Viewers are unfair in their criticisms of a film which, in my opinion, should have been shown in theaters. For example, watch how agent Nicholas is introduced. The writing there is superb. The man is really anal retentive; a robot, as Sarah points out. Later he melds into an attractive human being, and finally turns again and becomes a despicable eel. Equally convincing at all times: a great performance by Mr. Bakula.
Think of the main twist, twenty minutes before the end: it is shocking; those claiming they saw it coming are lying. Even in the final scene, the outcome of the dialogue with the ex husband is not obvious, because Sarah's situation had been taken to such an extreme of despair that a sad ending seemed to be the only reasonable conclusion.
All dialogues are very well written. And they are convincing: that is why the final twist is unpredictable. Experienced Dan Gordon, someone who knows how to write, was behind this.
In addition to Mr. Bakula, acting is impeccable by every other character; nothing wrong to say there either.
If we are going to be stuffy and look for any flaw, perhaps we may say the attempts on Sarah's life were too elaborate; unnecessarily complicated and prone to failure, to the point of being hard to believe. But they add to the general impression the makers so aptly managed to convey: this is not, after all, Italian neorrealism; it is a suspense film, a genre where "larger than life" is almost customary.
If someone thinks this is not a swell film my advice is: now that you know the ending, watch it again and tell us where the falsity can be noticed. I bet that even with the advantage of hindsight a fair viewer should admit that the product is flawless.
Think of the main twist, twenty minutes before the end: it is shocking; those claiming they saw it coming are lying. Even in the final scene, the outcome of the dialogue with the ex husband is not obvious, because Sarah's situation had been taken to such an extreme of despair that a sad ending seemed to be the only reasonable conclusion.
All dialogues are very well written. And they are convincing: that is why the final twist is unpredictable. Experienced Dan Gordon, someone who knows how to write, was behind this.
In addition to Mr. Bakula, acting is impeccable by every other character; nothing wrong to say there either.
If we are going to be stuffy and look for any flaw, perhaps we may say the attempts on Sarah's life were too elaborate; unnecessarily complicated and prone to failure, to the point of being hard to believe. But they add to the general impression the makers so aptly managed to convey: this is not, after all, Italian neorrealism; it is a suspense film, a genre where "larger than life" is almost customary.
If someone thinks this is not a swell film my advice is: now that you know the ending, watch it again and tell us where the falsity can be noticed. I bet that even with the advantage of hindsight a fair viewer should admit that the product is flawless.