A most common phylum within the Theatre of Paranoia cinema genre revolves about innocent men who are in the wrong place at the wrong time, causing diligent law enforcement agencies to pay close notice of them, thus radically changing the smooth tenor of their lives, with perhaps the most renowned example being THE WRONG MAN by Hitchcock; this film, produced for television, is one of the best of the lot, thanks to the contributions of a fine cast and above standard production characteristics. In an imaginary small southern California city of Santa Luisa, four young girls have been abducted and murdered over a period of several years, with no suspect having been identified until a chain of circumstantial events, in combination with a vague witness description, casts suspicion upon respectable family man and local business executive Frank Staplin (Mike Farrell) who had purchased Girl Scout cookies from the recent victim, he being the last person observed with the child while she was alive. Frank has come to the attention of the Santa Luisa Police Department due to his act as a good citizen of reporting to detectives that he had purchased the cookies, believing by his statement that the physical location of the victim when last seen could be utilized as valuable data, but the investigators soon find cause and opportunity to concentrate their efforts upon the unfortunate Samaritan. His personal life now dramatically altered by being a homicide suspect, Frank, along with his bewildered wife and child are most deeply distressed by rabid media attention to them, primarily from a local television station's news division that fosters the customary streamlined journalistic mode concerning the notorious serial murder case, although telecaster Amy McCleary (Teri Garr) feels contrition as she becomes more knowledgeable of the Staplin family's fresh misery, and she attempts to actively aid the falsely accused man as he sets about proving that he is free from guilt. The work is scripted well with naturalistic dialogue, but there are some obvious problems with continuity, such as when the latest victim, lured by the anonymous killer, is seen entering a vehicle that is a close match of that driven by Staplin, this scene and the automobile connection therewith dropped during ragged post-production editing, and the role of Amy is erratically handled, apparently because the character's significance is being shifted during filming. Nonetheless, even with these shortcomings, and an obtrusively cookie cutter score, the film generates interest in a viewer from the start, with the direction, cinematography and design all being top-flight notwithstanding a small budget, and there is an abundance of solid playing throughout, notably by the versatile Farrell and Garr, with Lane Smith and Barry Corbin impressive as zealous supervisory police personnel, the acting laurels earned here by Veronica Cartright as Staplin's wife, as she is affecting in each of her scenes despite a lack of retakes.
Add a Review
-
mm-3918 August 2020Not a bad T V movie. I remember watching Prime Suspect, because the guy from M A S H was in it. I remember bit of Prime Suspect, and I found Prime Suspect better than I thought. Prime Suspect has a mix of police investigations and the media creating a narrative. Well the working/professional dad is a suspect when buying cookies from a young gal. Even with no evidence the media runs a narrative, which ruins the protagonists life. We see the trials and tribulations of the prime suspect, at work, home and the neighborhood. Well casted, directed, and asks questions about media and police. 6 stars.
-
soren-7125910 September 2018MIKE FARRELL and TERI GARR are two fine actors who have a fine chemistry together and elevate this by the numbers wrong man child killer movie way above where it should be but there are serious plot and continuity problems that mar the film, as one reviewer has already noted, and the ending is nothing less than infuriating and actually mystifying. Here are some of the problems. Farrell buys girl scout cookies from a little girl who is soon abducted and murdered but...what happens to the cookies? Both boxes simply disappear from the story. A farmer who could give MIKE an alibi is suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia and yet is operating dangerous heavy machinery perfectly well. A scene clearly shows the murdered child getting into what appears to be Farrell's car and yet no explanation is given for this and the woman who remembers this fact suddenly never discloses what she just recalled to the cops. Virtually everyone around MIKE is hostile to him as the media attacks him as a serial child killer and yet once he makes up his mind to just return to work despite not knowing the final result of the search for the killer everyone seems to love him again. The scene where the real killer is found is inserted into the film AFTER the scene where MIKE returns happily to work amid supporting staff members... making no sense. I don't know what movie the other reviewers were watching but I prefer a movie of this very basic sort to make coherent sense. It is even more offensive that this was released in this slapdash manner because much of it is really well directed and builds up considerable frustration and tension as one watches. Mike Farrell and Teri Garr are two of the very finest actors of their era and in 2018 neither are remembered by that many young people for the fine entertainment they offered us back in the day. Teri Garr has suffered in recent years from a debilitating illness and it saddens me so much because her presence on a talk show such as David Letterman or in any sort of film was a guarantee of fun and quality. She brought a sincerity to every film role she ever played. To surround her with such unnecessary carelessness suggests that the film was undergoing script modifications as it was being shot and edited and that the creators and especially the producers didn't care enough about the result. My wife kept saying throughout the film "where are those girl scout cookies and what happened to them?" It's a fair question.
-
ksf-22 August 2023Some big names in this one... mike farrell, and who doesn't love teri garr?? Amy mccleary is a news reporter in santa luisa. When a girl scout disappears, the last known person to see her is businessman frank staplin, who bought cookies from her. So now his family's home life gets turned upside down and the cops don't seem to be looking for anyone else. The press is now focused on him as well. Keep an eye out for barry corbin; he turns up in quirky films now and then. Here, he's officer austin. Also notice smarmy officer mendoza, played by ron joseph... who happened to appear in two episodes of northern exposure! Which starred... barry corbin. Such a tiny world. Nan martin was mrs. Louder on drew carey. This story feels a bit sensationalist, but i'm sure all this horror could and has happened to many people over the years, when the cops or the press focus on one person, and stop searching. Some similarities to "the wrong man" from 1956. Henry fonda. Directed by noel black. Has directed a mix of television and film. Was nominated for best short film in 1966.
-
pcbrooks5 October 2008Considering the serious subject matter of the film, it's all the more incongruous that at one point the word "ARSE" appears prominently in several scenes.
For example, one shot has Mike Farrell in an office facing the camera and over his shoulder the street number is visible (in reverse) on a window. The number is "3216", which appears as the word "ARSE" when seen in reverse.
Another example scene is in chapter 3, at 20:14 minutes, as Teri Garr approaches the office door (viewed from inside the office).
I was so surprised by this that I went to the trouble of photographing that particular scene and placing copies online at www.story-lines.com/IMDb. These are large files, but if you feel inclined, take a look and see if you agree. (And that's "imdb" all in lowercase - for some reason, the submission process changes that to IMDb every time. PB)
One shows the scene with "ARSE" visible, the other shows the location on the DVD from which the screenshot was taken.
It's entirely possible that this was an accident, but I would have thought that it would have been picked up early in production.
If it was a deliberate act, one wonders why it was done - was there some issue about behavior during production that resulted in a little passive-aggressive payback? Curious minds would like to know... -
rbrb13 October 2000This film was recently re-shown on TV; its'interesting that by just looking at the clothes and hairstyles a viewer can get a reasonable guesstimate of the date the film was made....I was proud to discover my guess of 1980 was not far off the mark!! However I digress....this is an excellent film with a brilliant performance by the lead actor....this movie attempts to portray the effect on a person and his family when accused of a hideous crime and how the media,the public and his work colleagues and neighbours react to it. It is also an inspirational film and a lesson for many on the "victims" response to such a serious 'accusation'.... From start to finish this film seems to be wholly realistic and credible...the writer/director/producers ought to be congratulated....those who make films nowadays ought to learn that it is possible to make a compelling drama based on actuality without resorting to ludicrous unrealistic plots....
-
clanciai16 February 2024A small girl is missing, and an honest working man had bought a box of candy from her before she vanished. Someone had seen him with her, and from her description a phantom picture is made up and spread, and he is recognised as the man who was last seen with the girl. So he becomes the prime suspect. The interesting thing is how all the vultures of the news game immediately get their claws into him, which results in a public execution of him on television. It does not matter that he is later found innocent, as the body of the lost girl was found 90 miles away from where he was at the time, he is still branded and everyone disdains him and avoids him, especially his neighbours, a damage like this takes time to repair, if it can be repaired ever. Mike Farrell as the wrong man makes a great performance, he fights back, and he has his wife by his side, unlike Hitchcock's "Wrong Man" 1956, who lost his wife in the ordeal. It's an important and well made film, stressing its documentary value and character, because this could happen to anyone. Above all, it directs attention to the ruthlessness of the press.
-
Delrvich26 April 20218 for good to great It does have some very annoying characters like the cop and news anchor but Farrell, Garr, Cartwright et al make up for them and keep this interesting. Good.