- Made: 2008
- Genre: Drama
- Stars: Jason Priestley, Josie Bissett
Based on the bestselling novel by Joy Fielding. JILL PLUMLEY (Josie Bissett) gave up a successful career as a television news producer to settle into the routine of a married woman and satisfy the needs of her husband DAVID PLUMLEY, a successful divorce lawyer. On the day of David's company party, a sexy young student NICOLE CLARK, boldly tells Jill that she's going to steal her husband. Jill thinks of the irony that four years ago she stole David away from his first wife. Now that Jill is "Mrs. David Plumley," could young Nicole Clark be the other woman that Jill had been? When David's boss AL WEATHERBY is murdered in his sleep,and his wife confesses to her husband's murder but claims self defense, Jill turns to old friend and fellow journalist PETE HENDERSON (Jason Priestley) to find out the truth.
comments
How come the audience is unaware of Jill being the original “other woman” who broke up her husband’s first marriage until well into the movie? Up until then she is portrayed as the successful reporter who travels round the world for a scoop, until she meets Mr. What Does She See In Him, then gives up her career for love (cough). As hokey as that is, it’s quite different from “I knew he was married but didn’t care.” I didn’t appreciate being manipulated into sympathizing with the main character only to find out she’s a homewrecker.
An earlier reviewer writes: “…wife confronts husband, who by the way is quite elated about convicting bosses wife for murder…”
Hold on, here. The movie synopsis says the husband is a divorce lawyer. The movie portrayed him as a criminal defense attorney. He tells his daughter, “It’s not about guilt or innocence, it’s about winning. Do you have a problem with that?”
And now the husband is a prosecutor, elated about convicting his boss’s wife for murder? Defense attorneys and prosecuting attorneys work on opposing sides. They don’t just switch back and forth. And good grief, a kindergartener could have successfully defended the abused woman.
Come on, couldn’t we at least have a peek at the trial? We must endure watching her spend days in the hospital unconscious, with nothing happening except different views of Jill in the hall, and then we’re cheated out of what may have been (but probably wasn’t) an exciting trial. (And really…could a nurse or someone have thought to put a bandage on the gross cut on her lip? Ew.)
Too many questions went unanswered, like who put the glass in the daughter’s lunch, and why? How did he or she get the glass in her food without any restaurant staff witnessing it? And where’s Big Lawyer Daddy… he might as well practice personal injury law too and get his daughter a nice settlement for almost being killed through the restaurant negligence.
The husband is not attractive. He’s not handsome, he doesn’t have a great body, he’s not charming or funny or especially successful.
When he’s not sporting a mocking sarcastic grin, he’s just plain blah. I am baffled what any woman would see in him, let alone two attractive women willing to marry him, and some sexed-up bimbo with a tacky tattoo on her backside, who looks like she should be riding a pole or waiting tables at Hooters. (Funny how a loony who makes out with her pillow can land a job in a law firm. Of course she never actually does anything except bang the boss and stalk the wife in her red sports car, so I guess the seven years of college really paid off.)
I agree with other reviewers who resented the portrayal of women and men in this movie. It seemed no level of personal success is enough for a woman if she doesn’t have a man, any man, and then she must give it all up for him. The Hooters girl had no ambition other than to take another woman’s husband. The boss’s wife gets beat on and takes it for 25 or so years. The men are depicted as cheaters, liars and abusers…except Jason Priestley, the gratuitous “friend.” The boss is disgusting and slovenly and I had to look away when the Hooters girl came on to him…it was worse than looking at the gross bloody lip.
Oh, well, it was obvious the movie tried to cram WAY too many plot threads into two hours, and neglected to bring any of them to a satisfying conclusion. Better luck next time.
Also, it was obvious that Nicole was crazy so I have serious doubts the husband ever married her as he probably figured that out just in time. No first-year associate would dare say "no" to the boss like Nicole did either. That would get them fired.