A young forensic scientist gets her opportunity to play detective when she is tasked by her Police Lieutenant to investigate, in secret, the potential link of a crime within the police depar... Read allA young forensic scientist gets her opportunity to play detective when she is tasked by her Police Lieutenant to investigate, in secret, the potential link of a crime within the police department to an ongoing murder case.A young forensic scientist gets her opportunity to play detective when she is tasked by her Police Lieutenant to investigate, in secret, the potential link of a crime within the police department to an ongoing murder case.
Francis X. McCarthy
- Mike Cutler
- (as Francis Xavier McCarthy)
Patrick John Costello
- Ray Stone
- (as Patrick Costello)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
So Marcie is an arrogant sl-t bit-h forrensic scientist wannabe detective who is totally clueless direspecting her dad and ignoring his valued advice! I agree with another contributor. They should have had a scene where Lisa beats Marcie to a pulp! By the I cannot stand the guy who plays the bad cop Gus! He also played a dirty cop in Her Fatal Flaw alongside Victoria Pratt!
Aside from the fact you knew the dirty cop from the onset, the rest was predictable and took far too long to bring him to justice ... no partner would sink the other so that should have been the first clue ... they both should have had their badges and guns taken and put on administrative leave while internal affairs investigated ... apparently chicago police department doesn't have an internal affairs division ... the death of a confidential informant would under most circumstances would call for an iad review ... i also thought the karate moves at the end were stupidly done .... chris kramer made the perfect sleezy dirty cop .. he oozed oil
This movie is an average to poor "made for TV" movie.
There's only one reason to watch, Laura Vandervoort. One of the most beautiful woman in the world, and she can actually act.
The writing and directing are the main problem and some of the supporting cast is also pretty weak.
There's only one reason to watch, Laura Vandervoort. One of the most beautiful woman in the world, and she can actually act.
The writing and directing are the main problem and some of the supporting cast is also pretty weak.
In all honesty I was expecting a pretty bad movie but I have to say that it turned out to be okay.
Plotwise it's your usual TV movie of the week standard fare. Nothing electrifying and the pace is rather pedantic but it's definitely a lot better than 80% of the made for TV movies that I've seen, and unfortunately for me I've seen quite a lot lately! The main cast puts their time in even if it is rather listlessly and formulaic. The only downside to the casting is that of Laura Vandervoot. She's highly unconvincing in her supposed role as a police criminologist and even more so as an aspiring detective to be, instead looking fashionable in most scenes and not really doing much. For someone who's supposedly top of their class in detective school she sure makes a lot of big mistakes and crosses some professional lines. However, the surprising part is that she didn't do a bad acting job. Nothing spectacular but nothing that sank to the depths of a certain Paris Hilton, which I must admit I had been expecting.
All in all, if you've got nothing to do on a Sat night, or even a weeknight and are waiting for the laundry to finish drying it's worth filling in the time. Don't watch with high expectations and you'll make it through the movie just fine.
Plotwise it's your usual TV movie of the week standard fare. Nothing electrifying and the pace is rather pedantic but it's definitely a lot better than 80% of the made for TV movies that I've seen, and unfortunately for me I've seen quite a lot lately! The main cast puts their time in even if it is rather listlessly and formulaic. The only downside to the casting is that of Laura Vandervoot. She's highly unconvincing in her supposed role as a police criminologist and even more so as an aspiring detective to be, instead looking fashionable in most scenes and not really doing much. For someone who's supposedly top of their class in detective school she sure makes a lot of big mistakes and crosses some professional lines. However, the surprising part is that she didn't do a bad acting job. Nothing spectacular but nothing that sank to the depths of a certain Paris Hilton, which I must admit I had been expecting.
All in all, if you've got nothing to do on a Sat night, or even a weeknight and are waiting for the laundry to finish drying it's worth filling in the time. Don't watch with high expectations and you'll make it through the movie just fine.
Actually, after the first 10 minutes of this, I was expecting another Canadian thrown-together piece of trash. In fact, I skipped ahead to the credits to verify the usual suspects (The Movie Network, MovieCentral, Canadian Film or Video Tax Credit, etc.). But I like to finish what I start, so I went back and watched it through.
To say I was "pleasantly" surprised probably isn't the right terminology. The movie is bad. It really should have been an episode in some TV series, at best, rather than eating up valuable movie time. But it wasn't the trip to the dentist that I was expecting. It keeps up a decent pace (mostly) and has an identifiable plot. The city obviously isn't Chicago, but it at least isn't obviously any other place either (unless you happen to live where it was shot). It's not Serpico, but it's OK, as another person wrote, to do laundry to.
In contrast to the other comment-writers, I have to say that Vandervoort's casting was the only good choice. All the others are clearly way out of their element (that is, in front of a camera) and not remotely believable in their roles (although some of this is due to the dreadful script, but good actors avoid such roles, so ultimately it is their fault). At least Vandervoort demonstrated the confidence that you'd expect in someone working for law enforcement, if nothing else. I doubt any of these characters (any of them) would last a day in the real job.
To say I was "pleasantly" surprised probably isn't the right terminology. The movie is bad. It really should have been an episode in some TV series, at best, rather than eating up valuable movie time. But it wasn't the trip to the dentist that I was expecting. It keeps up a decent pace (mostly) and has an identifiable plot. The city obviously isn't Chicago, but it at least isn't obviously any other place either (unless you happen to live where it was shot). It's not Serpico, but it's OK, as another person wrote, to do laundry to.
In contrast to the other comment-writers, I have to say that Vandervoort's casting was the only good choice. All the others are clearly way out of their element (that is, in front of a camera) and not remotely believable in their roles (although some of this is due to the dreadful script, but good actors avoid such roles, so ultimately it is their fault). At least Vandervoort demonstrated the confidence that you'd expect in someone working for law enforcement, if nothing else. I doubt any of these characters (any of them) would last a day in the real job.
Did you know
- Trivia(at around 1h and 07 mins) Detective Sutton refers to the desk sergeant ( Ralph Prosper ) by the actor's real name, "Ralph".
- ConnectionsReferences Gone with the Wind (1939)
Details
- Runtime
- 1h 30m(90 min)
- Color
- Aspect ratio
- 1.78 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content