Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    **SPOILERS** Trying to put the past behind him Chuck Hausman, William R. Moses, at the urging of his wife Rebecca,Marcia Cross, never the less travels back to his home town of Deerfield for the reading of his fathers Reverand Leo Hausmer's, John Saxon, will. Right away old wounds are opened up as we see how the people in town respond to Chuck with total disdain and disgust blaming him for the murder, that was declared an accident, of his first wife Mary, Cyntyhina Preston some twenty years ago.

    At the reading of the will it's discovered that Rev. Leo left Chuck $10,000.00 together with another ten grand to his housekeeper Mrs. Ford ,Katherine Helmound, who didn't bother to show up. But the over $250,000.00 that was given to him by Pete Gromek, Brandon Maggart, together with Art Sannar & Clift Bartok, Daniel Quinne & Jack McGee, to invest was completely gone due to, from what Leo said in his will, bad investments.

    A number of story lines run concurrently in the film "Living in Fear" with the suspicion of Chuck being his first wife's murderer leading the pack. Chuck is also discovered to have been institutionalized, for a nerves condition, while in the US Marines during the Vietnam War. a fact that he withheld from his wife Rebecca. That as well as being somehow involved in the later deaths of housekeeper Mrs Ford and his former high school sweetheart Jeanine, Michele Scarabelli. Jeanine was not only suffering from a very severe case of wife abuse but who was also blackmailing Chuck with information that she knew about Mary's death and who's body was later found in the trunk of Chuck's car.

    The most shocking thing that comes out of Chuck's past has in fact something to do with the death of his first wife Mary that was no accident but a crime of passion, as everyone in town had long suspected. But the passion of the person who killed her and why had nothing to do with Chuck at all, even though he helped cover up the crime. This we discover was the real reason for Chuck's mental breakdown and instability that has haunted him all these twenty years.

    It also turns out that someone in town knowing that the $250,000.00 was somehow hidden in the late Leo's home, where both Chuck & Rebecca were staying at. That person saw Chuck as the perfect pasty in murdering Jeanine, who in the killer's deranged mind knew too much. He then ends up leaving the clues to her death right on Chuck's doorstep, or car trunk. Then incites Jeannie somewhat mad dog husband Stuart, Ted Haler, on him in order to have Chuck murdered in a fit of uncontrollable passion on his part. This effort in getting the lost money on the killers part was a bit confusing since why take the chance of having Chuck killed before he can find out where the hidden cash was that Chuck later, with the help of an old photo of him when he was 12, found?

    We also learn the person responsible for Jeanine death also had it in for Chuck ever since he married Mary some twenty years ago. Since he was her boyfriend at the time and felt that Chuck stole her from him. Knocking off Deerfield Sheriff Lyle Pointer (Chris Kriesa), who stopped his van on the way to Chuck & Rebecca's place, for good measure and also planning to frame Chuck with it the killer now has his master plan all set up. The killer then has the crazed Stuart manipulated into killing Chuck for the murder, that the killer committed, of his wife Jeanine. The entire plan falls apart when he prematurely opens his big fat mouth, not knowing that crazy Stu was lurking around in the house and listening in, which had his whole crazy plan fall apart together with him.
  • Theo Robertson12 December 2002
    I was up watching BBC1 round about midnight so guess what was on ? That`s right an American TVM which was called LIVING IN FEAR and amazingly didn`t star Jane Seymour or Victoria Principal in a disease of the week plot . But that didn`t stop this TVM from being formuliac . As in all these type of films it starts with a dramatic flashback over the opening titles - A woman falling down a flight of steps - then a caption appears informing us that it`s now twenty years later as a newly wed couple arrive in town . And being a TVM it`s a middle American town while the newly weds - Chuck and Rebecca - are middle American white Anglo-Saxon protestants . Suffice to say Chuck has a very dark secret from his past and Rebecca soon finds herself in mortal peril . The only difference between LIVING IN FEAR and most other TVMs is that this one is slightly more violent than the usual fare and contains the F word a couple of times

    Oh hold on there ! If it contains the F word then it surely can`t be one of those American mainstream network TVMs . Then why is it written , directed and acted as if it is ?
  • LIVING IN FEAR is the kind of movie we've all seen before--and here at least it's told with a moderate amount of suspense diluted by a back and forth suspicion that the husband may or may not be a killer. I say diluted because along the way motives become fuzzy and it isn't until we learn the whole truth at the end that we see how neatly everything was manipulated to keep us watching. It's the kind of story where you can't see how it's all going to be resolved--nor which characters will survive the climactic confrontation at the finale.

    I'd say it's a better than average made-for-TV movie that creates suspense in a rather mechanical way. Performances are credible, especially William R. Moses who seems to specialize in these kind of ambiguous roles in stories of scare and menace. Marcia Cross is efficient enough as his mystified wife and John Saxon is seen briefly in a cameo role.

    Not bad as these sort of things go but not up to Agatha Christie level either.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Look, I watch a lot of Lifetime movies, but this one was sad even for Lifetime. Characters and story line are very one dimensional. Seen this story a million times.

    Marcia Cross and William Moses aren't bad actors, Moses has made a nice career out of TV movies, (not that there's anything wrong with that) but the rest were meh. John Saxon got top billing - I think I saw him in there somewhere. Story was very predictable and very corny in places

    SPOILER - Art's death scene was laughable and Stuart's shooting and quick recovery to save the day was - big surprise - predictable. My favorite was the 'touching' voice-over of John Saxon talking about how proud he is of his son 🙄🙄🙄
  • dukesjc25 November 2012
    I thought Billy Moses (so known in his youthful acting days) displayed the frustrated anger of an abused child so believably in this film. Best effort from him I've ever observed. Powerless anger is a complex emotion and he nailed it. It can't be easy to show anger, pain, and frustration in the same tearful face. It's not that I don't have a life, but did anybody else notice that the license plate on his preserved boyhood Mustang was the exact same as on James Garner's ROCKFORD FILES Firebird 30 years ago. Please, somebody. I was especially impressed by this abused character being unable to accept harsh military discipline and faking mental illness to escape that commitment. How many young men in jails, prisons and stockades are there because of unresolved anger from childhood abuse? And that admission by his character complicated the revelation of his innocence. This movie is more than just a two-hour MURDER SHE WROTE, but the complex story of a father's botched love for his fearful son. It challenges the Biblical admonition of spare the rod and spoil the child when a religious man goes off discipline's deep, dark end. The they-lived-happily-ever-after ending was ambiguous at best and most of us would have loved to have seen the money actually returned to its rightful owners not just alluded to.
  • This movie was made in 2001. The main character was in the military 20 years ago, where his friend died (came home in a body bag).

    However, there were no real American military actions occurring in 1981, or in the years preceding or succeeding then.

    The only real U.S. military deaths even close to then were in 1983, in Beiruit and Grenada, and both were very small in number. Also, the guy actually left town 20 years ago, and was in the military before then. (although his friend may have stayed in 2-5 years, and died there.)

    Someone else posted that the friend died in Vietnam. That could only work if the film was set in 1991, not 2001.

    Odd.