Cannon witnesses the attempted holdup of a bar and shoots the thief before he escapes. The man was with a woman who accidentally shoots her in the gunfight. The woman later claims she ...
See full summary »
Cannon witnesses the attempted holdup of a bar and shoots the thief before he escapes. The man was with a woman who accidentally shoots her in the gunfight. The woman later claims she didn't know the man and that it was Cannon who shot her. Written by
A neat idea but there are some serious forensic flaws in this one.
The show begins with Cannon doing a stakeout at a local bar. It seems some scum-bags have been robbing the place and Cannon is waiting in case it occurs. During this time, a loving young couple is sitting and gazing at each other. Unexpectedly, the guy (Mike Farrell--in a VERY unusual sort of role for him) attempts to rob the place and is confronted by Cannon. The scum-bag pulls a gun and Cannon shoots him in the arm. At this point, the guy's lady friend grabs Cannon and the scum-bag shoots her! She isn't killed, but clearly she is an accomplice.
Cannon is concerned because the lady refuses to tell the police anything about the robber--and even goes so far as to claim Cannon shot her!* So, out of a misguided sense of loyalty, he approaches the lady's father--after all, he's a retired cop and so is Cannon. However, instead of trying to get his daughter to talk, the cop (Patrick O'Neal) instead intimidates witnesses and even shoots at one of them!! Nice guy, huh?! When this doesn't work, Cannon tries being nice to the lady in order to get her to talk. But after this, Daddy brings out the BIG guns...literally. Can Frank Cannon possibly get himself out of this mess or is he looking to assume room temperature? The idea behind "Stakeout" is great and I loved parts of it, the film had problems due to major plot holes. The sum total is worth watching--in fact it's very good. But with only a few minor changes, it COULD have been great.
*While I am certainly no expert at forensics, I am pretty sure that even in 1972 the lady's story she gave the police would have been disproved almost instantly. First, if Cannon HAD shot her, he was only inches away and there would have been tons of powder residue--something you wouldn't find from the boyfriend's gun because he was 10-20 feet away from her at the time. Second, I am sure the entry/exit wounds would have been MUCH different depending on how close she was to the shooter. Both should have been very, very easy to prove--and I am sure the audience would have also realized this. And, because of this, the whole story line about intimidated witnesses was really irrelevant.
4 of 4 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this