Encuentro con el peligro

ENCOUNTER WITH DANGER (TV movie 2009) 3.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 4min

BASIC PLOT: Lori Parker (Shannen Doherty) thought she had everything. She's a tenured professor at a major university, she has a sister who's her best friend, and she just got engaged to Jack Anderson (Mark Humphrey), the perfect man.

But on a recent trip, Lori's whole life has been turned upside down. Jack took Lori along on a working vacation, but after dropping her off at the hotel, all traces of him have disappeared. It's like he doesn't exist, and Lori doesn't know who to trust. Her hotel room has been tossed, and Carrie (Ona Grauer), her sister, tells her the same thing has happened to her home - all the way across the country. There are powerful forces trying to keep tabs on her, and she's not sure who she can trust. Can Lori uncover the truth behind Jack's disappearance, or will she to suffer an unspeakable fate?

WHAT WORKS: *ACTING IS DECENT Acting is ok for a made-for-tv movie, but decent actors cannot save such a flawed script.

*LOCAL COPS USUALLY BUNGLE MISSING PERSONS CASES From time immemorial, cops have been screwing up missing persons cases, especially when there's a man involved. This is a believable trope from screenwriter Peter Sullivan, and story writer Jeffrey Schenck.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *LORI PARKER IS RUDE TO EVERYONE! And there's no need for her to be! It makes her unlikable, when she should be sympathetic. She's rude to Todd Carter, when she's giving him her phone number (so he can call her after he's done a bunch of work for her), she ignores the front desk clerk, when he asks after her (on 2 separate occasions), and she's rude to the receptionist at ACT, when she tries to help. She's impertinent and disrespectful to everyone, instead of being desperate, and pleading for help. Being scared and stressed is not an excuse for treating people with distain. It shouldn't matter how stressed you are, you should never treat strangers, who are trying to help you, with anything but kindness. If she wants people to help her, she should be nicer to them, instead of treating them like plebians. I don't know if this is the fault of the writers, Peter Sullivan, and Jeffrey Schenck, the director, Neill Fearnley, or the actress Shannen Doherty. Whoever's to blame, it's a fail.

*WHY DOES THE SHERIFF THINK THERE'S ANOTHER WOMAN AFTER THE HOTEL ROOM IS TOSSED? If Jack (Mark Humphrey) wanted to run out on Lori, wouldn't he just take his clothes? Why would a cop think a fiancé would look behind pictures on the wall, or under the bed for his things? Why would the room be in a shambles, if he just came to get his clothes, so he could run out on her? Also, doesn't the Sheriff wonder how Jack got into the room when he was never given a key card?

*TO COMPLETELY WIPE SOMEONE FROM AN AIRLINE/AIRPORT TRIP WOULD BE A MAJOR UNDERTAKING Jack & Lori went through two major airports. There are security cameras throughout, every food place, every concession stand, every business, has one. There are hundreds of cameras in both airports, not to mention the hotel cameras. To eliminate every traffic camera, every store camera and every security camera from the airport to the hotel, would be near impossible. It's just not a believable storyline in 2009. (Later, the head of the company said all he had to do was pay off a cab driver, and change a few hotel records, but we all know, in today's world, it wouldn't be as easy as all that.)

*WHY WOULD THEY HAVE JOINT BANK ACCOUNTS WHEN THEY'RE NOT MARRIED? That's not something you tend to do until after you're married. It's a pain in the a$$, and established couples of a certain age tend to have separate accounts, especially when they're not married. Also, wouldn't it be easier to just remove Jack from the account? Many women keep their clothing receipts, so she might have proof the account existed. It would be better to just remove his name from the account, not delete an account she could easily prove existed by either receipts, or her bank card, which she still has (she tries to use it). Having their accounts be joint, and having it disappear, is a ludicrous. The plotline is unneeded, it throws the viewer out, and should have been omitted.

*DAVID ABBOTT, JACK'S COLLEAGUE, IS PRETTY STUPID TO MEET LORI OUT ON THE OPEN David Abbott (Neill Fearnley), says he knows what happened to Jack, and wants to tell Lori in person. He also says, they're both being followed, but tells Lori to meet him anyway, without taking any precautions. This stupidity has dire consequences for David, because he makes himself such an easy target. Even stupider, Lori agrees to a dangerous meeting in the same place later on in the movie! Why would she do something so stupid, when it turned out so horribly the last time?

*SHERIFF WALTERS CRITICIZES LORI PARKER FOR BEING A GOOD SAMARITAN?!? Sheriff Walters (Garry Chalk) criticizes Lori for helping David Abbott (Neill Fearnley), when he is the victim of a hit and run. She stays with him, and gets him to the hospital, yet the Sheriff says she should have stayed out of it? Why? Lori should realize the Sheriff is either a sociopath, or in on whatever's going on, either way she should steer clear of him. If neither of those things are true, and the story writers Peter Sullivan, and Jeffrey Schenck just added this as a way to use the whole "Police are invasive/stupid" storyline, they should be admonished for lazy writing.

*THE SHERIFF SAYS HE'S GOING TO ARREST LORI for what?!?! This is 2009, NOT 1969, she's also not a long hair on the back of a motorcycle that a rural, headbusting, hillbilly sheriff can roust. She is an educated woman, a college professor, who would either call a lawyer, or the state police for help. She probably would have done both by this point anyway, after the Sheriff told her he had only three men in his department, and her bank account was deleted. Peter Sullivan, and Jeffrey Schenck, stop using plotlines from Easy Rider (Buscando mi destino) (1969). This is 2009, NOT 1969!

*IN 2009, EVERYONE HAD CAMERA PHONES Writers like Peter Sullivan, and Jeffrey Schenck need to understand, you can't keep writing scripts where technology doesn't exist. What would most people do if they broke into a location, found a room with hidden information all over the walls, and had limited time? Would they try to take it all? NO! They would pull out their cellphone, and try to take as many pictures as they could. What if they were hiding in the same building with bad guys, and listening to incriminating conversations? Wouldn't most people pull out their cellphone, and record them? Why don't characters ever do this?! It immediately throws the viewer out of the movie, because we're too busy saying, "Lori, take out your blasted cellphone, and take pictures of all that, record their conversation!" If we're criticizing the characters, we aren't enjoying the movie, because our suspension of disbelief is gone! Lori is also able to access secret financial documents just by sitting down at a terminal at a major software company. She never inputs a password, or code, she just sits down, and starts typing. That's beyond stupid and implausible, it's asinine! Stop writing screenplays where no one uses the technology in the world!

*LORI DOESN'T TRUST ANYBODY, NOT THE POLICE OR FBI, But she suddenly trusts some womanizing doofus she just met, who works for the company she's trying to bring down? Why? Because he has an honest face? Because he helped her get out of the building when she was being chased? And she's willing to trust her life, and her fiancé's life to him? Yeah right.

*THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION IS CORRUPT? Those people are pitbulls, aching to take corporate fat cats down, but if going to them really didn't work, why would you think going to the top of the company would help? Why would anyone try to take on people who have their own private army? Wouldn't you just snail mail & email this file to every major news outlet in the world? I'm sure one of them would love to bring down a computer software giant. Here we are ignoring that technology and the post office exists again, and you can't do that in 2009!

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *I really can't recommend this and it's too bad! It had a good treatment, and the acting was fine for the type of movie it is, but the plotholes were so distracting and so numerous, they finally became a deal breaker. I would only recommend to die hard Shannen Doherty fans, and even then, prepare to be disappointed.

CLOSING NOTES: *RIP SHANNEN DOHERTY & ALF HUMPHREYS They were two very fine actors that are sorely missed.

*PEOPLE SHOULDN'T WALK AROUND IN PUBLIC PLACES BAREFOOT I know this is more of a personal b*tch, but Shannen Doherty/Lori, walks around in the hotel barefoot! Gross! No one should do that! Wear some slippers!

*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.