lavatch The characters in this film are so repellent that they even make the attorneys look like saints.Jerry Dennings has spent ten years moving his way up in to a VP in a large corporation. But in this film, he turns out to be the hapless looser in a scam to defraud his company of $10 million.Jerry's partner in crime is the much more savvy Rebecca Walker, who is the key player in the $10 million settlement for wrongful termination of Jerry from his job. It is clear that Rebecca has all the brains in the planning of the scheme, as apparent in the following dialogue:JERRY: How do we know they haven't sent these photos to the police?REBECCA: Because we're not in jail.With this level of banter, the film is lively, and the plot twists keep piling up. Nearly all of the characters are shady with the possible exception of Jerry's mousy wife Shannon, who just seems to keep showing up at the most awkward moments in Jerry's tumultuous life. Although he he is now unemployed and has received a $10 payout, he finds a way to keep constantly on the defense from his fellow schemers.At stake in this film is a $10 million payout for the last man or woman standing. The question is who will have the most resolve, stamina, and creativity to eliminate the cutthroat competition for the big jackpot.

elshikh4 Another TV production, so why to watch ? I tell you...It got (Dina Meyer) in it, OHH then let's watch it for sure ! The movie got on it the name of (Brad Mirman) the writer of cinematic slick flicks like (Body of Evidence - 1993). In fact this kind of sexual thrillers became a common fashion after the exploding of (Basic Instinct) at the start of the 1990s to have movies like : (Sliver - 1993), (Jade - 1995), (Wild Things - 1998). So (Crimes of Passion - 2005) is just tracking this previous work yet by the average TV's measures, and without the heavy sexuality. But all in all it looked like another rip-off from the good old (Double Indemnity - 1944) !Maybe the chain of surprises at the first half was good however the cold acting with the very very traditional direction ruined it. And the second half was completely predictable for me. Although I'm a scriptwriter but it doesn't take one to disclose it because any moviegoer with brain can uncover the whole thing, and at the middle of it also. I was guessing a lot of twists that some of them turned out to be better than the original ones eventually. For instance : the hidden conspiracy between (Meyer) and the other man conceals more malicious conspiracy between (Meyer) and the grasping wife (Rebecca Walker), and perhaps they're lesbians too !, or some things like that.The main weak points were : too many dialogues, yes, it's a TV but not a TV series ! Not to mention that the writer forgot about a consecutive commercials would interrupt it all the time ! The assured hypothesis that (Jerry) or the husband or whoever the jerky victim was, would kill for the sake of his hot mistress ! Why it's that assured ?? Over and above that twist at the end, when the wife takes the money for herself, it's nothing but a try to make you leave your seat feeling deceitfully that it's overall kind of a new. As they knew so well that you've already watched the same story so many times before especially at the near 1990s, however it was hotter and more artistic in previous movies!Speaking of which, I enjoyed the wicked, haunting, very steamy presence of (Dina Meyer). She's hot in every possible way. Her way of talking, looking, moving was purely electrifying. Her intro is one of the best scenes I've ever watched in a TV work. I will never ever forget her coquettish gaze at the elevator, with or without the camera abutting her lovely butt in that tide black dress previously for the whole first 3 minutes ! She was bigger than the little movie, better than ones preceded her in the same role such as (Sharon Stone, Linda Fiorentino, ..), and she was the only miscast one in here indeed as nobody was bright as her. Which makes you wonder, why she's still stray in movies like this away from being a movie star in Hollywood ?? where there are many who really don't deserve such fuss, or such blockbusters, in comparison !It's too ordinary, close to poor, movie with good plot but familiar, and without too much renewal except being weaker than its likes, with ironically a lead star who was stronger than her likes !

billhaz Had this movie reflected the normal, routine acting, direction and production values of a made-for-TV movie, it would have to be rated 5 to 6. But this was a big screen quality production which proved it can be done for a modest fee. The little known actors were excellent, the lighting, sound and photography were as good or better than the most expensively produced big screen movies. The plot, while very good, was greatly enhanced by the quality of the production. We'll certainly research, record and view more made-for T V movies, based on this experience and we'll specifically seek out the offerings of the production company responsible for this film.

caa821 Some Lifetime flicks drag in spots - this one does - but "Crimes of Passion" is more fascinating, overall, than most, and does provide serpentine twists at the conclusion. These, and decent performances by the four primary characters, make it worth watching through to the end, despite some occasional convoluted plot developments and the above-mentioned "drag."One of the two primary leads, Jonathan Higgins, could be called "a poor man's Nicolas Cage." He bears resemblance to the latter, and Nicholas is often low-key and a bit off-center in his characterizations, as is Higgins, but with just a proportion of Cage's talent, and none of his charisma. He's also not in the best of mental health, and throughout (especially when attempting to reach his out-of-town shrink towards the end), seems like what "Monk" might be, were he to engage in criminality (but sans Tony Shalhoub's personality and talent level).**** Spoiler following ****I would add this to conform to this site's requirements, and this might perhaps provide information as to the ending -- however, I don't believe it would really "spoil" it, and might serve to encourage some who might change channels to watch to conclusion.Married leads "A" and "B" are splitting-up; she appears at times during the opus to claim her needed stipends from hubby, and they banter nervously and loudly throughout. But "A" has conspired with the winsome "C," to gain a large wad of cash, however, unfortunately, professional investigator "D" has knowledge of their deed and windfall, and wants a major cut.But ----- "C" is really in cahoots with "D," and, near the climax, this is revealed to "A." In the ensuing tussle, "D" if offed, and then, as "A" and "C" are about to have some sort of showdown, all of a sudden "B" appears at the remote locale. She's the only one not preciously involved in the nefarious activities, but she possesses the means to dispatch "C" forthwith.At this point "A" is dangling from the edge of a deck, high above-ground (from which "D" previously fell to his demise). So there now remains only the original couple ("A"/"B"), divorce still only pending, with him needing her assistance, or he'll fall to his demise alongside "D."Scene dissolves to "B" being questioned, alone, and exonerated at police station. The only "innocent" heretofore in this opus, she walks freely from the station, opens the trunk of her vehicle. Guess what she views in the satchel firmly stored in the trunk.