In a Child's Name

This is not your standard underdeveloped Lifetime movie fare. There is nothing superficial about this movie. The characters are fully developed. Let's face it. The best movies on Lifetime are the ones that are two parters. When you are dealing with this kind of material, you need that extra time to develop the plot and characters fully. Valerie Bertinelli is at her best in this. I kind of almost got the impression that she was really just playing herself. The aspect that I found most interesting in the second half of the movie, was the exploration of the Midwestern "Family Values" of the Heartland versus the evil New York/New Jersey devils represented by the Silvanos. Kind of makes you wonder!

I was at some of the filming of this movie (in Wilmington, NC)and it was great. I was also involved in the investigation of this crime.

People always want to know if the book (made first) and the movie are as what actually happened. My answer is that both are Very Close to the actual facts in the matter.

There are some minor differences between the book and the movie but nothing of any value that would drastically change anything. If you have seen the movie - get the book and read it. The book has some of the trial of Dr. Taylor and the movie covers almost nothing of the trial. A forensic pathologist (Doctor)testified at the trial - and the same Dr. testified in OJ's trial.

Questions? Let me know. Bob

This movie epitomizes two telefilm genres (the Sunday Night Tearjerker and the Lifetime Movie) but towers above most examples of both. It aired as a two-parter; the first half told the story of a woman's murder by her husband and his eventual arrest for the crime, while the second concerned the custody battle over the couple's son between her sister (Bertinelli) and his parents (Huddleston and Fletcher).

The first half retains an admirable level of tension throughout, though the crime isn't ever really a mystery. Thankfully, the actual crime is not shown, though the filmmakers found a better way to convey its brutality: the final shot of the first half of the show is one of the most shocking sights I've ever seen on television.

The custody battle in the second part is less suspenseful but raises several interesting questions. The cultural bias by the killer's parents against the evil, urban, ethnic (Italian) family of the victim had some resonance in their son's marriage. Not to overgeneralize, but a friend of mine was married to a man from rural Indiana and his family was a LOT like the people in this film. The filmmakers clearly sided with wife's family on this point--the "moral" Hoosiers are both unattractive and unpleasant. The question of how their "heartland values" produced their monster of a son is never really addressed.

The performances are uniformly excellent and often surprising. Bertinelli and Chris Meloni as her husband prove to be far more than a couple of (very) pretty faces, as does Michael Ontkean as the cold blooded killer. It is important that this not get lost by being lumped in with the scores of similar but inferior TV movies.

This movie is heartwarming and a real tearjerker. I have a copy of it on tape, and I watch it all the time. I never get tired of watching the Taylor's get what they deserved. I really enjoyed watching it over and over again.

Although it's a messed up story, it is the most memorable true story movie I have ever watched. I remember watching it when it first aired when I was 12 with my mom, and have watched it several times since. It is a movie that once you watch it, you never forget it. And it's was a two part movie so it is almost 3 hours long. You are on the edge of your seat the whole time. Such a great cast too & they did such a good job. I haven't read the book yet but look forward to reading it. At least at the end, he gets what he deserves! This is not your typical Lifetime movie. If you like watching true story movies like I do, this is definitely one to watch :)