This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

This film is bad: much bad acting, bad plot, bad directing. Nevertheless it has some intriguing points: Rachel Hunter, Marlee Matlin, of course, they look good and act really interestingly. But then so much of the story is just incredibly incredulous, that it hurts: who the HELL is the burnt body, how can an inept shot like the deputy police officer suddenly wake up to place a deadly shot at a distance, why would the characters of Jack Reynolds and PD Alvarez overreact so much etc.etc... BUT THEN, there are some really unimportant details that make you sit up straight in your seat: in the interrogation scene when Alvarez steps out of the room and a large black policeman passes through as if not aware of the setting - Alvarez looks all bewildered and quizzical - as if not expecting this move at all. The phone sex scene is a hoot (at least on the relay side :-)). The final twist when the story turns all cliché may be a wink by the director, it may also have been unintentional. Who knows? Summary: beware of films by James D. Deck (but you might be able to find some diamonds in the mouth of his corpse ...)

When I rented this movie, I was pretty confident of two things beforehand: (1) Marlee Matlin would be excellent. (2) The movie wouldn't be. I was not surprised on either count.There's nothing particularly wrong with the movie itself; it's just your standard run-of-the-mill thriller, with the usual plot twists (some more predictable than others) and double-crosses. However, Marlee Matlin is as magnetic a presence as ever; for example, in the "phone sex" scene, just watching her facial expressions is more erotic than any amount of nudity. (Not that the nudity in other scenes is unwelcome...)One thing struck me as odd regarding the VHS release (I haven't seen the DVD version): Considering that the movie stars the screen's most prominent deaf actress and revolves around a telephone-relay service for the hearing-impaired...WHY is there no closed-captioning on the video? I know that this isn't a major label distributing the movie, but you'd think they'd spring for captioning on this one.

I thought this movie was awesome! Marlee Matlin has always been one of my favorite all-time actors. It seems as if the writer knew exactly how to create the perfect role for Ms. Matlin. While the directing sucks, and the photography is fair, the screenplay is brilliantly written. I saw this movie on Showtime and the story kept me involved. Rachel Hunter is a famous author who is framed for murder. To clear her name, she changes her identity and goes undercover as relay operator 060 for the hearing-impaired, where she becomes involved in a voyeuristic relationship between the District Attorney, (Ms. Matlin) whom she hopes to reach, and her mysterious lover (Mr. Roberts) who is the real murderer. The acting was good. It was fun watching Rachel Hunter as Susan Price. Gary Busey was pretty good too. But it is Ms. Matlin who fully realizes the role she plays. My favorite scene was the steamy three-way-phone-sex scene between Ms. Matlin, Mr. Roberts and Ms. Hunter. Who ever wrote this script is a genius. Personally, I think the film would have been much better in the hands of a director like Martin Scorsese, and with a bigger budget. But as an independent film, I give it a thumbs up. Definitely worth seeing for the novelty of its stars.

The only reason we had fun watching 'Two shades of blue', was because this film was objectively bad. I don't know where it went wrong, but it did. It's not the plot or the acting. They're all right. It is just that the sum doesn't work out.Only rent this film if you want easy watching.