john.schneider The word "1st" in the title has more ominous meaning for the viewers of this film than for its crime victims. At least they don't have to stick around and watch this interminable film reach its own demise.1st should refer to: 1st draft of a script; 1st takes used in each performance in the final film; 1st edit in post production; etcetera, etcetera.The movie is not cast too badly, it's just that everything about the film come off as worse than third rate, from the goofy script, to the wooden performances. And while suffering through this cobbled together film, by the 2 hour mark you want to be put out of your misery. At 160 minutes long it is readily apparent that it should have been edited to under 2 hours.Going into details concerning the lame script and acting serves little purposes. Even in the equally awful, Lake Placid, at least the performances Bill Pullman and Bridget Fonda constructed out of an extremely weak script, were nuanced enough to make you laugh at the movie. In 1st to Die, one ends up grieving only for the time lost in waiting to see what happens after the opening scene of the preparation of the female lead's suicide.The editing is so bad one is never introduced to one of the main characters, who I think (were never quite told) is a D.A. She just appears in one scene in the middle of a conversation. Obviously the scene where she is introduced to the viewer was dropped on the editor's floor. And no one realized that a character appearing out of nowhere was an unusual film ploy.In a word, don't waste your time with this one. My wife and I wish we didn't. But at least we created our own diversions by commenting in various places in the film like it was Mystery Science Theater. "Meanwhile, in Cleveland . . . ." !!!!

triple8 SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.

RoseAnn ...he has to be a better writer than this movie portrayed.The actors and actresses were excellent. Especially noteworthy, as has already been mentioned, were Tracy Pollen and Robert Patrick.But...by the time I got to the end of this movie, I was totally confused. Who did what/why/when/how?? I got what the final motive was supposed to be, but that was about all.And could someone explain to me the meaning of the Russian roulette scene? I guess I need to get one of Patterson's books to read before I sit through another Patterson adaptation. Usually seeing a good made-for-TV movie makes me want to go buy the writer's work for enjoyment. In this case, I feel the need to go read this book so I can understand what I just spent the last 2+ hours watching. I'm not so much intrigued as annoyed.Five stars out of ten for casting. Nothing for storyline. What I got most from this movie was a frustrating headache...

aro-2 Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category.