Deceit

All I can say is, this movie is made for the Lifetime Channel on TV, which means no solid characters, no particular style, weak acting all kinds of suggested sex but no-breasts and tushs (because boy, that would just catapult the film into the depths of sleaze wouldn't it?) but the heavily simulated sex, well, that's OK.

When watching these films I have to ask myself, when will these types of TV channels and their advertisers ever grow up? I think these companies are actually way behind the times. They really have no clue what the younger generation is in tune with and if they knew they would demand we change. The whole point of many American TV channels like these seems mostly to regurgitate the same sanitized, diluded garbage over and over like a generic movie assembly line. I guess it works for them... or at least it has. Not sure about the future though.

Don't bore yourself to death like I did. Seek out some real TV movies on HBO, Showtime, IFC, Starz, etc. Any channel that puts effort into their work and doesn't have to ask a priest what they can or cannot show.

Wow, this movie changed my life!! Amazing acting, filmmaking and effects-this this top shelf thriller will keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time. Watch it and thank me later . I don't want to give too much away, but the plot is nothing like I've ever seen before -completely unpredictable and full of shocking & surprising, twists, and turns. Director has unbelievable imagination skills . I'm surprised it didn't win an Oscar!!!?? Joe Pantoliano at his very best, a masterpiece. The movie will mezmerize you and linger with you for a long time after you watch it so be warned..... Enjoy!!! Thank you Matthew Weiss- a one in a lifetime Director.

I was watching the beginning of this on a Friday, mid-day, while working at computer at home, relaxing a bit after a hectic week, and cleaning-up some files and answering some communications. Got interrupted a couple of times, so had trouble getting all the details straight (although it's hardly a work of Hitchcock proportions, where missing a detail can through the whole story off-kilter), and besides it was not exactly an "engrossing" piece of work.

So during a commercial, read the only prior comment here (by "mgconlan-1"), and pretty much can agree with its details.

Not quite in the category of a film so awful it is fascinatingly "good," but I'd like to catch on tape when run again (rather than seeing it as aired), so I can fast forward as needed and see the parts which I missed this first time.

Give it a "3*" because of the attractiveness of the four primary characters.

almost boring, white page for a lot of Hitchcock influences but without the science to use it, interesting actors and poor characters, a labyrinth with not solid walls, it desires present a smart story but , if, few parts can be nice, the whole construction s far t be attractive.one of many dusty movies, without real value but useful to remember old ideas of other directors. and occasion for actors to improve a story , fascinating as idea but not on TV screen. that is all. a film like many others, about nothing and for nobody. the sparkles, love story, pyramid of details are only pebbles in desert. because it is not credible and the script possibilities are almost imaginary. for the desire to be original using, in not inspired manner, old fragments in a chaotic puzzle.