Amor e Traição

I can be short; Although the plot is in itself not that bad this movie is. Here and there they try to give a little suspense to the viewer, but by giving away all the clues in the first part of the movie, the viewer is left with nothing more than just watching the average B-movie acting performances. The jump from a thriller story to a detective story I do not understand and does not help the quality of the movie. The suspense got further killed, by the plot lines. Every time the killer made another move, he had to say the reason for doing so. If you like some time sitting in front of your television without getting satisfied, you should watch this movie. Otherwise I recommend to stay of it.

The movie was described as a "Sandwich" and not a "Steak.." No argument.. The review I read was "oversimplified.." It does use a lot of "used" themes.. I won't argue, even a little, that the psychopathic killer who "tells" his victims of his plot has been done 1,800 too many times! (NOTE TO MOVIE DIRECTORS AND WRITERS!!)

There are worse movies--

It'd be a better date movie than some of the syrupy stuff out there.. There's no sex or nudity (although Alexandra Paul is gorgeous, if she's reading this!).. It is nice to see a movie that isn't full of "twentysomethings.."

Anyway-- the point is, it wasn't 100% boilerplate.. It's not a nail-biter, for the most part-- but it does hold your interest..

AJ RN

A LOVER'S REVENGE (TV Movie 2005) 3 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2 min

BASIC PLOT: Dr. Liz Manners (Alexandra Paul) is a successful radio psychiatrist, who gives advice to her call in audience. Unfortunately for Liz, one of her listeners is Sarah Jane (Sophie Gendron), the battered wife of shipping tycoon, Kyle Lundstrom (William R. Moses). Liz tells Sarah she should escape Kyle's violent grasp, before he kills her. Dr. Manners offers the help of the domestic violence shelter she partners with, and tells Sarah she has a place to go when she's ready to leave. In an unfortunate happenstance, Kyle comes home early, and catches his wife on the phone with Dr. Manners. To evade Kyle's fury, Sarah Jane flees into the night, hoping to escape. But her luck has run out, and as she's running, she's hit by a car, and killed. Kyle blames Dr. Manners for the problems in his marriage, and for his wife's untimely death. He is determined to ruin Dr. Manners' life, like she ruined his. He plans to take her job, her husband (Gary Hudson), and even her life. Will she be able to stop his murderous rampage before everything in her life is destroyed?

WHAT WORKS: *ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE FOR A MADE-FOR-TV MELODRAMA Alexandra Paul, Gary Hudson and William R. Moses all do a fine job with the material they are given. They do the script justice, too bad it let's them down with clichés, plotholes, and deus ex machinas.

*LIZ MANNERS TELLS HER HUSBAND ROB, SHE CAN FORGIVE EVERYTHING BUT LYING This is the only believable part of the script, when a wife tells her husband, she can look past the cheating, the stealing, the failures, and everything else because she loves him, but she can't look past his lies. That's a true statement, and if men would learn that fundamental truth about women, there'd be a lot more successful relationships.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *WHEN MEN MISBEHAVE, IT'S NO ONE'S FAULT BUT THEIR OWN You used to see this trope a lot in the 50's & 60's. When men would have affairs, or embezzle from their wives, it would be because the wife wasn't paying enough attention to them (subtext-giving them enough sex), in effect shifting blame from the man to the woman. "If the woman had been a better wife, he wouldn't have run off and left you with five children, cheated on you, stolen all your money, and left with his secretary," etc. I saw this exact trope on an episode of "Dragnet", called The Big Revolt (1953). But this is NOT 1953, this is 2005, and women writers, like Christine Conradt, should know better, than to offer up this sexist clap-trap. It's offensive to blame anyone's actions, except on the person who committed them. Enabling does not correct bad behavior, and as a psychiatrist/therapist, our main character, Dr. Liz Manners, would know that. (The original story was written by a man, Nelson Williams, so I'm not sure who I am more mad at, Christine Conradt for helping to write such a sexist script, or at Lifetime for buying it.)

*ARE WE SUPPOSED TO EMPATHIZE WITH ROB MANNERS? Rob Manners (Gary Hudson) is a tool... a fit throwing, whoremongering, spoiled man-child. Are we supposed to forget all that, because when he's gets caught, he says he's sorry (which he quickly takes back, and stomps off in the midst of another toddler fit)? He steals from his wife, he robs their savings, he cheats, he lies, he fit throws, he takes out loans against their property-without telling her, he begrudges his wife when his investor wants to give money to her domestic violence shelter, he's the most sorry human being on the planet. And we, as viewers, are supposed to believe Liz Manners (Alexandra Paul), a doctor of psychiatry, a practicing couple's therapist, wouldn't know what type of man he is? We're supposed to believe she can see through everyone's problems but her own? Oh please! Give me a break!

*LIGHTING IS TERRIBLE THROUGHOUT This has to be down to the cinematographer (Bert Tougas), because normally, Douglas Jackson's directing is spot on.

*I'M SO SICK OF SEEING PEOPLE GIVING THEIR GUNS AWAY IN MOVIES & ON TV SHOWS This is a reoccuring theme, and it is a sorry one. A character pulls a gun on another character, and sticks it so close to their face and hands, that the other person easily bats it away, and takes it. It's stupid, it's lazy writing, and in this scenario, in real life, an experienced prostitute, who is committed enough to pulling a gun on someone, wouldn't be stupid enough to get so close to the person she's intimidating, he could easily disarm her. It's bad and lazy writing from Christine Conradt & Nelson Williams.

*SLEAZY REPORTER SAYS, "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE I GOT THE TAPE" A tape of Dr. Manners surfaces anonymously, and makes her look bad. The sleazy reporter says it doesn't matter where he got it, or how it was obtained. But his editor WOULD care, and would require knowing if the tape was faked, or gotten illegally (if the tape was obtained through felonious means). He would require another source confirming its contents, without that he would NOT print it. Dr. Manners could sue, and would win, because the tape was obtained by committing a crime, or was a forgery, the paper has no way of knowing either way. No judge would rule that slandering someone is for the public good, and so no editor would risk the lawsuit that would follow. There's no way to verify it's provenance, Dr. Manners would say, "no comment", and that would be that. Please can we stay on planet Earth with these scripts?!

*I'M SO SICK OF THE "POLICE ARE IDIOTS" EXCUSE, BEING USED BY SCRIPT WRITERS First of all, the police are convinced Liz Manners killed her husband because the man who is framing her didn't use his real name. WTH?! Did they expect him to? Second, everyone knows that the first two things done when a spouse is shot, and the other spouse is suspect: the police check the weapon for prints, and check the suspected spouse's hands and clothing for GSR-gun shot residue. (Don't give me that the audience doesn't know about GSR, I saw it the other day on Columbo (1971), which aired in the 70's, and this movie came out in the middle of the CSI: Investigação Criminal (2000) frenzy, which began in 2000). In this movie, they do check for prints, but they DON'T check for GSR, which would have gone a long way to clearing Dr. Manners of her husband's murder. After they found she had no GSR, they would ask her to take a polygraph, which she would pass, and they would move on to other suspects. C'mon writers, this is Scriptwriting 101 kind of stuff.

*NO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER WOULD HAVE THEIR INFO FOUND SO EASILY It's another deus ex machina, that is insulting to the viewer.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this movie. While the underlying treatment had potential, there are too many errors to make this enjoyable, even for a melodrama. Setting aside this premise (radio talk show host targeted for some reason) has been done to death, both in movies, and on TV shows, all the details are flawed. There are plotholes big enough to swallow the whole script (inept police), there's character problems that don't work (Liz & Rob's whole relationship), sleazy reporters who have editors who don't care about lawsuits, etc. It's too bad, because there are fine melodramatic performances from the three principal actors, Alexandra Paul, Gary Hudson and William R. Moses. But their performances cannot carry a script so flawed it literally crushes itself under the weight of it's own clichés and deus ex machinas.

CLOSING NOTES: *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.

A radio psychologist Dr. Liz Manners who offers relationship advice, finds her own life is in crisis, when she learns that because of her career ambition, her husband is having an affair. This has suddenly all come up to the surface, as one of her caller's obsessive husband has sworn revenge against her. He believes Manners drove his wife away from him and when trying to flee his controlled loved, she's killed by a passing car. So, three months have past and he goes by the name of "Ken Malansky" to gain Manners' trust. He pretends to be interested in her business, but secretly he wants to destroy her life in the process.

Why do I put myself in these situations of watching these bland made-for-television Lifetime presentations? I guess I'm hoping for something special. "A Lover's Revenge" keeps one watching, but it just never pays off, as it moves onto one lifeless and very, very contrived scene after another. I can't knock that it's not competently made, but this cookie-cutter thriller just doesn't generate much suspense and becomes too predictable in its implausibly elaborated make-up and over-explained details. Routine dialogues motivated by a bloated script seems to be building up something that never takes off. One real nagging element was how clueless the central characters are about what's really going on. The conveniently twisty story is pure trash at heart, glossed up by slick and polished filming techniques. The distant direction is simply going through the motions and falling into forced patterns. Some absurd actions that do occur are eye-rolling stuff. The tenable performances are particularly good, however William R. Moses was something far less then dominating as the psychopath. There were two choices; having hammy fun or playing it with subtle sinisterness. He was somewhere in between, but never could manage to pull it of convincingly. Alexandra Paul is adorably strong and potent as Dr. Liz Manners. There is capable support in the likes of Gary Hudson and Gabrielle Carteris.

It'll pass the muster if your looking for something comfortable, but I wouldn't go to big lengths to see it. Passably watchable.

The big, expensive "blockbuster" movies are like ordering an expensive steak or lobster - often worth the stiff price, but sometimes very disappointing. You have the "Casablancas," the "Titanics," but also the turkeys like "Heaven's Gate" and "Bonfire of the Vanities." Sometimes 9- or 10-star results, and other times barely worth one. But films like this one - the inexpensive, TV production can be like getting a hot dog or roast beef sandwich at the established neighborhood diner - nothing spectacular, but usually reliable.

William Moses, the male lead here is a good-looking, capable actor, who has played the "good-guy-next-door" to perfection. In this story, he does a workmanlike job of portraying a man who is a psychopath, a sociopath, and just about every other type of "_______-path" a person could be. His target is played by Alexandra Paul, an old hand in this genre, always having friends, neighbors or acquaintances determined to kill her, with her completely oblivious to this for the initial 75% or so of the film. The performances are credible, the performers attractive, and this is the kind of picture which will not go into anyone's hall of fame, but provides a couple of hours of good entertainment - and if your viewing should be interrupted during the show, the intricacies are not sufficient to spoil your understanding of what's going-on.