L'affaire Laci Peterson

To present a real happening as in a movie is unique and always interesting to watch. However, smooth as the story line may be, the ending is rather cynical, without the 'real' presentation of the real case, if any otherwise it was only based on presumption. It is 'presumed' that Dean Cain MURDERED his wife but without court verdict nor findings. I don't know much about the real life story behind, or if the case has been closed or still an open end case or was it just the conclusion of the police and if so, why then made a movie based on real life story that has not ended with a finding?. Is Hollywood expecting us to judge as like in a fiction movie?.

Living in a country where media coverage of the Laci Peterson story was minimal, this TV-film did a great job of depicting the tragic events. The pace was good and the story telling was thoughtful without getting complicated. Dean Cain was fantastic (as always) in his role as Scott Peterson, and Tracy Middendorf was great as his innocent girlfriend, Amber. Sarah Brown and David Deman were also good as Kate and Tom Vignatti. The rest of the cast were all competent, but didn't get a lot of screen time. The only problem I see with the film is that perhaps it should have been made after the final outcome in the real Laci Peterson story, then there would have been more of an ending.

Overall, I liked the movie. Especially, I liked the acting of Dean Cain. He did a great job. Also, the filming is great. But I am still not sure if the husband is guilty or not. I didn't like about this movie that it comes with an open end and you are made to think how the story ends. Some of my friends say there is evidence that the husband is guilt of killing his wife. I think, the true murderer was his friend Tom. I had the feeling he knows something he hadn't told us. He believed so sternly in his friend Scott until the end. Too bad, that Scott never got the chance to confess to his girlfriend who the true murderer was...

Summary: If you want to see good acting watch the movie. f you prefer to have happy endings this one is not the right movie for you.

Was it even appropriate to make this movie before the case goes to trial!? It would appear that the American Judicial system continues to merge with the American Entertainment Industry such that there is very little to distinguish one from the other any more. So my short answer would be, "Yes it probably was appropriate".

As for the movie itself, I'm impressed with it's attention to detail and how well this made-for-TV movie stands up to multiple viewings. It's essentially just a chronology of highlights leading up to Scott Peterson's actual arrest. Portraying Scott as perhaps innocent would be a nearly impossible tasks just looking at those rather damning events. To get around that dilemma the producers use the purposely gullible character of Tommy Vignatti to convey the outside possibility of Scott's innocence right up until the final scene of the movie.

All the performances by all the leads in this movie are completely believable and they all do an excellent job of showing how those immediately involved went from initially supporting Scott Peterson to one by one viewing him with distrust and disbelief. I would give this movie very high marks for the type of expositive TV drama that it undeniably is.

This should not have been made at this time. Mr. Petersen should have been afforded a fair trial before he was tried in the media. As I watched the USA network production, I couldn't help but wonder "Why" I didn't recognize but 2 actors. Dean Cain and G.W. Bailey did a great job. Dean Cain's portrayal was very good. I guess G.W. Bailey did a decent portrayal, I really can't comment, because I not familiar with the investigating officer. But the question remains who were the other actors? Out of work Soap stars, that's who! And that my friends explains why this entire production is n nothing more than a "Soap Opera". Shame on you, USA network.