Found

Only the physical attractiveness of the players might cause a viewer to pause when scanning the channels with the remote control. But a charming girl with a pretty face alone does not create drama.

Only shallow showbiz actors and directors would think it plausible to present the reunion of a long lost child with her mother and father as a casual and mundane event. Outpouring at the end of long suffering, raw emotion, deep feelings -- all completely missing from FOUND. The big reunion in FOUND is little more than an owner finding misplaced car keys after a five minute search.

Only made-for-TV folk think it does not matter when the actors are clearly seen wearing underwear during "nude" love-making scenes. The technical production values are weak, even by low-end cable channel standards.

FOUND is painful to watch, not because of story-telling power and emotion, but because the plot has problems and almost each and every scene lacks credibility.

FOUND is missing drama. Please don't try to find FOUND.

Private detective Vince Whitaker meets a woman in a bar. He is good-looking enough that he could have had any of the women there, but the woman he chose is the bartender, whose name is Julia.

Then Vince shows up at the Florida beach home of construction executive Charles Drake and his wife Ellen. He has wonderful news: 16 years after their daughter Catherine was kidnapped at age 8, he has found her. Ellen is delighted, but Charles is suspicious. Julia, though, seems to remember a lot. Charles won't believe Julia is Catherine until he sees a birthmark he didn't tell the press about. She has it, so it must be her. Right?

Ellen spends a lot of time with Julia, buying her clothes and even a car. She has been so depressed for years, and she is taking numerous medications. Julia is so happy to have this relationship. As she explains, her nanny Lupe told her that her parents were dead. She ended up in numerous foster homes and finally ran away to Arizona. She says she has never had a relationship like this, and she doesn't even care about the money she might get from Catherine's trust fund.

Vince does care about money. It took a lot of effort for him to find Catherine, and Charles offered a $200,000 reward years ago. While Charles is investigating Vince, Vince is investigating Charles, to make sure he gets everything he can. And Lt. Conroy, a uniformed officer when the kidnapping took place, wants the case solved.

The movie offers numerous surprises and unexpected plot twists. Well, unexpected for me, anyway. I often find that when people on this site saw something coming a mile away, I was completely fooled. And that's the way I like it. It makes the mystery quite fascinating.

I thought all of the leading actors, and many of those with cameos, did a good job. Victor Browne has to be singled out because in the course of his investigations, Vince pretended to be an IRS agent and a lawyer. He had a different name every time he talked to someone, and I don't recall just when he was Roger. He was so polite when he first met the Drakes.

I didn't even recognize Greg Evigan, who I liked so much in light-hearted comic roles on "My Two Dads" and "P.S.I. Luv U". He was so mean and such a schemer.

I should also mention Joanna Cassidy. She reminded me a lot of Evelyn in "Two and a Half Men", and I even suspected I might have overlooked Holland Taylor's name during the opening credits.

Tania Saulnier also did a good job. She was so sweet, at least when her character was supposed to be. And Julia really convinced me she wanted a mother, not money.

When I first saw John Colton, who played Ellen's financial manager, I thought he looked just like George W. Bush. At least he had a similar face. His performance was good, but I didn't see anything to suggest he would be good in the role of the President. That's not to say he couldn't do it.

A couple of cautionary notes: there was little violence, but we were shown the gruesome results of violence. And while no actual forbidden body parts were shown thanks to creative positioning, we saw as much of Tania Saulnier as it was possible to see on broadcast TV. Unless the show is "NYPD Blue", that is. And the sex scenes were pretty athletic. Does it make the movie any more unsuitable if I mention the camera?

I enjoyed this.

What did I miss here? This is 2004. These people never heard of DNA testing? It would have been more plausible if it was set in say, 1960.

The reunion scene was almost laughable, if it wasn't so pathetic and stilted. I've seen people get more excited when there is an empty checkout counter at the supermarket. Joanna Cassidy is normally a wonderful actress. Too bad she didn't have the material to go along with her talent. The plot was very easy to follow. Outcome was completely predictable. I was rather disappointed. If they wanted this movie to be full of suspense and a thriller, they sure missed the mark.

If you cant work out the plot in 5 minutes you're very gullible. A senile old granny could see through this flimsy plot.

Acting didn't help, it was awful Complete dross.

What is it that tips the viewer off that a movie is made on the cheap? The fact that normally attractive people look awful, the slow motion story, the "something off" about the acting that signifies a lousy director, the bad, derivative script, the rotten dialogue? No matter what it is, you have FOUND it here. The usually vivacious and glamorous Joanna Cassidy is cast as a neurotic, heavily medicated woman whose daughter was kidnapped 16 years earlier. Greg Evigan plays her smarmy husband, and if you ever had a doubt that he's smarmy, just look at the way he was photographed. I wouldn't have been surprised if the character rang the bell at Notre Dame in his spare time.

Within five minutes, the audience can guess the entire story. My advice - look for the remote, and when you have FOUND it, turn off the TV.