uds3 A rating of 4.5 is absurdly low for this genuine and uncomplicated little study of a gentle doctor's emotional deconstruction after having (although quite understandably) overstepped the line whilst baby-sitting his neighbor's 18 year old daughter and who tragically is murdered - with each and every clue about to incriminate him.Whodunnit really doesn't matter - the denouement is hardly a surprise anyway, as no one else in the picture has the slightest motive! The strength of this little Canadian offering lies in both Czerney's performance as the harried Doctor Bradley and ultra cute Polly Shannon as the 18 year old schoolgirl that Bradley has known and doctored since she was little. This isn't a hot sexy saga of lust in the dust...just an outline of a very credible set of circumstances that could easily lead to such a tragedy.Contrary to several reviewers, I don't see the script as trite and unbelievable. The story at no time strives to be "Hollywoodish." What you see is very much what you get! Totally believable performances. I think faced with the exact same circumstances Czerny was....I might well have fallen into the same pit he did..and lived to regret the action, but not the evening!Easily a 6! Very solid little contribution from Busey which I think he handled with both sensitivity and restraint.There are many films in the IMDb top 250 I would less prefer to watch again!

archeron Possible Spoilers Ahead!!Where shall we start? Take every possible cliche that you can think of and add a pinch of hack dialog, stir in average acting (with the exception of the usually entertaining Gary Busey)and you have this potpourri of garbage. To top it all off you can include an actress that is "supposed" to be 18 who looks much older (Shades of Beverly Hills 90210). All of the characters' behaviors run the gamut from ridiculous (throwing a party and allowing the person who has been threatening you to attend without giving it a second thought) to reprehensible. There are no characters that are even mildly likeable, which renders this exercise in film futility a complete waste of time. Please save 90 minutes of your life that would be better spent watching your grass grow.

poetvox I found this an effective, low-keyed thriller with a thought-provoking sidebar, i.e., the lead character's moral dilemma: does he confess to one "crime" which may lead to being tried for a larger crime he did not commit? A minor tour-de-force for protagonist, Henry Czerny, who has his own take on Robert Redford's "uncomfortable look;" whereas Redford's is largely cerebral, Czerny has his churning guts (guilt, guilt)emerge through his eyes.Film is also well-directed by veteran Till who knows something about pacing and editing (he knows what to leave out and when, which I appreciate) as well as establishing mood. He must also have a feel for film noir since he does a nice job with Czerny's trapped man role. The basic plot line is nothing out of the ordinary, but Till and company invest it with some inventive twists and shadings, such as how Czerny must deal with an incriminating video cassette and the person who views it. There's also a convincing sense of the town with its affluent trappings. Admittedly, the revelation of the real murderer is somewhat unsatisfying but is followed through with thought and imagination.Up until this review, voting had been at 4.8, which makes it seem underrated to me. I saw it while sick at home and it grabbed my attention while I dozed or slept through other movie offerings. If you like quiet suspense films with noir overtones, you might this worth your time.

Doug Rothaar (Doug-22) This movie kept my interest till the end,more than most Canadian movies which tend to be mediocre.The acting,though was sub standard.Overall, a good popcorn home video for Saturday night.If I wasn't interested in "who done it" I would have turned it off because of the bad acting!!