Criminal Intent

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.

IMDb member Caa821 felt the comments were more entertaining than the movie. I think Caa821's comments were more entertaining than the movie.

"Criminal Intent" follows the Lifetime TV template to a 'T': familiar stars (Vanessa Angel and Linda Purl), with the rest of the cast being not only unfamiliar but fairly poor actors; filmed in Canada; derivative; moves slowly; predictable.

Angel plays a defense attorney turned divorce attorney whose good friend is murdered, with the woman's ex-husband being accused. He wants her to go back to her defense roots and represent him, even though she handled their divorce. She agrees and comes up against a tough DA (Purl).

There is a twist in the story, but I don't know who's comparing this to Alfred Hitchcock. The acting is lethargic, and Angel's collagen lips are distracting.

As I mentioned in a previous post, these mindless Lifetime movies are great for a Sunday afternoon or when you're trying to sleep, and they give work to formerly prolific actors like Purl. I have to commend Lifetime for hiring 40+ actresses who find themselves "aged out" of Hollywood.

I usually like most movies, I'm easy to please and I tend to give 10 stars if the movie fulfils my expectations and entertains me, but this one, well it was not entertaining. It was one of the worst movies I've seen. For an hour we are led to believe one thing, and in the last 30 minutes we discover that we have been misled and something totally different is going on. I felt fooled. Then we are treated to so many imaginary theories of what may have transpired, like imaginary "flashbacks" which add nothing to the story, they are "what ifs" as the investigators try to imagine what really happened. Various details aren't even believable. The motives aren't convincing either. Nothing could save this movie, it was like hard work trying to follow all the twists and turns at the end, it was more work than pleasure. Can't recommend this flop, it's worth less than 3 stars but I'm trying to be generous, as some might like it.

This movie features Linda Purl who has a mousy looking face and Vanessa Angel whose face now looks like a big bloated elephant. The only thing missing is an appearance by Jamie Luner, whose face looks like Donald Duck! What a fabulous trio that would have been; WHAT BEASTS! WHAT A CAST OF CHARACTERS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN!

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.