A Lover's Revenge

A LOVER'S REVENGE (TV Movie 2005) 3 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2 min

BASIC PLOT: Dr. Liz Manners (Alexandra Paul) is a successful radio psychiatrist, who gives advice to her call in audience. Unfortunately for Liz, one of her listeners is Sarah Jane (Sophie Gendron), the battered wife of shipping tycoon, Kyle Lundstrom (William R. Moses). Liz tells Sarah she should escape Kyle's violent grasp, before he kills her. Dr. Manners offers the help of the domestic violence shelter she partners with, and tells Sarah she has a place to go when she's ready to leave. In an unfortunate happenstance, Kyle comes home early, and catches his wife on the phone with Dr. Manners. To evade Kyle's fury, Sarah Jane flees into the night, hoping to escape. But her luck has run out, and as she's running, she's hit by a car, and killed. Kyle blames Dr. Manners for the problems in his marriage, and for his wife's untimely death. He is determined to ruin Dr. Manners' life, like she ruined his. He plans to take her job, her husband (Gary Hudson), and even her life. Will she be able to stop his murderous rampage before everything in her life is destroyed?

WHAT WORKS: *ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE FOR A MADE-FOR-TV MELODRAMA Alexandra Paul, Gary Hudson and William R. Moses all do a fine job with the material they are given. They do the script justice, too bad it let's them down with clichés, plotholes, and deus ex machinas.

*LIZ MANNERS TELLS HER HUSBAND ROB, SHE CAN FORGIVE EVERYTHING BUT LYING This is the only believable part of the script, when a wife tells her husband, she can look past the cheating, the stealing, the failures, and everything else because she loves him, but she can't look past his lies. That's a true statement, and if men would learn that fundamental truth about women, there'd be a lot more successful relationships.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *WHEN MEN MISBEHAVE, IT'S NO ONE'S FAULT BUT THEIR OWN You used to see this trope a lot in the 50's & 60's. When men would have affairs, or embezzle from their wives, it would be because the wife wasn't paying enough attention to them (subtext-giving them enough sex), in effect shifting blame from the man to the woman. "If the woman had been a better wife, he wouldn't have run off and left you with five children, cheated on you, stolen all your money, and left with his secretary," etc. I saw this exact trope on an episode of "Dragnet", called The Big Revolt (1953). But this is NOT 1953, this is 2005, and women writers, like Christine Conradt, should know better, than to offer up this sexist clap-trap. It's offensive to blame anyone's actions, except on the person who committed them. Enabling does not correct bad behavior, and as a psychiatrist/therapist, our main character, Dr. Liz Manners, would know that. (The original story was written by a man, Nelson Williams, so I'm not sure who I am more mad at, Christine Conradt for helping to write such a sexist script, or at Lifetime for buying it.)

*ARE WE SUPPOSED TO EMPATHIZE WITH ROB MANNERS? Rob Manners (Gary Hudson) is a tool... a fit throwing, whoremongering, spoiled man-child. Are we supposed to forget all that, because when he's gets caught, he says he's sorry (which he quickly takes back, and stomps off in the midst of another toddler fit)? He steals from his wife, he robs their savings, he cheats, he lies, he fit throws, he takes out loans against their property-without telling her, he begrudges his wife when his investor wants to give money to her domestic violence shelter, he's the most sorry human being on the planet. And we, as viewers, are supposed to believe Liz Manners (Alexandra Paul), a doctor of psychiatry, a practicing couple's therapist, wouldn't know what type of man he is? We're supposed to believe she can see through everyone's problems but her own? Oh please! Give me a break!

*LIGHTING IS TERRIBLE THROUGHOUT This has to be down to the cinematographer (Bert Tougas), because normally, Douglas Jackson's directing is spot on.

*I'M SO SICK OF SEEING PEOPLE GIVING THEIR GUNS AWAY IN MOVIES & ON TV SHOWS This is a reoccuring theme, and it is a sorry one. A character pulls a gun on another character, and sticks it so close to their face and hands, that the other person easily bats it away, and takes it. It's stupid, it's lazy writing, and in this scenario, in real life, an experienced prostitute, who is committed enough to pulling a gun on someone, wouldn't be stupid enough to get so close to the person she's intimidating, he could easily disarm her. It's bad and lazy writing from Christine Conradt & Nelson Williams.

*SLEAZY REPORTER SAYS, "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE I GOT THE TAPE" A tape of Dr. Manners surfaces anonymously, and makes her look bad. The sleazy reporter says it doesn't matter where he got it, or how it was obtained. But his editor WOULD care, and would require knowing if the tape was faked, or gotten illegally (if the tape was obtained through felonious means). He would require another source confirming its contents, without that he would NOT print it. Dr. Manners could sue, and would win, because the tape was obtained by committing a crime, or was a forgery, the paper has no way of knowing either way. No judge would rule that slandering someone is for the public good, and so no editor would risk the lawsuit that would follow. There's no way to verify it's provenance, Dr. Manners would say, "no comment", and that would be that. Please can we stay on planet Earth with these scripts?!

*I'M SO SICK OF THE "POLICE ARE IDIOTS" EXCUSE, BEING USED BY SCRIPT WRITERS First of all, the police are convinced Liz Manners killed her husband because the man who is framing her didn't use his real name. WTH?! Did they expect him to? Second, everyone knows that the first two things done when a spouse is shot, and the other spouse is suspect: the police check the weapon for prints, and check the suspected spouse's hands and clothing for GSR-gun shot residue. (Don't give me that the audience doesn't know about GSR, I saw it the other day on Columbo (1971), which aired in the 70's, and this movie came out in the middle of the CSI: Vegas (2000) frenzy, which began in 2000). In this movie, they do check for prints, but they DON'T check for GSR, which would have gone a long way to clearing Dr. Manners of her husband's murder. After they found she had no GSR, they would ask her to take a polygraph, which she would pass, and they would move on to other suspects. C'mon writers, this is Scriptwriting 101 kind of stuff.

*NO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER WOULD HAVE THEIR INFO FOUND SO EASILY It's another deus ex machina, that is insulting to the viewer.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this movie. While the underlying treatment had potential, there are too many errors to make this enjoyable, even for a melodrama. Setting aside this premise (radio talk show host targeted for some reason) has been done to death, both in movies, and on TV shows, all the details are flawed. There are plotholes big enough to swallow the whole script (inept police), there's character problems that don't work (Liz & Rob's whole relationship), sleazy reporters who have editors who don't care about lawsuits, etc. It's too bad, because there are fine melodramatic performances from the three principal actors, Alexandra Paul, Gary Hudson and William R. Moses. But their performances cannot carry a script so flawed it literally crushes itself under the weight of it's own clichés and deus ex machinas.

CLOSING NOTES: *This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.

*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.

If you like Alexandra Paul in these types of roles, I'd like to recommend you watch for a movie coming out sometime around November/December 2006 titled DEMONS FROM HER PAST. It marks my second film with Alexandra, and in my opinion, DEMONS is even better than A LOVER'S REVENGE. It will air on Lifetime when it is released. In DEMONS, Alexandra plays a woman who served time 25 years ago for a murder she didn't commit, and finally goes back to her hometown in Pennsylvania after her grandmother's death to confront the men who framed her. The film also stars Michael Woods. And if you liked Billy Moses, watch for another movie with him as the bad guy lead called LIKE MOTHER, LIKE DAUGHTER. It will probably premiere in spring 2007, and will be on Lifetime as well.

In Philadelphia, the psychologist Dr. Liz Manners (Alexandra Paul) is the host of the WLOR Talk Radio Show giving advices about relationships to her audience. When she suggests to her listener Sara Jane (Sophie Gendron) to leave her abusive and obsessive husband Kyle Lundstrom (William R. Moses), Sara runs away home chased by Kyle and is hit by a car, immediately dying. The psychopath Kyle decides to use his money to destroy Dr. Manners' life, and assuming the fake identity of the investor James, he meets her husband Rob (Gary Hudson) and poisons her marriage.

"A Lover's Revenge" is a predictable B-movie with a thriller that seems to be a soap-opera in some moments. The screenplay is flawed in many aspects; for example, Kyle Lundstrom called Dr. Liz many times in her cell phone; therefore, the police could trace his calls and easily reach his identity. Further, they never constructed an identikit picture of James to help the investigation. Last but not the least; the viewer knows the identity of the criminal since the very beginning of the story, breaking the tension. The edition uses too many cuts like in a soap-opera, but the gorgeous Alexandra Paul, William R. Moses and Peter Michael Dillon have great performances. In the end, "A Lover's Revenge" is an enjoyable entertainment. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Amor e Traição" ("Love and Betrayal")

The movie was described as a "Sandwich" and not a "Steak.." No argument.. The review I read was "oversimplified.." It does use a lot of "used" themes.. I won't argue, even a little, that the psychopathic killer who "tells" his victims of his plot has been done 1,800 too many times! (NOTE TO MOVIE DIRECTORS AND WRITERS!!)

There are worse movies--

It'd be a better date movie than some of the syrupy stuff out there.. There's no sex or nudity (although Alexandra Paul is gorgeous, if she's reading this!).. It is nice to see a movie that isn't full of "twentysomethings.."

Anyway-- the point is, it wasn't 100% boilerplate.. It's not a nail-biter, for the most part-- but it does hold your interest..

AJ RN

I can be short; Although the plot is in itself not that bad this movie is. Here and there they try to give a little suspense to the viewer, but by giving away all the clues in the first part of the movie, the viewer is left with nothing more than just watching the average B-movie acting performances. The jump from a thriller story to a detective story I do not understand and does not help the quality of the movie. The suspense got further killed, by the plot lines. Every time the killer made another move, he had to say the reason for doing so. If you like some time sitting in front of your television without getting satisfied, you should watch this movie. Otherwise I recommend to stay of it.