Criminal Intent

As the plot for a film goes, it was good and gripping. However, as others have commented, with the exception of a few, the acting was not exactly master-class. In particular, Vanessa Angel - is she really a professional actress ? or did she do it for a dare, and as for the wig she was wearing ............. Linda Purl certainly held the film together, and did her best with a script that could have been a bit more "meatier". I felt the camera angles were "interesting" at times, and thought the cameraman was attempting to speed things up a bit with his whizzing around the room moments. Overall, the plot made for good watching, but could have been made even better with a superior cast list.

This movie overall feels so cheezy, you never really get into it. The plot is virtually non-existent as anyone with a few movies on their back can tell you who the killer is. Also the acting, especially from that treasure agent, no time to look up the name, is REALLY bad. You can really feel that he is reading it for the first time as he is going along. Most of the actors feel like retired adult movie stars. Although, Devon, performs rather well, and I could see him as a new James Bond, although maybe a bit too short.

Overall a movie, NOT worth watching, I do not get the previous comment. The romance scenes are bland or non existent. The writer must have taken part in making this poor roll of tape.

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!