate valuable evidence from the cop shop. See the worst use of a E. Hemingway photo in the history of visual storytelling. I could go on but please discover for yourselves the many delights this gem contains, it may not make you happy but it will certainly make you a better film-maker-writer. Enjoy!

If you love a surprising twist at the end of a movie-this is it! Twist, upon twist, upon twist. The flashbacks and use of color are inventive and creative. They help the story. Does art imitate art, or vice versa? This is what the film seems to explore: the theme that sometimes creative individuals turn to crime and violence if they do not get the opportunity to express themselves, or if their creativity is suppressed-as in the case of Jack The Ripper, or Adolf Hitler. Filmically, the black and white flashbacks seem to represent what really happened, and the more colorful ones seem to be from the accused killer's point of view. It's good to see Sherilyn Fenn again. She is credible as a cop and a single mom wrestling to solve a case of murder with a misogynist as the accused, as well as heal herself from the tragic death of her husband.The credit sequence sets up the plot, which is interesting. The music is haunting. And the directing even and sure handed. The end is definitely a surprise!