A Thief of Time

I can understand a lot of the bad reviews since they seemed a bit random in what they pulled from the book and what they left out. So if you have not read the book you see a lot of bits that do not seem to be needed / part of the plot. And some of the altered dialog will make you cringe. So will the pronunciations if you are used to Tony Hillerman reading his books. Then there is Emma who is not supposed to be in this story because she died before it starts and screws up the plots of future films. But if you have read the book you will probably enjoy seeing the book on the screen. Alex Rice is just as stunning as she was her Wonderfalls appearance. If Adam Beach and Wes Studi had the same sort of screen presence you probably would not notice the missing bits as much. Dawn Lewis, while gorgeous in this, seems as totally out of place as an anthropologist as Rebecca Holden did as a mechanic in Knight Rider. Both Rice and Lewis tend to dominate the scenes they are in which can kind of lead the viewer, that does not know the book, off track since a lot of their character's linkage to the plots were cut from the film.

Being a big fan of this PBS series, I am shocked at how awful this "episode" actually is. The direction is pedestrian, the supporting cast is TERRIBLE, and our favorite characters are extremely uninteresting. As others have stated, I do believe this third film actually takes place BEFORE the second in the Hillerman series on PBS.

Perhaps it is Hillerman's original material, I don't know, but this latest edition could possibly kill future Leaphorn/Chee adaptations. The previous "Coyote Waits" is far, far superior. Frankly, I am shocked by how much I hated this film. It is totally off-the-mark in every way. Even it's one-sided portrayal of Christianity is offensive. (And, yes, it IS biased.)

I hope they film more in the series, because this would be a terrible conclusion.

The action was episodic and there was no narrative thread to tie the episodes together and move the story forward. The plot plods along. With few exceptions (e.g., Graham Greene) the acting was uninspired, and pedestrian at best. The actors seemed to have something on their minds, other than the scene they were in. It is boring to observe a man driving a car through the semi- desert country of this movie's setting, whether he drives poorly or well. Such scenes are typical of the level of tension in the video. So there was nothing about this video to engage or draw the observer in, to make him or her care about the characters and the out comes. I am doubly disappointed because I rented this movie based on the reputations of the executive producer (Redford) and the writer of the novel on which it was based (Hillerman). I note that the jewel box reports that funding is provided by PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as Carlton International. I would hope that this video was as disappointing to them as it was to me and my wife, to the point that they will not fund any more disasters coming from the same source.

Joe (Wes) & Jim (Adam) re-acquaint us with the beauty, isolation (psychological as well as physical) and utter terror of "murder most fowl" in the Navaho Southwest. Characterizations, settings and plot continually build .. . even if at times the personal asides leave us wanting "more" .. . with some interesting alternative choices as to "who done it?" Flashbacks (e.g. Peter Fonda . .. good to see him) provide clues but they don't go where you might think. Comic asides (e.g. the Preacher) are mild and appropriate. Where "Skinwalkers" and "Coyote Waits" start to drag .. . "Thief" engages the clutch and four-wheels you around the next corner, never quite sure what's there. Disagree with Joe Leaphorn's manic comment to Jim Chee to "slow down" for the potholes. Wrong ... there are no potholes in the plot, just tracks to follow. On to the next episode! Great photography (as always), appealing characters and more to explore!

I like Wes Studi & especially Adam Beach, but whoa is this movie a load of pretentiousness. Ponderously slow. Overly cryptic to the point of obfuscation, not because the plot warrants it but because there is almost no plot. Even less in the way of characterization. This is almost like one of those creaky old Charlie Chan mysteries (the cheaper Monogram studio versions) with lots of red herrings & oddball characters (like the old ex-senator with the checkered past who is now a recluse) & loads of people getting killed over objets d'art that you wouldn't look twice at in the mall. Great scenery, though. Pretty hair on the redhead, too, although I never did figure out what she was doing in this at all. Neither could my wife. Sheesh, at least the old B-movies had the decency to be short.