Accusata ingiustamente

Holly Hamilton (Marie Avgeropoulos) is an independent loner teen computer hacker who has a history with the cops. She has only one friend and her name is Blake. When they go to a bar to celebrate, Blake is lured away by a serial rapist. Holly goes in search of Blake and comes upon the rapist. He kills Blake and frames Holly for the crime.

This is a made-for-TV movie, and it looks like it. Luckily the story had a little bit of ambition which made it somewhat watchable. Marie Avgeropoulos is good looking and fairly physical. But she doesn't really have the facial expressions to do in-depth acting. The story has some tension, but the low budget just doesn't allow for big action. It's watchable, but forgettable.

Sorry to disagree with most other reviews. I thought the story line was very good and some of the actors did adequate jobs. Noteworthy the Grandmother, the female detective, Christina Cox, and the friend played by Cindel Chartrand. But the leading player, Marie Avger. . .., was over the top acting and seemed out of place opposite the other performers. Sort of high school acting when others played simplicity and believable characters. You had sympathy and compassion for them. This critic felt nothing for the leading role of Holly. She acted too much in the part. I always like to find something positive in actors and their work. But in this one, I gotta say I just didn't like her work. Maybe too old for a high school student and one look on her face throughout the movie. A blank sort of stare. Walking around so obviously conspicuously that it was funny. The scene in the restaurant where there were two cops, she walks out hunched over with this stupid hood over her face. So obvious. And continues walking everywhere with the hood over her head. I just thought she was wrong in the role as compared to the others. Sorry.

Why is it that you can immediately see it when it is a television movie? From the first second of Fugitive At 17 it screams TV movie. From the first second I already regretted watching this movie. It oozes bad script, bad acting, and bad sound. The story is one of those stories we all saw hundred times before but all with a better execution. The major characters in this movie are played by Christina Cox and Marie Avgeropoulos, and it's obvious they will never get a big role in a decent movie. They are perfect to appear everynow and then in dumb series. No need to say their characters are painful to watch due to their mediocre acting. To create an ambiance in a movie you need good sound effects and music, and this was probably the lamest thing about this movie while it should be the easiest thing to fix. Nothing wrong with TV movies though, there are some good ones, but this one is clearly not one of them.

The only reason I rate this at 4 stars is because without the 2 leads this would have been a 1 star execution of a story that had the potential to live up to the 6 star rating...

Marie Avgeropoulos and Cristina Cox carry this movie, it could have been a lot better but when there is exactly 2 people in it that is actually capable of portraying a character in a way that makes you see the character rather than just some person pretending('acting'...) to be whomever they are portraying, the end result is obviously less than good...

The story is decent and the writing isn't horrible but in the end you watch it because of the 2 leads and just kinda suffer through the rest of them...

As it stands, it's a 5/10. Slightly better than most of you average afternoon TV-movie fare, but CERTAINLY NOT worth it's current 6.3 IMDb rating. I'll use Brian De Palma's "Passion" as a gauge there, as it's rated 5.3, and it's exemplary in terms of production quality and style compared to something like this. Far better acted and just strides better overall.

Right off the bat we see the television/budget shortcomings. Terrible opening sequence with awful, cheap credits, blurry stock, and the whole beginning rushed to-boot, in typical TV-movie fashion.

Then the film gains some steam with a promising start from the lead. Casper is also good as the villain here. As bad as the production values are, the film flows quite nicely, and the audience does feel for the lead character and her plight. BUT!

The acting still falls flat in many places and there are some serious plausibility issues both procedural and otherwise, and the film just ends and starts a bit TOO much like a TV movie. The middle third isn't bad at all, but don't expect much.

48/100 seen much worse. I knew the production values would be questionable but they were worse than I expected. The acting and the flow of the film were better than I expected, but I didn't expect much.

I'd pass. Not even worth the $1.32 rental at the redbox.

In hind-site, TV movies that are worth watching are rare... super rare.. and most that are worth watching were made by HBO films. Brian's Song, Long Gone(Stogies), Temple Grandin... Duel... there just aren't many GREAT TV movies.

Fugitive at 17 isn't terrible, but it did nothing to distance itself from being 'a decent television movie' at the very best. I mean that in the 'this is a basic cable movie, not a 'premium channel' movie' kind of way to boot. Again, pass.