Claus Peters Outside of a soap opera, what are the odds of someone unknowingly hiring his own son (whose existence he didn't know) to kill a girl with whom, coincidentally and also unknowingly, the son is temporarily living? What are the odds that son will have a criminal record, and also will have a friend who is being persecuted by thugs and who would be ready to do the job the son refuses to do? There are more implausible coincidences in this hyper-convoluted and hyper-far-fetched plot, but these should prove the point.Characters are not only extremely improbable, but they also do not behave in a rational, intelligent way. A senior lawyer is manipulated like a boob to fire a girl on the flimsiest of reasons (with no cause, in fact). As his only leverage, the son has an envelope with evidence to incriminate the father, but instead of hiding it he goes to sleep, so the father easily grabs the envelope. Mysteriously, this same father -to demonstrate that he is as idiotic as his son- does not destroy the incriminating envelope immediately. Later, being interrupted by his wife when he is finally going to burn it, he exits the house just leaving the envelope on a table (!). Not only that, but days pass without him even remembering about the envelope. So too late he learns that, in the middle of a marital crisis, the wife (apparently also unknowingly) had sent the envelope to the District Attorney.The son goes to the girl's house to prevent her from being murdered, but he botches his speech to such a degree that she expels him from the apartment and he is unable to stop the killer. Generally speaking, characters seem unable to convey information in a clear way, even on essential matters; misinterpretations abound. Too much suspense is built around these confusions and these unnatural behaviors.

jotix100 Callum Crane, a powerful lawyer, is seen in his summation on a case being tried for defamation of character. He has even orchestrated the right moment in which a ray of sun will shine on the defendant's face to dramatize the occasion, while fumbling on a Shakespeare quote. He is too theatrical to lose the case. His own take on the two million dollars awarded the offended party is probably half of it. Crane believes he can have Sophie Lennon, an attractive young woman who works in his office, just after he had been toasted by the partners. It was the wrong move because Sophie did not have any intentions to have sex with the powerful head of the lawyers' firm. Callum has no idea the humiliation he provokes in the young woman he decided to rape against her wish. Nathan Corrigan just recently out of jail for a car theft, returns to town hoping to go straight. His pals have another thing in mind. He receives a blow when he learns Callum is his father. Going to meet him, he runs into Sophie, with whom he likes from the start. Callum, who is not aware of the relationship, sees in the young man a powerful ally for what he wants to do when Sophie becomes his bitter enemy. Nathan becomes the instrument of Callum's wish to get Sophie out of the picture, something that backfires."The Guilty" a 2001 film directed by Anthony Waller is a film that seems to have gone to video, or did not get a commercial distribution. Written by Simon Burke for a television movie, it was adapted by William Davies for this new production shot entirely around Vancouver. The film has good moments, but the plot does not hold its momentum because its so many twists and turns. There are too many things that do not completely make sense, especially between Callum and Nathan, or for that matter, the nomination of Callum to a Supreme Court seat (state, that is, not federal) is too much to be believed, when as a star lawyer, Crane can name his price for any case he would decide to take.There are other plot holes that leave the viewer scratching his head, but one gives it the benefit of the doubt. There are other aspects that work. The sinister character of Callum is one of the creepiest characters Bill Pullman, a good actor, has been asked to bring to life. Gabrielle Anwar shows up as Sophie, the violated young woman who vows revenge on the powerful Callum. Davon Sawa appears as Nathan. The wonderful Joanne Whalley has nothing to do as the two-timing wife of Callum.

Robert J. Maxwell I always enjoy Bill Pullman's work. He comes at us in a crab-like, sideways manner. He seems to speak out of the corner of his mouth and look at an object out of the corners of his eyes. His voice, soft and slightly crackling, is that of everyman, maybe somebody to play bridge with.And Gabrielle Anwar is fine too. She has all the proper features of a formula Hollywood actress -- expressive eyes, strong but delicate nose, pulpy symmetrical lips, an exemplary figure -- but they don't add up to stunning beauty. The arrangement of her features results in a kind of compelling ugliness. Her acting is okay, a little on the weak side.That just about gets the good stuff out of the way. The movie stinks. Pullman, in a moment of wanton drunkenness, more or less rapes Anwar. And when Pullman is appointed to a federal judgeship, he has her fired with a generous separation package so that she won't be around to make trouble.But she does make trouble. She shows up wet and shivering in his office and threatens to spill the beans on him. Pullman then accidentally meets some young guy, rather a nice fellow, just out of jail and gives him an envelope containing money and the identity of the person Pullman wants murdered.The ex inmate thinks the deal over and disposes of the unopened envelope. It is retrieved by one of his Goth goon friends who needs the money to pay off a debt to some local hoods. There follows a good deal of cutting back and forth as the good guy tries to save Anwar from the desperate bad guy and his friends.No point going on with the plot. If you've seen any of the many thrillers along these lines you can pretty much figure it out without being drawn a picture, although one touch is at least slightly novel. After she repulses all attempts to warn her, Anwar actually IS battered to death. But it should come as no surprise that the good guy, trying frantically to warn her, should be blamed for the murder.Okay. I won't go into the clichés except for one. The punk who steals the envelope. This was shot in wintry, soaking-wet British Columbia. The trees are bare. The temperature of every artifact is barely above freezing. Yet the killer drips with sweat. Outdoors or inside, it makes no difference. His face seems covered with canola oil. It's rubbed into his hair -- what there is of it. He wears the tonsure of a monk from the Dark Ages. His hair is cut in the shape of a bowl, with the razor line high enough to reveal the zig zag tattoo on his occiput. His features are those of a Middle Eastern sodomist and his face glows with evil. He wears filthy jeans and a black leather jacket with chain zippers. He lives in a garbage dump.Getting the picture? You know what might have added a touch of originality to the script? I mean, aside from improvements in wardrobe, make up, and casting? If Pullman did not, in fact, represent arrogant male patriarchy. If Anwar had simply made up the story of the rape. It would have introduced a note of edgy ambiguity. After all, who is to say whether or not it happened, since there's no longer any evidence.Some ten or fifteen years ago, a pretty young woman threatened Bill Cosby with exposure and degradation, claiming she was his illegitimate child. (She looked nothing like Bill Cosby although at least one courtroom artist simply copied Cosby's face onto her figure.) Cosby's tapped phone revealed a celebrity predator perfectly at ease with extortion, negotiating matter-of-factly to keep the price of her silence over a million dollars. A plot something like that would have saturated the movie with a kind of noirish shadowiness.Instead, we simply have good and evil. The powerful white guy (and his wife) are counterfeit and duplicitous. Anwar and her would-be savior are innocent and good. These Manichean distinctions are beginning to irritate me, on and off the screen. You want to see uncomplicated good and bad? Watch a Roadrunner cartoon.

ccthemovieman-1 This was a sleeper, a no-name movie that might have gone straight-to-video and was pretty good. It's one of these crime movies that doesn't have a lot of action yet keeps your interest all the way through.Like a true film noir, none of the characters nor their morality in this are really good but what WAS good was a few things at the end of this story you rarely see in a Hollywood film.Bill Pullman, Devon Sawa, Gabrielle Anwar, Angela Featherstone and Joanne Whalley (Kilmer) make for a diverse cast of actors. This is worth a look if you can find it anywhere but not that good to go searching for it.