This TV movie is a less compelling Matlock/Perry Mason-type crime drama. The score is so tedious and ever-present, that five minutes into the show, I considered turning on the Closed Captions and muting the sound. This is the worst kind of score. It does nothing to enhance the movie and it isn't used to create suspense or tension. It is just there... all of the time.
John Laroquette inhabits the character with such a laid back lack of energy, it is hard to believe McBride isn't on Valium.
The story moseys along ever-so-slowly and there are no unexpected turns.
Anyone that has ever seen this kind of movie will immediately know that the suspect with the most iron-clad alibi is probably the killer.
Plots points are introduced for a reason.
Why would the victim's widow be confined to a wheelchair unless it was important to plot? Why did the killer walk back down the hall past a security camera when they could have exited undetected by another door? If a person loses 50 to 100 hairs a day, why was only a single hair from the defendant found inside the wig used by the killer?
Red herrings come and go to throw suspicion on other characters, but none of them are compelling enough to shake the thought that the wheelchair-bound widow of the victim really can walk.
It is obvious that this is intended to be a court drama instead of a police drama. Evidence dug up by the lawyers, that any junior CSI would use to throw doubt on the guilt of the defendant, is either not mentioned to or is dismissed by the police during the investigation, because the charges would be dropped, their client would be let go, and there would be no need for a trial.
Can the widow walk? Can McBride prove to the jurors that the widow can walk?
Unfortunately, the crucial "Aha!" moment is very anti-climactic. Rather than happening in court, it occurs the day before and is shown on video.
John Laroquette inhabits the character with such a laid back lack of energy, it is hard to believe McBride isn't on Valium.
The story moseys along ever-so-slowly and there are no unexpected turns.
Anyone that has ever seen this kind of movie will immediately know that the suspect with the most iron-clad alibi is probably the killer.
Plots points are introduced for a reason.
Why would the victim's widow be confined to a wheelchair unless it was important to plot? Why did the killer walk back down the hall past a security camera when they could have exited undetected by another door? If a person loses 50 to 100 hairs a day, why was only a single hair from the defendant found inside the wig used by the killer?
Red herrings come and go to throw suspicion on other characters, but none of them are compelling enough to shake the thought that the wheelchair-bound widow of the victim really can walk.
It is obvious that this is intended to be a court drama instead of a police drama. Evidence dug up by the lawyers, that any junior CSI would use to throw doubt on the guilt of the defendant, is either not mentioned to or is dismissed by the police during the investigation, because the charges would be dropped, their client would be let go, and there would be no need for a trial.
Can the widow walk? Can McBride prove to the jurors that the widow can walk?
Unfortunately, the crucial "Aha!" moment is very anti-climactic. Rather than happening in court, it occurs the day before and is shown on video.