IMDb member Caa821 felt the comments were more entertaining than the movie. I think Caa821's comments were more entertaining than the movie."Criminal Intent" follows the Lifetime TV template to a 'T': familiar stars (Vanessa Angel and Linda Purl), with the rest of the cast being not only unfamiliar but fairly poor actors; filmed in Canada; derivative; moves slowly; predictable.Angel plays a defense attorney turned divorce attorney whose good friend is murdered, with the woman's ex-husband being accused. He wants her to go back to her defense roots and represent him, even though she handled their divorce. She agrees and comes up against a tough DA (Purl).There is a twist in the story, but I don't know who's comparing this to Alfred Hitchcock. The acting is lethargic, and Angel's collagen lips are distracting.As I mentioned in a previous post, these mindless Lifetime movies are great for a Sunday afternoon or when you're trying to sleep, and they give work to formerly prolific actors like Purl. I have to commend Lifetime for hiring 40+ actresses who find themselves "aged out" of Hollywood.

I don't know how people can say someone's acting is bad. They do have a director with a vision. A TV movie is filmed much quicker than one that goes out to the theaters. All of these actors are good seasoned television actors. I am offended at all the comments about age. If the women were much younger than the males no one would comment, but the fact they are older they make demeaning comments about that. They wanted strong leads for the females it is obvious. I felt they all put in great performances given it was only a TV movie and the twists were clever. I was never bored watching this movie. I love Vanessa Angel and I know nothing about her getting cosmetic shots in her lips or a wig or anything else and I doubt anyone else here does either. I think comments should be based on the film and not personal attacks upon the actors. I personally love Sebastian Spence and I liked all the other actors and felt Vanessa Angel did a fine job. It wasn't like a Hitchcock movie in that the script was rather mundane. It had it's twists and turns but it was no major motion picture. It was Lifetime like most of their movies; some better than others. If you don't like murder mysteries you won't like it but if you like suspense this movie was fine. Not the best I have ever seen but entertaining.

Checked the previous seven comments here as this flick was beginning. Frankly, reading them was as interesting as watching the film. Where there are a great number of comments, you expect them to be diverse, and even with a few, usually somebody loves the move, someone else hates it, etc.However, among the few here, comments ranged from those who seemed to feel the story, plot and performances were reminiscent of Hitchcock's best, to those who seemed to place it at the bottom end of the frequently mediocre "Lifetime" fare. Descriptions of the plot seemed to vary from feeling it was completely clever and suspenseful to totally banal.One individual cited that this presentation was filmed in 12 days. I didn't see anything to confirm this, but he seemed certain, and the level of the performances (including that of the usually excellent Linda Purl), seemed to confirm this. With D. A. Purl turning 50 at time of filming, and defense lawyer Vanessa Angel near 40, both were years senior to the male leads, David Palffy at 35, and Sebastian Spence about a year older. At her age, Angel looks as though she may surpass Joan Rivers in terms of Botox applications long before she reaches the latter's advanced age.I've come to believe that a major reason for producing these "Lifetime" presentations is to assist in supporting Canada's economy, since most of them seem to be shot there, usually in either Vancouver (as this flick was) or Toronto. I suppose which site is utilized depends on background needed for the particular story, but primarily whether cast and crew are more West Coast or East.Actually, after viewing the film myself, I feel that just about all the previous ones commenting had it partially correct. I would give it what amounts to an average of these, as well as the overall "ratings" figure shown on this site..The acting was uninspired, with neither the characters nor the performances particularly engaging. There was something of a "twist," and while somewhat interesting, it seemed to be one which could well be seen coming, and the only possible basis for a "twist," given the dull storyline and equally dull interaction among the lead characters. The ending did involve some knife-wielding, inevitable in most "Lifetime" offerings, but tamer than usual.And when the mid-30-ish treasury guy (Palffy) and the 50-ish D.A. (Purl) made a date to have dinner together, I couldn't help but wonder whether they might discuss a possible romantic future, or perhaps, more likely, her adopting him.

As the plot for a film goes, it was good and gripping. However, as others have commented, with the exception of a few, the acting was not exactly master-class. In particular, Vanessa Angel - is she really a professional actress ? or did she do it for a dare, and as for the wig she was wearing ............. Linda Purl certainly held the film together, and did her best with a script that could have been a bit more "meatier". I felt the camera angles were "interesting" at times, and thought the cameraman was attempting to speed things up a bit with his whizzing around the room moments. Overall, the plot made for good watching, but could have been made even better with a superior cast list.