guil fisher Once again we are forced to watch this 46 year old female strut around with this bush of hair on her head. Attempting to be a sex symbol (NOT) and making just about everyone miserable in this loser of a flick. I have never liked this actress. I think she looks ridiculous and desperately needs a haircut and to act her age. In everything she does she looks the same. I, for one, am not a fan as you see. Her looks kill any acting she might do, which is mostly one level. Please, please LMN no more Jamie Luner.

marsmitchell79 It's one of those movies that you watch the 1st time and you'll give it an 8, because your standards are not really high. The time that I looked more closely at the minor details, I give it a 4! Plenty of errors in the writing of this one. A prostitute claims she could not make out what the criminal looks like in the night, but somehow she's able to tell what's on his license plates from a distance. Then, her friend just so happens to be an IT tech wannabe, which she needs to find out who murdered her dad! The executress allows her mother to blackmail her over a murder that happened when she wad a kid! Then, she just so happened to know when her mom would be in the tub, despite being out of her house for 6 years or more! The director did not care about 20-something lady's acting either. When her dad died, she felt like she let him down and she did not cry! A husband dies out of the blue and he looks like he's been cut in the face.The stock option part does make sense(probably the only major part that does make sense), because the 2 execs really did not care about the company--only about getting paid. A problematic miracle drug would swamp a company with lawsuits, but they didn't care. The reason why it makes sense is because the 2 execs got paid and left-- regardless of what happens to the company.

punishmentpark I watched the trailer on 13th Street and was looking forward to a bad film that would still have a true milf in it, namely Jamie Luner. It turns out they put in only the most becoming shots of her in the trailer, because mostly she looked very tired throughout the film. Tired, as in: not such a good nip and tuck job. And there a couple more such people in the film, none of them being very good actors (understatement).For the rest of it, this wasn't the bad TV-movie as expected, it was way worse. Boring, silly, unbelievable, those kinds of adjectives, and lots of them. I don't know how exactly Canadian tax dollars are involved here (read that in another review here on IMDb), but that would truly have been unfair to the hard working people of Canada, for sure.2 out of 10, because of my sympathy for Jamie Luner in spite of it all.

jimmerw As a Canadian, I am used to seeing these awful movies that our tax payer dollars pay for.But after my 47 years on this earth, I don't think I have ever seen a movie worse than this.Everything is bad. The main characters are abysmal actors. And the supporting cast is even worse.At first this felt like an after school special meets a soap opera. But then it just got worse.It isn't even visually pleasing. The main character looks like a squinting duck. And she is cast as the attractive one. What enrages me is that my tax dollars went to make this visual abortion. I clicked on 1 star, only because that was the lowest I could rate this. I don't know how this movie could have been worse. It is the poster child of how not to make a movie. I want to meet the film maker, and beat him. My tax dollars made this. Why??????? I am disgusted that my tax dollars went to make something worse than a high school production.