Ma fille en danger

I probably should just desist from commenting on this flick. The few previous comments which commend it have high approval marks from those accessing them, except for the one from overseas, which was 0-for-11 previously.

However, I caught this film on a Friday after a pretty hectic week, and with a busy weekend approaching, so just laid back for a couple of hours mid-day.

I did miss the kidnapping portion, but not difficult to infer what had occurred there, and with other comments - and was understandable that family would be a bit spooked and on-edge following.

Still, there wasn't a single character with whom I could empathize or sympathize, and the twerp who entered their lives as the obnoxious daughter's love interest (Nick) was too insipid for me believe him capable of his chicanery. The lead couple, including "Abby," who was commended elsewhere, were a weak pair.

And the whole nonsense regarding the financial transactions, the compromising of the father's credit card via internet poker, the ease with which Abby's reputation as a physician was besmirched, was all presented on the level of the silliest of soap opera fare.

The back-and-forth emotional exchanges among the family members, in every possible one-on-one combination, or en masse, were also on the level of those seen in the weakest "soap" episodes.

The snail's pace with which the police finally got some hard information was unbelievable - even given the ineptitude of the cops on most Lifetime fare.

By the time things got to the inevitable 10 minutes or so of climax and revelation, I don't see how anyone could possibly care.

(If you wished to insert something illustrating an example of the word "schlep" in a time capsule for future generations, a DVD of this flick would suffice. These folks - without exception - schlepped around throughout this story, from beginning to end.)

The only thing raising this presentation from 1* to 2 is that the quality of production was better than most.

Nothing in this movie seems to surprise you, they did everything they can to delete all the tension out of this movie. It looks like some soap-crew filmed this movie! Awful!!!!! The story isn't original at all. It must been done a million times in a lot of B movies! Now i Understand why this movie didn't made it to the cinema. I really couldn't believe it. I thought a average score of 6,6 isn't to bad, but i was wrong. Nothing in this movie seems to surprise you, they did everything they can to delete all the tension out of this movie. It looks like some soap-crew filmed this movie! Awful!!!!! The story isn't original at all. It must been done a million times in a lot of B movies! Now i Understand why this movie didn't made it to the cinema. I really couldn't believe it. I thought a average score of 6,6 isn't to bad, but i was wrong.

"Engaged to Kill" from 2006 is a Lifetime movie made in Canada, starring Joe Lando, Dominic Zamprogna, Maria Del Mar, and Katherine Isabelle.

Based on a true story, the pediatrician wife, Abby (Del Mar) of a businessman Robert Lord (Lando) is kidnapped, and the ransom demand is a million dollars. Somehow overnight, Lord manages to get the money. He won't call in the police.

Meanwhile, Abby Lord is assured by Sally (Daniella Evangelista), the girlfriend of her captor that all they want is the money; her boyfriend is taking her to Hawaii for their wedding. Abby realizes that she's going to be killed, even if Sally believes every word this guy tells her. When she sees a chance to escape, she takes it, but Sally is killed.

The captor blames Abby for his girlfriend's death and moves in on the family, hurting their finances still more while he's seducing Abby's and Robert's daughter.

All pretty obvious. I watched this because General Hospital's Dominic Zamprogna was in it, a few years before he joined the show. He does well as a real sleaze.

I found this okay. I make fun of Lifetime movies, but they're a way to escape and relax. They're not hokey like Hallmark films, and though derivative and predictable, somehow you keep watching.

I watched Engaged to Kill while I was traveling, and happened upon it while channel surfing in my hotel room. I quickly became engrossed in the plot, and enjoyed the suspense, and this movie was SUSPENSEFUL, beginning to end.

The fact that it was based on a true story prompted me to do a bit of Googling about the real-life story.

The cast was recognizable, which was what initially caught my eye. The storyline was well planned, and the end was very satisfying. It's on again on June 11, and since I watched on a crummy hotel T.V. I plan to watch it again.

Engaged to Kill was better than most T.V. movies. I enjoyed it.

The reviews for this film are interesting, jump around a bit, and, I think are accurate. After all, each viewer is going to have a different experience. Some say there isn't tension, others say it's full of suspense. Twists or predictible, pick a side. Whether this plot has been done in many B movies as one reviewer wrote, I can't say. What I can say is that, in writing, a popular teaching is that there are only seven stories. The job of the writer is find a new way to make those same stories fresh and interesting, over and over and over. So, for me, I agree with the others who found the film worth a bit of time to watch. It isn't a standout, but it is produced well, has solid acting, and it held my attention. Even though I noticed the acting, which normally isn't a good thing, I think it was in this instance, thanks to Maria del Mar, Dominic Zamprogna, Katharine Isabelle, Bryce Hodgson, and Daniella Evangelista. Each brought the right level of believablility to his/her character that it kept me engaged, especially in the scenes with high stress and conflict. Had they not, I believe the film would have been flat, with acceptable acting for the all roles, but nothing to add character and interest to those roles. It may be a quirk of mine; I want some individuality and uniqueness in every character I see on screen, no matter how small the role, or the quirk. Unfortunately, for me, Joe Lando didn't make me believe he was feeling what the script said he should. That is not to say he was bad; he was not. I have not seen him in other roles to see a range of his work. I speak only to this one performance. In this film, he did not move me to feel for him. On the production side, there were some high points for me. I liked the use of light and shadow choices. I liked that some of the "suspense" moments were slow, deliberate, and clearly in focus, and some were quick, shadowy glimpses. I liked the flipping back and forth between light and dark cuts. I noticed the use of slices of light which I liked. I thought the chase scene and escape were shot very well. I liked the film's pace, that there wasn't any unnecessary footage, that it kept moving forward. I liked that the underscoring was so spot on and appropriate that I didn't even notice it. That's saying a lot for me. There were choices on how the attacks occur that were, to me, bold and surprising. I didn't mind that the story was a well-used one, or that I figured out right off what was happening and who the baddie is. I got involved with the people, the sudden upset in their lives, and the mechanisms through which they have to go to resolve the threats. If nothing else, this film is a good example of how plot and theme are two different things. There were enough twists and interesting choices for me to enjoy and follow the plot, and enough good acting for me to become engaged and invested in these people and their troubles.