I really can't judge fairly from 1-10 as this movie is about my mother, my family, my wedding at the end. For the people who may be feeling compassion for the man who committed this crime, shame on you. When movies are made "based" on true stories, there is no possible way that all the information can be portrayed in 100 minutes. This was a long drawn out process for my mother as well as our entire family. Technically there were no murders committed but the intent of the perpetrator was to leave these people dead. The movie portrays our family loosely but the actual events of the crime are accurate. Some may sense that there was not enough evidence to convict this man of this crime where we know otherwise. The paper trails that were tied to this man were undeniable including a multitude of phone records connecting him to my mother for a length of time prior to the crime setting up appointments to gain entrance into the home. I truly believe in the real world if someone is behind you with a gun pointed at your head and they are speaking to you that you would never forget that voice. It is that voice that my mother heard on that actual day at the Randy Travis concert at a local fair. When wondering why she waited until the next day to contact authorities (and it was not over a casual lunch), this man was a mounted policeman. I guess people need to realize that there is a lot of corruption in law enforcement which would make my mother leery of contacting police at that very moment. This man did have real life financial difficulties and burned down his own home d/t these financial reasons. Nothing is ever black and white and movies are just that MOVIES. They are there to tell a story but also for our entertainment. Yes this is 2011 and I am just commenting now as I came across this website by accident. Our family has since moved on but this tragedy is something that will stay with us forever. As far as the wedding scene at the end seeming like a fairy tale ending, it just happened that the man was convicted on the day of my rehearsal for my wedding. My mom never used this experience to become "famous", this opportunity was brought to her. Because of this experience, Realtors now use different techniques for safety which in the current world we live in is a good thing. As a side note, previous to this incident, my twin sister was abducted by two men after being lured to a cabin they said they had wanted to list. The man responsible for her kidnapping was also responsible for a murder in Colorado and my sister had to go there and testify. There are heinous crimes all around us and no one should judge the outcome or prison sentence until you have lived through it.
9 Reviews
This is my families story... real information but may spoil it:(
babetco228 April 2011
Warning: Spoilers
True to Life
sol-kay2 October 2006
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILERS** Even though based on a true story "With Murder in Mind" seems a bit strained in convincing it's audience that Samuel Carver aka Mr. Fermin was the one responsible for the shooting at the Slone house that left the owner Ted Slone and real-estate agent Gayle Wolfer clinging to their lives.
We saw the crime happen on the screen and who the perpetrator was so there was no doubt that Samuel Carver did it but the way it was presented in the court-room at Carvar's trial it left so many doubts that it made the jury verdict of Carver being found guilty, where he got 29 to 75 years behind bars, a bit extreme at the least for a crime where nobody was murdered.
Gayle's testimony is undoubtedly the clincher in Carver's conviction and there was no reason for her to lie, like we knew by watching the movie. But for the jury to believe her would mean that Carver was totally out of character, and out of the vicinity, when he committed the crime and not at all have it consider those facts in their verdict. Were also given testimony by one of Carver's employees' at his security firm Sara Bendix that he was with her bowling the night that the crime took place and even the cross-examination of Miss. Bendix by the state prosecutor couldn't shake her testimony by trying to trip her up on what color tie Carver wore at the time. Which should have given the jury some doubt in Carver's guilt but they still found him guilty on all counts.
The star witness in the trial, after Mrs. Wolfer, turned out to be a sleazy illegal car chop owner Bennie Lazzara who admitted he was dealing with Ted Slone and that Ted owed him $90,000.00 in what seemed to be Lazzara steering his drug buying clients to him. Even though it was proved that both Ted and his girlfriend Susan were involved with the trafficking in illegal drugs Lazzara claimed he had nothing to do with it, so why did he have business with them. Lazzara was then given immunity from being prosecuted by the state for turning evidence against Carver which dropped the drug charges against him. Yet at the same time Lazzara was believed to have hired Carver to collect the money from Ted Slone but not to shoot like he did which Lazzara wasn't given immunity for.
Carver were told was in serious debt in his security business and jumped at the chance, that Lazzara gave him, to grab the $90,000.00 that Ted Slone owed him and keep half for himself. Yet again why should the jury believe a sleaze like Lazarra over and upright citizen like Carver with Lazarra having a motive, immunity from prosecution, for testifying as he did.
The way the trail was presented in the movie made Carver's conviction looked both unreal and unjust but the fact that we did see him commit the crime, which the jury didn't, showed that justice prevailed. Your left with the uneasy feeling that the very fact that the movie "With Murder in Mind" left no doubt at all in the mind of it's audience about who the criminal was, Samual Carver,is because the evidence that it was to present to show that he committed the crime was so full of holes. In fact the evidence would not at all have convinced those of us watching the movie like it did convince the jury who didn't!
We saw the crime happen on the screen and who the perpetrator was so there was no doubt that Samuel Carver did it but the way it was presented in the court-room at Carvar's trial it left so many doubts that it made the jury verdict of Carver being found guilty, where he got 29 to 75 years behind bars, a bit extreme at the least for a crime where nobody was murdered.
Gayle's testimony is undoubtedly the clincher in Carver's conviction and there was no reason for her to lie, like we knew by watching the movie. But for the jury to believe her would mean that Carver was totally out of character, and out of the vicinity, when he committed the crime and not at all have it consider those facts in their verdict. Were also given testimony by one of Carver's employees' at his security firm Sara Bendix that he was with her bowling the night that the crime took place and even the cross-examination of Miss. Bendix by the state prosecutor couldn't shake her testimony by trying to trip her up on what color tie Carver wore at the time. Which should have given the jury some doubt in Carver's guilt but they still found him guilty on all counts.
The star witness in the trial, after Mrs. Wolfer, turned out to be a sleazy illegal car chop owner Bennie Lazzara who admitted he was dealing with Ted Slone and that Ted owed him $90,000.00 in what seemed to be Lazzara steering his drug buying clients to him. Even though it was proved that both Ted and his girlfriend Susan were involved with the trafficking in illegal drugs Lazzara claimed he had nothing to do with it, so why did he have business with them. Lazzara was then given immunity from being prosecuted by the state for turning evidence against Carver which dropped the drug charges against him. Yet at the same time Lazzara was believed to have hired Carver to collect the money from Ted Slone but not to shoot like he did which Lazzara wasn't given immunity for.
Carver were told was in serious debt in his security business and jumped at the chance, that Lazzara gave him, to grab the $90,000.00 that Ted Slone owed him and keep half for himself. Yet again why should the jury believe a sleaze like Lazarra over and upright citizen like Carver with Lazarra having a motive, immunity from prosecution, for testifying as he did.
The way the trail was presented in the movie made Carver's conviction looked both unreal and unjust but the fact that we did see him commit the crime, which the jury didn't, showed that justice prevailed. Your left with the uneasy feeling that the very fact that the movie "With Murder in Mind" left no doubt at all in the mind of it's audience about who the criminal was, Samual Carver,is because the evidence that it was to present to show that he committed the crime was so full of holes. In fact the evidence would not at all have convinced those of us watching the movie like it did convince the jury who didn't!
Verdict: Well, ummm....
rmax30482329 July 2005
Elizabeth Montgomery as a real estate agent is robbed and shot while showing a house. She later spots the guy, Howard Rollins, at a fairground, where he's a volunteer mounted police officer. She reports him to the police, he's arrested and convicted, and is now serving a long sentence in Attica.
It's hard to know how to assess this movie. Not because of the execution, which is routine, and not because of the acting. The principals -- Montgomery, Rollins, and Foxworth are fine. In fact Montgomery looks rather better than "fine" despite her age and impending terminal illness.
It's that the movie seems to be self contradictory. It wants to assure us that justice has been carried out but what we are shown leaves us with too many doubts.
It is all shown from the victim's point of view, which is okay in itself, except that we must realize that the living victim (this is based on a real incident) is liable to have a bit more weight when it comes to shaping the material than is the convicted black criminal who is now somebody's bitch upstate. We don't get to hear very much from Rollins.
Could Montgomery have been mistaken when she just happened to spot Rollins astride his horse at the fair? Well, she is absolutely certain. But another woman who was a witness says that Rollins resembles the perpetrator, but "on a scale of 10, he's a 7 or 8." (How do you measure something like "reasonable doubt"? What's the scale, and where's the threshold?) And why did Montgomery, having stumbled across the perp by accident and having immediately identified him to her own satisfaction, wait around until the next day to inform the police over a casual lunch about the event?
The trial itself doesn't seem to resolve any of these issues. Montgomery identifies Rollins' voice through a closed door but that's a notoriously poor means of identification. Out of three speakers in the line up, she had one chance in three of guessing Rollins even if he'd been innocent. Rollins may or may not have had some connection with drugs. But he's well spoken and is a prosperous upright citizen. He runs a security business that protects dozens of shopping centers, he goes to church regularly, has a family (which we don't get to see), is a part-time volunteer policeman with a good military record, has never had any run-ins with the law, and spends time working for United Way or something. No physical evidence links Rollins to the crime. Why should a paragon of citizenship like this rob someone of a couple of thousand dollars and shoot people unnecessarily?
On the other hand, why should someone in Elizabeth Montgomery's position lie? An interesting question, to which there are several reasonable replies. One is that she may not have been lying. After all a considerable time had passed since the crime. Maybe she was just mistaken.
Another answer, far more conjectural, is that she was acting out a fantasy of victimhood. There seem to be two favorite human fantasies -- the conquering hero and the suffering victim. The former is mostly a male fantasy and the second a feminine one. I don't mean to sound in any way anti-feminist about this. A moment's thought will do to support the idea. Who watches The Action Movie Channel more -- men or women? And for which gender is Lifetime Movies for Women designed? I just watched "With Murder in Mind" on the Lifetime Movies channel. During one of the commercial breaks, an ad asked the audience, "Who would you like to play YOU in a movie about YOUR life????" (The informant's choice was Angelina Jolie. She'd be my choice too but it would be a different kind of movie.)
In a way, this is a movie about the life of Elizabeth Montgomery's character's life and she plays the role of victim to the hilt. After her partial recovery from her wounds she becomes a demanding nervous wreck. She gets to drink too much. She doesn't have to work. She calls 911 every time a car pulls into the driveway. She makes a general nuisance of herself and at the same time gets people to feel sorry for her, which is having your cake and eating it too. Then she gets to be the central figure in a dramatic trial. She winds up seeing someone sent away for a long time based on her testimony and her moral authority as an innocent victim (which she undoubtedly was).
And now there's even a MOVIE about her life -- and she is played by Elizabeth Montgomery! Now, all of that constitutes a lot of reward, which Freud dismissed too easily as unimportant "secondary gains." But Freud was a psychologist, not a sociologist, and he probably never saw a movie in his life. And he certainly never heard of Andy Warhol.
I don't mean to say that the Montgomery character was a fraud, that she dreamed the whole thing up in order to become famous. Lots of times we do things without knowing the real reasons why we're doing them. But I do mean that although she was certain Rollins was the man, I wasn't convinced. And I suspect the writers and producers must have felt ambivalent about the justice of the conviction too, because they seem to hint that the whole case may have been a terrible mistake.
Sometimes it's good to be the suffering victim. I think I might enjoy having a painless and not-disfiguring temporary illness so that a doctor could examine me and tell me, "Spend the next three years in bed. And be sure to drink plenty of fluids."
It's hard to know how to assess this movie. Not because of the execution, which is routine, and not because of the acting. The principals -- Montgomery, Rollins, and Foxworth are fine. In fact Montgomery looks rather better than "fine" despite her age and impending terminal illness.
It's that the movie seems to be self contradictory. It wants to assure us that justice has been carried out but what we are shown leaves us with too many doubts.
It is all shown from the victim's point of view, which is okay in itself, except that we must realize that the living victim (this is based on a real incident) is liable to have a bit more weight when it comes to shaping the material than is the convicted black criminal who is now somebody's bitch upstate. We don't get to hear very much from Rollins.
Could Montgomery have been mistaken when she just happened to spot Rollins astride his horse at the fair? Well, she is absolutely certain. But another woman who was a witness says that Rollins resembles the perpetrator, but "on a scale of 10, he's a 7 or 8." (How do you measure something like "reasonable doubt"? What's the scale, and where's the threshold?) And why did Montgomery, having stumbled across the perp by accident and having immediately identified him to her own satisfaction, wait around until the next day to inform the police over a casual lunch about the event?
The trial itself doesn't seem to resolve any of these issues. Montgomery identifies Rollins' voice through a closed door but that's a notoriously poor means of identification. Out of three speakers in the line up, she had one chance in three of guessing Rollins even if he'd been innocent. Rollins may or may not have had some connection with drugs. But he's well spoken and is a prosperous upright citizen. He runs a security business that protects dozens of shopping centers, he goes to church regularly, has a family (which we don't get to see), is a part-time volunteer policeman with a good military record, has never had any run-ins with the law, and spends time working for United Way or something. No physical evidence links Rollins to the crime. Why should a paragon of citizenship like this rob someone of a couple of thousand dollars and shoot people unnecessarily?
On the other hand, why should someone in Elizabeth Montgomery's position lie? An interesting question, to which there are several reasonable replies. One is that she may not have been lying. After all a considerable time had passed since the crime. Maybe she was just mistaken.
Another answer, far more conjectural, is that she was acting out a fantasy of victimhood. There seem to be two favorite human fantasies -- the conquering hero and the suffering victim. The former is mostly a male fantasy and the second a feminine one. I don't mean to sound in any way anti-feminist about this. A moment's thought will do to support the idea. Who watches The Action Movie Channel more -- men or women? And for which gender is Lifetime Movies for Women designed? I just watched "With Murder in Mind" on the Lifetime Movies channel. During one of the commercial breaks, an ad asked the audience, "Who would you like to play YOU in a movie about YOUR life????" (The informant's choice was Angelina Jolie. She'd be my choice too but it would be a different kind of movie.)
In a way, this is a movie about the life of Elizabeth Montgomery's character's life and she plays the role of victim to the hilt. After her partial recovery from her wounds she becomes a demanding nervous wreck. She gets to drink too much. She doesn't have to work. She calls 911 every time a car pulls into the driveway. She makes a general nuisance of herself and at the same time gets people to feel sorry for her, which is having your cake and eating it too. Then she gets to be the central figure in a dramatic trial. She winds up seeing someone sent away for a long time based on her testimony and her moral authority as an innocent victim (which she undoubtedly was).
And now there's even a MOVIE about her life -- and she is played by Elizabeth Montgomery! Now, all of that constitutes a lot of reward, which Freud dismissed too easily as unimportant "secondary gains." But Freud was a psychologist, not a sociologist, and he probably never saw a movie in his life. And he certainly never heard of Andy Warhol.
I don't mean to say that the Montgomery character was a fraud, that she dreamed the whole thing up in order to become famous. Lots of times we do things without knowing the real reasons why we're doing them. But I do mean that although she was certain Rollins was the man, I wasn't convinced. And I suspect the writers and producers must have felt ambivalent about the justice of the conviction too, because they seem to hint that the whole case may have been a terrible mistake.
Sometimes it's good to be the suffering victim. I think I might enjoy having a painless and not-disfiguring temporary illness so that a doctor could examine me and tell me, "Spend the next three years in bed. And be sure to drink plenty of fluids."
Wow, this movie was really good
jillcan7 April 1999
This movie, though it looked a little boring, actually turned out to be really good. It's about a woman named Gayle Wolfer who sells houses. One day, when she is showing a man a house, the man makes Gayle and the people who live in the house get down on the floor. He ties them up, you know the deal. Then he shoots Gayle about three times. Luckily, she survives, and is determined to find out who the person who wanted to kill her is and where he is at. One day, when she and Bob Sprague are at the county fair, she sees someone and recognizes him as the man who tried to kill her, but hardly anyone believes her. So she goes to a trial in court. This movie may seem like just one of those normal good guy/bad guy movies but it's actually really good, especially the acting.
A Special Experience
mkillentv29 September 2008
During my time working in Hollywood, this was the one made for television movie I worked on. I was the post-production supervisor. I had worked for Helios Productions with Brad Wigor and Joe Maurer several times on CBS Schoolbreak specials and they had asked me to take this job on, manning the office in Beverly Hills while they were on location in Atlanta where the film was shot.
The film was edited entirely on film, only going to tape later from the finished print. The old film editing style was quickly being replaced by tape and computers so this was a thrill to work one last time on film.
One of my memories from this film include being assigned to coordinate a meeting in New York between Howard Rollins and producer Brad Wigor. We really wanted Howard to take the part of the bad cop but he was not sure if he wanted to take it. I remember getting Howard on the phone on the day that he had learned of a close friends death. He was very upset. He talked and I listened for a good long while. I'll never forget his voice and the fear he had. In the end, the meeting was arranged and Howard took the part. He was an excellent actor and really turned in a fine performance in this film.
I also cherish meeting both Ronny Cox and Elizabeth Montgomery during the ADR sessions. Ronny had just made an album in Nashville of country music. As a fellow musician, we talked about music and my planned relocation to Nashville. Ms. Montgomery was a class act. She arrived early for her session and she and I had a nice chat in the studio while we waited for the session to begin. I was thrilled to meet her and will never forget her interest and kindness.
As a final footnote, this idea was brought to Helios by our production secretary Joannie Cuff. She had grown up in the Buffalo, NY area and knew of the story. Brad and Joe secured the rights and the movie was made. Joannie was given the well deserved title of Associate Producer for her efforts.
Michael Killen
The film was edited entirely on film, only going to tape later from the finished print. The old film editing style was quickly being replaced by tape and computers so this was a thrill to work one last time on film.
One of my memories from this film include being assigned to coordinate a meeting in New York between Howard Rollins and producer Brad Wigor. We really wanted Howard to take the part of the bad cop but he was not sure if he wanted to take it. I remember getting Howard on the phone on the day that he had learned of a close friends death. He was very upset. He talked and I listened for a good long while. I'll never forget his voice and the fear he had. In the end, the meeting was arranged and Howard took the part. He was an excellent actor and really turned in a fine performance in this film.
I also cherish meeting both Ronny Cox and Elizabeth Montgomery during the ADR sessions. Ronny had just made an album in Nashville of country music. As a fellow musician, we talked about music and my planned relocation to Nashville. Ms. Montgomery was a class act. She arrived early for her session and she and I had a nice chat in the studio while we waited for the session to begin. I was thrilled to meet her and will never forget her interest and kindness.
As a final footnote, this idea was brought to Helios by our production secretary Joannie Cuff. She had grown up in the Buffalo, NY area and knew of the story. Brad and Joe secured the rights and the movie was made. Joannie was given the well deserved title of Associate Producer for her efforts.
Michael Killen
This movie was about a Vietnam Buddy of mine in 1963-64,
ckuretdoc18 December 2015
I am actually trying to get a copy of this TV Movie as it was about my Vietnam bunk buddy Edward Beaufort-Cutner who is no serving 25-50 years in Livingston Correctional Facility in NY. Oddly, he committed the crime in 1988, when I was a prison warden in Nebraska. I have been trying to find him for 40 years and just did so yesterday. I am calling the prison today to see if I can contact him. I am a writer and may want to do the rest of the story into a feature film. What is also odd is he was denied parole for his initial hearing May 12, 2014, which is my birthday. We both got out of the military and finished criminal justice studies and ended up running private security and investigation companies.
I finally found a copy of this movie available on-line for a mere $8.49 and will be able to watch it next week to start researching "the rest of this story."
After carefully watching this movie with my wife this week (2-10-16), I believe there is "the rest of the story" to be told here. I have been corresponding with the convicted perpetrator to this crime, along with his family, for the purpose of reconnecting 50+ years from Vietnam, and looking for ways he can get a fair parole hearing. I realize there was considerable circumstantial evidence that was pieced together to convict him, but the act is totally out of character for him. Although all his parole success prediction factors are good-excellent (age, prior criminal history,attitudes, prison conduct record and program participation, education, family support employ-ability, soundness of parole plan, etc.), his main obstacle of the court record and movie rendition of the execution-style intentional murder attempts and the vicious image those shootings represent in the jury's and parole board's mind. They may think he needs to serve 36 of the 50 years which would put him at 82 years old. While Sirhan-Sirhan and Charlie Manson should never be released, it is probably time for Eddie Beaufort.
I finally found a copy of this movie available on-line for a mere $8.49 and will be able to watch it next week to start researching "the rest of this story."
After carefully watching this movie with my wife this week (2-10-16), I believe there is "the rest of the story" to be told here. I have been corresponding with the convicted perpetrator to this crime, along with his family, for the purpose of reconnecting 50+ years from Vietnam, and looking for ways he can get a fair parole hearing. I realize there was considerable circumstantial evidence that was pieced together to convict him, but the act is totally out of character for him. Although all his parole success prediction factors are good-excellent (age, prior criminal history,attitudes, prison conduct record and program participation, education, family support employ-ability, soundness of parole plan, etc.), his main obstacle of the court record and movie rendition of the execution-style intentional murder attempts and the vicious image those shootings represent in the jury's and parole board's mind. They may think he needs to serve 36 of the 50 years which would put him at 82 years old. While Sirhan-Sirhan and Charlie Manson should never be released, it is probably time for Eddie Beaufort.
Where to find DVD?
pamelasullivan-2855617 April 2020
The last scene really made me sick (so typical American)
SpuitElf17 August 1999
Before I give my comment on the TV-movie With Murder In Mind I would like to apologize if my English is not correct, for it is not my native language (I am Dutch).
I saw the movie on Friday the 30th of July on ARD (German television) at 12.30 A.M.. Although I expected that the movie would be nothing much, I watched it because I happen to like American TV-movies, especially when they are based on true facts, because the story is often easy to follow without really watching it all of the time. But this time I was really shocked, especially by the last act. As if it is not enough that she wins, the victim, a typical middle-class woman (the heroine), gets the good news (at least for her) on the television of the conviction of the alleged perpetrator (the villain) just at the same time (you won't believe it) as there is a family wedding going on at her house. What shocked me in this act was the complete lack of compassion towards the man who was eventually convicted. To me it felt like a justification, like some kind of statement of the director: 'that's what you're going to miss (very special important family occasions like a family wedding) for a long, long time and it serves you right, you dirty bastard!'
And what to think of the indifference of the announcement that the alleged perpetrator was sentenced to 29 up to 75 (!!!) years. With all due respect, but no suffering whatsoever of any victim justifies this kind of sentences. They are only for people who like to believe in simple black and white fairy-tales (and Americans love to do that!). They have absolutely nothing to do with reality. In Holland you can get 20 years of imprisonment at the most! And to me that is fair and realistic. I believe that everybody, and I mean everybody has a right to a certain minimum of compassion, because that is what human rights are all about. I can not help thinking that this is some kind of propaganda against any humane punishment and/or treatment of convicts. I know it is most likely that I am wrong, but if that is the case then I would like to hear that from director Michael Tuchner himself.
That last scene shocked me so much that I could not eat or sleep properly for several days. And even now as I am writing this I still get emotional about it. And I would not have been so upset if this movie had not been based on true facts. That is how I found this Website: I wanted to know the names of the characters involved, because I am very anxious to find out what happened to them after the movie and, if possible, to give Michael Tuchner a peace of my mind in person about this piece of crap.
All in all it turned out to be a very typical American TV-movie: Tuchner has succeeded in reducing a very complex reality into a simple black and white fairy-tale of the cheapest kind. To me that is totally irresponsible, especially in this delicate case (at least to me) where at the time that this movie was made the convict still claimed that he is innocent. And on top of that the story is told from the viewpoint of the winner. And especially in America the winner is always right. It is supposed to be a movie with a message, but I doubt if it was meant to be the message that I got: the only thing that matters is that you win, do not care about what happens to the loser. The winner takes all, be-cause (s)he is oh so righteous that only heaven is good enough and the loser gets nothing, because (s)he is always a devious crook who only deserves to live in hell.
I saw the movie on Friday the 30th of July on ARD (German television) at 12.30 A.M.. Although I expected that the movie would be nothing much, I watched it because I happen to like American TV-movies, especially when they are based on true facts, because the story is often easy to follow without really watching it all of the time. But this time I was really shocked, especially by the last act. As if it is not enough that she wins, the victim, a typical middle-class woman (the heroine), gets the good news (at least for her) on the television of the conviction of the alleged perpetrator (the villain) just at the same time (you won't believe it) as there is a family wedding going on at her house. What shocked me in this act was the complete lack of compassion towards the man who was eventually convicted. To me it felt like a justification, like some kind of statement of the director: 'that's what you're going to miss (very special important family occasions like a family wedding) for a long, long time and it serves you right, you dirty bastard!'
And what to think of the indifference of the announcement that the alleged perpetrator was sentenced to 29 up to 75 (!!!) years. With all due respect, but no suffering whatsoever of any victim justifies this kind of sentences. They are only for people who like to believe in simple black and white fairy-tales (and Americans love to do that!). They have absolutely nothing to do with reality. In Holland you can get 20 years of imprisonment at the most! And to me that is fair and realistic. I believe that everybody, and I mean everybody has a right to a certain minimum of compassion, because that is what human rights are all about. I can not help thinking that this is some kind of propaganda against any humane punishment and/or treatment of convicts. I know it is most likely that I am wrong, but if that is the case then I would like to hear that from director Michael Tuchner himself.
That last scene shocked me so much that I could not eat or sleep properly for several days. And even now as I am writing this I still get emotional about it. And I would not have been so upset if this movie had not been based on true facts. That is how I found this Website: I wanted to know the names of the characters involved, because I am very anxious to find out what happened to them after the movie and, if possible, to give Michael Tuchner a peace of my mind in person about this piece of crap.
All in all it turned out to be a very typical American TV-movie: Tuchner has succeeded in reducing a very complex reality into a simple black and white fairy-tale of the cheapest kind. To me that is totally irresponsible, especially in this delicate case (at least to me) where at the time that this movie was made the convict still claimed that he is innocent. And on top of that the story is told from the viewpoint of the winner. And especially in America the winner is always right. It is supposed to be a movie with a message, but I doubt if it was meant to be the message that I got: the only thing that matters is that you win, do not care about what happens to the loser. The winner takes all, be-cause (s)he is oh so righteous that only heaven is good enough and the loser gets nothing, because (s)he is always a devious crook who only deserves to live in hell.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
