caa821
Checked the previous seven comments here as this flick was beginning. Frankly, reading them was as interesting as watching the film. Where there are a great number of comments, you expect them to be diverse, and even with a few, usually somebody loves the move, someone else hates it, etc.However, among the few here, comments ranged from those who seemed to feel the story, plot and performances were reminiscent of Hitchcock's best, to those who seemed to place it at the bottom end of the frequently mediocre "Lifetime" fare. Descriptions of the plot seemed to vary from feeling it was completely clever and suspenseful to totally banal.One individual cited that this presentation was filmed in 12 days. I didn't see anything to confirm this, but he seemed certain, and the level of the performances (including that of the usually excellent Linda Purl), seemed to confirm this. With D. A. Purl turning 50 at time of filming, and defense lawyer Vanessa Angel near 40, both were years senior to the male leads, David Palffy at 35, and Sebastian Spence about a year older. At her age, Angel looks as though she may surpass Joan Rivers in terms of Botox applications long before she reaches the latter's advanced age.I've come to believe that a major reason for producing these "Lifetime" presentations is to assist in supporting Canada's economy, since most of them seem to be shot there, usually in either Vancouver (as this flick was) or Toronto. I suppose which site is utilized depends on background needed for the particular story, but primarily whether cast and crew are more West Coast or East.Actually, after viewing the film myself, I feel that just about all the previous ones commenting had it partially correct. I would give it what amounts to an average of these, as well as the overall "ratings" figure shown on this site..The acting was uninspired, with neither the characters nor the performances particularly engaging. There was something of a "twist," and while somewhat interesting, it seemed to be one which could well be seen coming, and the only possible basis for a "twist," given the dull storyline and equally dull interaction among the lead characters. The ending did involve some knife-wielding, inevitable in most "Lifetime" offerings, but tamer than usual.And when the mid-30-ish treasury guy (Palffy) and the 50-ish D.A. (Purl) made a date to have dinner together, I couldn't help but wonder whether they might discuss a possible romantic future, or perhaps, more likely, her adopting him.
nogoflyzone
Not a bad film considering the limited budget and the 12 day shoot schedule. However,more attention should have been taken with the script regarding dialogue,scene development and pace. The actors did a fine job with what they were given.The Treasury Agent was good but the scenes between the DA and the Treasury Agent could've been stronger as they were undermined by too much linear exposition. Better dialogue would 've ensured stronger moments with which to develop their case against the Accused. The scenes between the Accused and the Defence lawyer seemed a little contrived and more care was needed to develop their relationship after his release. Again,not a bad film considering the limitations that are apparent with a small budget.
marbleann
Lifetime movies are always great when you have nothing to do and want to look at something entertaining. This movie from its description looked like a winner. Man is accused of killing ex wife, wife's girlfriend defends him. A perfect Lifetime movie, "Television for women" movies that women get killed raped and cheated on. Well itstarts out OK. Hubby is on a 911 call saying his wife has been stabbed. The 911 operator asks him to do CPR and he doesn't do it. All of a sudden I know he did it. And there lies the problem If a person looked hard enough and noticed that he didn't even attempt CPR it would of settled right away who did it. Then if that wasn't enough right before the cops show up he removes the knife. That is not the spoiler, I won't give that away The DA played by Linda Purl is very ambitious and we are reminded by the hubby's lawyer that she is not above using dirty tricks to win a case. So now we have a bad guy other then the suspect. The husbands lawyer is played by Vanessa Angel. This has nothing to do with the movie but I was very distracted by the way she looked. It seems that she has botoxed her lips so much she looks like Faye Dunaway on a bad day. She was very distracting. Plus she is a pretty bad actress. THere are plenty of twists and turns and it tries to be clever. But something falls flat. I am not sure what it is. Linda Purl is her usually capable self, the person who plays the husband is swarmy enough. There is a govt lawyer who is looking into the financial holdings of the accused who sounds like he has a accent one second and the next he second he doesn't. Him and the DA have a weird relationship first he is threatening to send he to traffic court the next half of the movie he looks like he is trying to get a date with her. They bounce ideas off of each other about who and how and why the wife was killed. It looks like this might have been a failed series pilot. Once again Lifetime fills the bill, but this movie is not as good as usual.
Virginia
Utterly the most painful movie I have ever suffered through. I kept hoping that it would improve since it had Linda Purl; however, it just kept spiraling down hill. If you want something more entertaining try a root canal. This could have been a great movie if they had bothered to invest some money into actors who could carry this type of story line. It was just an endless parade of pretty faces "mugging" for the camera. Nor will it become one of those "bad" films that later becomes faddish due to its comically bad acting. This was just plain bad. Even after a while Linda's normally superb acting was lost in the damage. The sad statement is that each of these actors have done superb work in other films yet they just didn't have the edge to carry this story line.
