Shadow of Fear

And the reason being is the characters .

Firstly I agree with one reviewer who stated that , in this type of movie , you have to like the victim and dislike the agressor .

I did not like the lead female role . From the begining she and her" team of protectors " ,annoyed me . This woman seemed incapeable of defending herself in anyway on her own , even though she is protrayed as being strong and independant from the opening scenes .

Secondly , I felt completely uncomfortable about the way that mental illness was dealt with in this movie , I mean, it was blatently obvious from the very start that Morgan was suffering from severe mental illness , and for anybody not to have noticed that ,and not to act immediatley , by reporting it , is just ridiculous .

And of course I felt sorry for Morgan , being that unwell is not a choice made by people who suffer from mental illness , rather a condition that requires urgent care and help .

Sorry , for the speech , but as I said , this movie made me feel uncomfortable .

For this LMN again brings you the damsel in distress, the terrible male character doing the bad deeds and once again we are asked to suffer a trite film with so-so acting, but for a few.

The damsel, in the name of Amanda Righetti, is not too good. It's all about her hair. When it is up, and she looks better that way and her age, she is happy. When her hair is down, not good on her, she's being dramatic. When it's all tossed about covering half of her face in strings down to her waist she is supposed to be disheveled.

I do believe she is too mature for the teen-age look. Why is it women and their hair become so important in films? Cut it short, my dear. You're supposed to be a classy lady and you look not so.

Her partner in crime, Christie Burson, also with flowing locks, doesn't do that much more for the film except to scream and stand by her friend. Has anyone heard of bobby pins? Why do they have to always have strands of hair hanging in their faces? So damned annoying and destroys my liking their work.

Catherine Hicks fares better and looks better and acts her age. I liked her. Harry Hamlin must be hard up for a job to take on this trite. He doesn't get much to do in this. Harry looks good though. And finally we come to the young man, William Estes, as the tormentor. His acting is a bit amateurish. You really don't believe him most of the time. Plus he looks as though he could be our leading lady's son.

I can't wait for the day when women look their age and act their age and this long straight hair look goes away. I am sick of seeing the same do, in all colors, real and phony, hanging straight down with some over each shoulder and some hanging down the back. It's like all the women look the same. There is really no difference. Except the acting. And there are some that can act and many that can not.

This movie is great. I watched it twice and its such a well done, responsible portrayal at a very real issue. Righetti did an amazing job at showing the emotional plight that stalking can do not only to the victim, but everyone around them. I also can't say enough good things about Will Estes performand and how well he captured the role of the stalker, and harmful it can be for people to overlook the psychological side of it. The cast did an amazing job, and keep in mind this is based on a true story, and they handled this issue so responsibly, and it's just a damn good thriller.

Long & ponderous and anti-climatic. The lead actress is fine & will no doubt have better roles in the future.

Time Warner's synopsis indicated that the Catherine Hicks character, who owned the business the victim worked for, was the stalker. Or, would the synopsis be written by LMN? I enjoyed the movie, except for the 50% TV ad time, which is common for any network these days, including sports where they have TV time-outs. No coach or player can call THAT many time-outs. That really ruins the continuity of the game and irritates the players and coaches, but it's the 'ME' age, all for the bottom line (ex: A&E and 'Duck Dynasty').

Catherine Hicks was hardly noticeable in this film. She has aged considerably since she portrayed Kathleen Turner's best friend in 'Peggy Sue Got Married,' 1986 (title based upon an obscure, but good, Buddy Holly song). Of course, I look older than I did in 1986 as well, but Catherine looks like she had a stroke along the way. I just lost my hair as most men of 72 do. I would guess Catherine Hicks is only in her early 50's unless she wasn't a teenager in 1986. I'll check out her bio.

As for the film, it was good seeing Harry Hamlin long after his starring role in the legendary 'Clash of the Titans.' He has aged gracefully.

The stalker was the best actor in the film. I know my review doesn't cover much of the film's content, direction, acting, etc. but what else can I say about LMN? It was a slow night for TV - no local sports teams in action. That would comprise the contrary male network, i.e. sports ARE (ESPN,Fox Sports, etc.) are the male networks.