I began watching this movie expecting it to go one way and soon realized that my first impression was wrong. The acting is good. And the fact that it is based on a true story or "actual events" I find very interesting. When ever movies say that I always find myself wondering which part of the story they left out or added to to make the movie more dramatic. One thing I didn't much care for is the fact that her lawyer (played by Richard Crenna) touts himself as one who does not defend someone if he is not sure of their innocence. Yet, he agrees to represent this woman even though he questions her quilt and innocence through the whole movie. Did she do it? Or did she not? I know what I believe and for that reason I didn't much care for the ending. But you'll have to make up your own mind.

SPOILERS.Of course Rachel Ward gets off, otherwise Bugliosi would never have written the book, which I don't think I've read. But I believe Vince may have blown it this time around.Hart Bochner is easy to categorize as what used to be called a psychopath but now has a longer, fancier name in psychiatry. He has all the criterial attributes. He's got a sense of humor, he's attractive to women, lives in the unfolding moment, has multiple identities, is easily bored, shows little in the way or foresight or an ability to plan for the future, is impulsive, "lives off the land" in more ways than one, carries guns, and manipulates people readily. He's a done deal.Rachel Ward, as Jennifer, Bochner's girl friend, isn't really much different from the kind of unthinking partner that these kinds of guys pick up along the way. They're kind of attracted to rogue males. Ward has lived with two convicted murderers and she lies all the time. She doesn't tell Vince about her first boyfriend/murderer because, "If I had told you, would you have taken my case?" No comment from Vince, who lets slide the fact that she hasn't told him, even AFTER he's taken the case. No comment from the director or writer either. The remark is taken as, well, maybe not entirely OKAY -- but understandable, you know? I mean, why not lie to your attorney if it will get him involved with you? It's even more understandable when that real-life attorney, the author of the book, is looking over the screenwriter's shoulder as he's reconstructing the dialogue. Ward shows the same kind of carelessness with facts and social dynamics that a good partner for a psychopath would. She lies to the FBI about the fate of the rather crummy sailboat that she and Bochner were in. She not only fibs, she comes on to one of her lawyers in the courtroom where everyone can see it. Little things like stealing someone's yacht and trying to disguise it don't bother her at all.Would murder bother her? Nobody knows because we have only her word for what she was up to at the time they took place. And there are a lot of ways in which she does things that hint at innocence. Why would she help Bochner dump the bodies in the lagoon where they can be found, when they could have buried them in the middle of the Pacific? Why should she interrupt her arrestor with protestations of innocence when he was Mirandizing her? Bugliosi brings these and other incidents up in his summation, claiming that either she was terribly stupid or that these incidents indicated "consciousness of innocence." My "gut feeling" is that he blew it. It WAS really terrible stupidity not "consciousness of innocence". Bochner and Ward act like two people born with no frontal lobes. Everything they DO is stupid in the sense that it's not well planned. What do they care if somebody digs up a couple of dead bodies in the lagoon a year or two from now? They plan on selling the yacht and adopting new identities. They will have melted into the crowd. And anyway, who cares? A year or two is a long time.Palmyra, along with Wake and Johnston Islands, were pretty much uninhabited until before World War II when they became outposts against Japanese expansion. Of the three, Palmyra was often said to be the most beautiful, the kind of tropical paradise people dream about. Of course there were some inconveniences. The many rats for instance. They were brought to the island by humans. So were deceit, the destruction of part of an ecosystem, garbage, dope, and murder.

****Possibly considered a spoiler****This fact based story made for TV movie contains romance, intrigue, misconception, fear, mystery and murder. And taken from the pages of a novel by famed attorney Vincent Bugliosi. A psychotic low life(Hart Bochner)on the run from the law convinces a younger lover(Rachel Ward)to sail away to paradise and away from the world. On a remote island in the South Pacific where they are running low of provisions their relationship is becoming odd at best. A yacht arrives with an older couple(Diedre Hall and James Brolin)who intend to spend a year on the island. It is the meeting of the "hippies" and the "yuppies". The older couple being really annoyed by the young couple one day is nowhere to be found. Until a crate washes ashore with dismembered remains inside. Bochner is convicted of murder and the last half of the movie Richard Crenna as Vincent Bugliosi is defending Ward in court.Bochner plays this part so well it is easy to dislike him. Ward's acting is so-so, but it doesn't matter that much with her many scenes of alluring attire or lack of. Crenna is flawless. The talent of the lovely Hall is practically wasted. Even as the final credits roll you still have questions to be answered. Best watched on a lazy day, because this movie seems to be in no hurry.

There are a lot of good things about this movie. Fact-based stories always seem to have a better chance than pure fiction because we see people as they really act, and too often in movies people behave in ways that nobody would ever do in real life.In particular, the scenes on the Island between the two couples was extremely well done, IMHO. There is real tension there and we feel it. On one level we wonder why Mac just doesn't leave the island and get away, but on another level we are told that he will never back down -- and there's also his attraction to Jennifer.There are also some significant flaws. The sequencing of the story is badly handled. There are flashbacks that interfere with the story for no good reason. They are not all in the same order. Many of them seem to have nothing to do with the story and seem to be there just to fill out the extra long time slot.Speaking of which, the movie is either too long or edited badly. Lucky I watched it on my ReplayTV and skipped over the boring parts. I would have liked to see much more on the island -- and without all the damned interruptions as we went back and forth between "present" day and the flashback. I think there was enough material to make use of the 3 hours, but the director apparently didn't and so added useless filler.Finally there were just too many loose ends. Why did the killings take place? Was Buck jealous of Mac's attentions toward Jennifer? Was there really something going on between Mac and Jennifer? It looked like there was definitely something there but again we were shown too little of the island sequence to figure it all out. What about the other visitors to the island? How can we be sure it wasn't someone entirely different?Four people were on the island. One washed up on shore dead and dismembered. Two returned to civilization. Where is the fourth? Maybe he did it. Or maybe he arranged it with Buck and or Jennifer and intentionally disappeared. Why didn't anyone think of that?