Identikit nel buio

This is one of those movies that isn't good and that isn't bad.

I mean it has got a good story, good actors but somewhere something is missing. A little more tension or excitement. It is right between good and average so is my rating then

6,5 out of 10

But we only work with full grades here I hear you say, well

7 out of 10

I was very surprised to find out that they actually made a sequel to "Sketch Artist", because it didn't seem to be the kind of film that would demand a sequel. The first film was made in a lifeless production, and there didn't seem to be any kind of cult audience with it. Also, considering what the hero did in the first movie, it seemed very unlikely he would still be with the police force! Anyway, we got this sequel, and it is a slight improvement. There is some life here, some tension, some mystery, some curiosity as to how it will wrap up. Still, it could have been better. Fahey's character, for one thing, is almost a secondary character, when there should have been more focus on him. There are some questions, like how the crime inflicted on the blind character is kept murky when it should have been described early on, and just how the antagonist is exactly tracked down. Still, I will admit that this movie was pretty painless to sit through.

In the court scene, the defense attorney, fans through the pages of a Bible. He asks Timothy to quote Galatians 6:12 to prove his knowledge of the Bible as a serious student. Timothy instead quotes Ephesians 6:12. He also messes up on the quote of Revelation 3:2. I don't know who your Bible authority was in writing the script, but perhaps next time the Bible is referenced and quoted it would do well to follow Acts 17:11.

Otherwise, I and my wife enjoyed the movie. It is full of suspense and the cast of characters was perfect.

Sincerely, Steve Crews

Like others, I wonder why someone thought a sequel to SKETCH ARTIST would be a good idea, since the original went direct to video (I FF my way through it on PRIME's MGM channel). Kind of fun watching cops use pay phones & mumble about 'blood types' in the early 90's (No widespread cell phones or DNA technology yet).

But Mr Fahey does a good offbeat character & we get to see Ms. Cox close to the time she played the fake wife on Seinfeld. Here, she is a blind rape victim who can describe the assailant from touching his face during the assault. The guy appears to be a serial attacker who leaves no DNA behind anyway, making it tough for even a modern Forensics team. He also killed the other viciously, meaning Courtney was fortunate her husband came home in time.

Another holdover character is the MR STRICKLAND guy from Back to the Future, wearing the same suit? Talk about typecast--a crabby Homicide Captain. Anyway, this is decent timefiller, with less fast-forwarding than #1 for PG content, and a little more suspense, as the bad guy starts stalking poor Ms Cox . Is he worried she saw something?

This film begins with a young woman by the name of "Emmy O'Connor" (Courtney Cox) being raped at knife point by a serial killer. Yet, even though he has killed his other female victims once he's finished raping them, she is spared that fate when her husband comes home at just the right time. Even so, "Timothy Rothko" (Michael Nicholosi) isn't too worried because he knows that the woman he just raped is blind and therefore unable to identify him anyway. At least, that is what he thinks. What he doesn't know, however, is that Emmy was able to feel the features of his face and because of that she is able to give a pretty good description to the Los Angeles sketch artist, "Jack Whitfield" (Jeff Fahey) to draw his likeness. Of course, whether it will help nab the killer in a city with over 11 million inhabitants is another matter entirely--much less getting a jury to convict him due to the testimony of a blind witness. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that I found this film to be pretty much as entertaining as its predecessor even though there were major differences between them. For example, the first film focused almost exclusively on Jack's relationship with his wife "Rayanne Whitfield" (played by Sean Young) and there was more passion and eroticism because of it. This second film, however, isn't quite as steamy but has a bit more drama and subtle emotional intensity instead. So, even though the backdrop is basically the same, the two films are quite different from one another. Again though, I enjoyed this film just as much as the first one for that reason and I have rated it accordingly. Slightly above average.