Such a frustrating disappointment

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

I'm coming at this as a fan of Kathleen Turner, the V.I. Warshawski series and of my home city of Chicago. This movie simply blew it.The casting, at least, was perfect. Turner is perfectly cast as V.I. The voice, the look, the attitude, everything. She perfectly captures the character. Even the rest of the casting is good. Jay O. Sanders perfectly fits Murray (A red-headed Elliot Gould according the books) and Dennehy is Bobby Mallory.The problem is script and direction. They took bits and pieces from at least four different books and threw them together, badly. They watered down V.I. (tho Turner did a hell of a job of working through it). The movie loses its way at the end. It's just a mess. The directing was half-hearted. And they never got much of the character of Chicago, which is a major part of V.I. herself.This could have been a great movie. V.I. is one of the great unsung female characters in mystery fiction. Chicago is one of the great cities of the world. And the stories in the series are full and complex. And this movie wasn't any of it.It's good for the hardcore Kathleen Turner fans. She is the best part of this movie and manages to get the character to show through the bad dialog. But this movie could have been so much more. Hopefully a good adaption could be done at some point.

I had a problem with this film right from the start. It is a problem that I would not have noticed if I had watched it in 1991 when it was released, but being four years old at the time there was not much chance that I had watched it. Watching it in 2012 however may be a problem for some people and it is a problem that will have your mind wandering from the so called plot and onto something else entirely. Those 'some' people though would have to be Friends fans and that is because Kathleen Turner, the lead of this movie, plays Chandler Bing's Dad, yes Dad, in the hit US comedy show. This to me was a major issue as I just couldn't take the actress seriously. When she kissed her on-off boyfriend I couldn't help but think it was two men kissing. Not that it would be an issue if it was two men but I couldn't take the character of VI Warshawski seriously.Before I dig a hole with the stereotype of Mr Kathleen Turner, sorry Mrs Kathleen Turner, I will mention that she is also the voice of Jessica Rabbit from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? This created another problem because she has a really sexy voice. If I closed my eyes I could hear a sexy, long legged, red headed cartoon with huge breasts and when I opened my eyes I would see Chandler Bing's Father. This was a confusing time for me.I'll move on with the film, it isn't good. In fact it is so poorly directed and written that it would have been better doing the Jessica Rabbit, Chandler Bing's Dad cross character, as it would have made this film much more interesting. It was corny and cheesy and most of the acting was absolutely dreadful which made lines that possibly weren't intended on being corny even more corny.The film is about Private Investigator Vicky Warshawski. She meets a man in a bar and later on that night he turns up at her door asking her to look after his daughter. Is that normal behaviour towards someone you've just met? She agrees, he goes off, is murdered and Warshawski intends on solving the mystery. She involves the daughter and they head off on a girl beats man mission. Every line is a comment to chauvinistic men. 'Us girls should stick together', that kind of poor dialogue.The plot is a complete wash over and everything is just far too easy. There is no investigating what so ever and the first clue they receive seems to be the only one they need, as the case was obvious from the very first minute. I thought an investigation film needed to keep the viewer in the dark and spring an unbelievable surprise right at the end. Obviously not. The action scenes are dull. A boat chase where nothing happens and a final shoot out which just sucks. The only good thing from the film was the array of actors that you will see in films and programmes of today. We have a scientist from The Day After Tomorrow, a cop from Dog Day Afternoon, the small stupid pirate from Pirates Of The Caribbean, the caretaker of the building in Friends and Wayne Knight, the man who gets spat in the face by a dinosaur in Jurassic Park. There is also a cameo from the Ghostbusters's building, I'm sure of it.At least this review has come to something. It has reminded us of all the other decent films out there that are a hundred times better than this one. I seem to have mentioned more films unrelated to this one than I have the one I'm reviewing. By all accounts Warshawski was a series of detective novels that portrayed the character completely differently to how she is portrayed by the film makers. Perhaps it could have been a better film if some reading of the novels had been done, but that clearly hadn't happened. I'll sum up V.I. Warshawski in three words; don't bother watching. 1 / 5Tolli Check out more reviews at: www.tolli-movieworld.blogspot.com Follow me @Tolli04

It is remarkable to me how much affection and revulsion this watchable, incomplete misfire of a film can inspire, here among the Comments and elsewhere; I haven't seen more than a few minutes of it for several years, but did see it in a theater in its original run. Kathleen Turner as VIW is too much a flirt to conform to Sara Paretsky's portrait of her detective, but otherwise gives a decent performance that, better than the script, gets across Warshawski's toughness, wit and unwillingness to suffer fools any more than she has to. The film, as someone else noted, would've done well to be a more faithful adaptation of one of the early novels, rather than pulling bits from several and then letting the plot go completely slack by the last third. But there are nice touches, here and there; Wayne Knight was born to play the petty thug and childhood schoolmate of Warshawski. But the hastiness and corner-cutting of the production is unfortunately evident. One wonders if a second film, with a better script and crew, might've been quite good.

For the time this movie was released, it really is a solid film. One I stop and watch anytime I catch it on cable. I like Kathleen Turner as Vic and see her as Vic when I read Paretsky's Blacklist (2004) and Indemity Only (1982). Paretsky is such a skilled writer that I read all 332 pages of Indemity Only completely in one Saturday. This would have been a good vehicle/series for Ms. Turner if the movie had followed the novels closer. They should have hired Paretsky to write the screen play.The screenwriters, Edward Taylor, David Aaron Cohen, & Nick Thiel, I believe are responsible for this film being unsuccessful at the box office. It appears they did not read the books or believe themselves that a women could be a private investigator. Paretsky gave them a well rounded, gritty, thorough character. The screenwriters tried to make it a comedy/action film and dishonored Paretsky in their representation of her character. The screen play should have been written as an action/thriller along the lines of Patriot Games (1992), an action/crime like the Italian Job (2003), or a mystery along the lines of the Thomas Crown affair (1999). All have comedic moments in them and would be better genres for the V.I. Warshawki novels.Maybe if Ms. Turner is up to it she could revive the character or perhaps Charlize Theron would take a shot at it.