What We Did That Night

WHAT WE DID THAT NIGHT opens with four poor little rich boy students digging a hole and putting a teenage girl in the ground . Actually the scriptwriter has also dug himself into a hole since the audience are fully aware of what`s happened and what the story is about . It`s a good opening hook to be fair but it also sets up a very predictable story . The story then jumps several years to the present day where the students have now graduated and have become well paid white collar professionals . Sorry if I sound like a communist dictator but did anyone else have an instinctive dislike of these poor little rich boys ? and as someone else pointed out the actors might have been convincing as students but several years later they`re unconvincing as a district attorney etc , and because the TVM opened with these characters burying a body we know where the story is heading which means the audience have to put up with many talky scenes by these unlikable poor rich boys which doesn`t exactly make for compelling viewing

All this is rather annoying , we know what the plot is and we know where the plot is heading so perhaps fearing that the story is too predictable the scriptwriter throws a massive spanner in the works by having a few plot twists in the final third of the film which really strains any type of credibility the TVM might have had to start with

I didn`t think much of this TVM ( What a surprise ) except for a scene where one of the character`s visits his friend and the friend`s wife leans over and offers the character a plate of cookies

" Thanks Cholie . They`re nice " He says as takes a cookie

" Thank you " replies Cholie while all the time the director keeps his camera locked on Cholie`s impressive cleavage

I happened to catch this movie on "Court TV," and the strength of the acting and the script came as a pleasant surprise for me. Often made for television movies leave much to be desired, but this was not the case here.

Although not a big budget picture, the screenwriter and director make good use of flashbacks to build tension for the audience. The scriptwriter and director develop the four lead characters well, and this degree of characterization is another of the assets of the film.

Four college fraternity brothers are involved in an accidental and unintentional killing of a young woman. To cover up the incident, the four bury the woman's body in an isolated area. Years later, one of the friends, Schroder, contacts the others about a proposed land development in the area where the body is buried. By this time, the three of four have gone onto other lives and other careers, hoping that this past incident remains a part of their respective past experiences. One becomes a dentist, while another becomes an assistant district attorney. Schroder's character is an ex-convict, however. The four travel to the isolated area to remove the evidence of the killing. Given the tensions and anxieties of the men, the plotline does not go in a simple, linear fashion.

Since I am faithful viewer of "NYPD Blue," I knew that Rick Schroder would put in an excellent performance. Schroder's character, a menacing villain, is both manipulative and charming.

While watching the film, I kept thinking of Rob Reiner's "Stand by Me," in which a group of boys journey to an isolated, wooded area, to see a dead body of a missing teenager. Both films use the respective journeys and flashbacks to reveal aspects of the main characters (their fears, ambitions, etc.).

Although "What We Did That Night" is a modest film, it is nevertheless very good and deserving of more attention and distribution.

"They call Television a medium because nothing is ever well done" _ Groucho Marx

Many like to write off the tele-movie as being a simplistic, often badly written and poorly produced piece of videotape and, honestly, often they are right.

However in the case of MURDER AT DEVIL'S GLEN the television medium really rises above itself to present a far above average character study with excellent performances from TV actors Noseworthy and Schroeder, teamed with an intelligent and interesting script.

The set up is somewhat predictable - 4 college boys involved in the death of a young woman decide to cover it up and eight years later are forced to deal with their actions.

But the script takes it somewhere else and the psychological depths are expertly plumbed here.

Worth seeing.

I was waiting for a cool movie to watch on wednesday night and it proved to be one of the best thriller I've ever seen!!Each actor gives himself entirely to his character.The plot is clever, the end is purely unbelievable (well, that's only an expression because the fact is the screen play is totally credible).The photography and the directing just emphasize the atmosphere of both terror and normal life.The perfect combination for a great thriller!

This movie is the story of some frat boys who are always pulling practical jokes, until one joke goes too far and a girl dies. The friends agree to cover up the accident, and eight years later it all comes back to haunt them. To call this movie simplistic would be to overstate the issue.

All these years later, the frat boys have done very well for themselves. Jack Noseworthy's character is an assistant district attourney, and at the start of the film we see him delivering an argument in court. I don't know what's more ridiculous - this kid who looks about 20 years old all dressed up like a grown up and being taken seriously by the court, or the speech, rife with legal jargon meant to establish that "he is smart." They expect us to believe that this little guy is an ADA who lives in a mansion with his wife and daughter. Okay.

All the secrets and twists of the plot are painfully apparent within the first hour of the film, but this doesn't stop them from banging us over the head with a thorough explanation and re-hash of everything at the end. If you're looking for a murder thriller for your kindergarten-aged child, this is it. Otherwise save your money.