iannicholls There is very little good to say about this movie and I will not try to. Lots of bad camera-work, bad acting, bad script, and bad ideas all combine to make this into a truly awful flick.I'm not sure who said that masses of ankle-shots were a good idea, and unless there are a group of sock-fetishists out there who have a penchant for bad lighting and jumpy camera work, this movie has NO validation whatsoever.In a Just world, the makers of this garbage would be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act for calling this a "Movie", and I really feel that my time would have been better spent in a coma.Apparently there was a plot to this, but it was completely unfathomable, so good luck finding it.

tedg The first howler in this is the notion that Texas hosts the 'finest law school in the south,' as if it were possible - and if would matter if it was. Of course, once we are introduced to a DA running for Congress, we know who the villain is. Having made that scriptwriting error, we wait to see whether the author will redeem himself with suitable twists along the way. And he nearly satisfies. There is a rather interesting red herring in an old case of 'justified' homicide which is cleverly introduced. There are the double red herrings of two fishy lesbians, obviously engineered for prurient seasoning and to reference Eszterhas's 'Instinct.' There is an unexploited narrative fold: we see the murder through a witness's eye and then see the detection through a detective's eye.It comes pretty close to being acceptable storywise. All the acting and directing is much worse except for one example, a woman with the mellifluous name of Scarlett McAlister, who has the appearance of a young Nichole Kidman. If this were an intelligent film, say a Lynch project, her role as double narrator and provider (as librarian) of the backstory would have been a fine opportunity for folded acting. The director is oblivious of course, but either she or her acting coach knew - and you can tell she tried this difficult approach. She's on my list to look out for.Though the murderer is easy to spot, the meaning of the title is not. I suppose it refers to the exhusband, who (we assume) swings both ways.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

The_Limey There is much that 'Pendulum' gets wrong, its Texas location, featuring not one actor with even a trace of a Texas accent. A non-actor as the lead etcHowever its biggest flaw is the fact it is so obviously trying to be a 'tough smart woman manages to outsmart the odds in a male dominated environment' type movie, however the ending totally destroys this, and I am fairly sure the writers didn't even understand they were doing so, so desperate where they to accomplish a complex Noir ending.*SPOILER*What she does is throw away the evidence because the killer is an ex-boyfriend. This makes her weak. The ex-boyfriend was not even the killer anyway, he was protecting the killer. Therefore she is stupid. So your tough female cop is, in the final analysis, weak and stupid.*END SPOILER*Really not worth the effort of watching, it isn't even bad enough to be fun, and the sound track is really annoying...

vpa21133 Pendulum is a murder mystery, or rather two murder mysteries. Rachel Hunter plays a detective originally assigned to investigate the brutal murders of several street prostitutes, then reassigned to investigate the murder of a prominent law school professor.Hunter's character is not exactly "Colombo," and there are several red herrings along the way. The film is set in a milieu of prostitution, lies, kinky sex, corruption, violence, etc., which is why I consider it a "film noir."This movie isn't a classic, but it keeps you interested. If you enjoyed "Presumed Innocent" you'll enjoy this one.