It was pretty good. It was on Lifetime Network but shown under the title " Trophy Wife ". Brook Burns was very good. The killer and his methods were very believable and it made me keep watching to see how she was going to get the guy before he got her. She went to the police repeatedly to tell them about the person who killed her rich husband but they did not believe her, and the police were believable in how they did not believe her. The killer then planted evidence to point the finger at the Trophy Wife and she had to go on the run before she was arrested for the murder she did not commit. It was definitely worth the time watching.
11 Reviews
It's Okay
Killa4215 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is was an Okay mystery thriller... aside for a few things:
1. The only person that believes that Brooke Burns' character didn't do it is her best friend who knows better... being that he's placed in jail; accused of had been hired to kill her husband, from her. Every single person that she tries to convince that there is a guy out there killing rich husbands and collecting from widows by blackmail: either denies it or calls her crazy. That alone is very unrealistic, if I'd believe her I know that one out of the hundreds of other people that she told in the film might just have given her the benefit of the doubt but no, rather it's the freaking world against "Kate Graham." I know, its a movie... but something's in film these days are just too blasé. It's sort of like in that show Tru Calling how no one listens to Eliza Dushku's character when she says that she can hear messages from the dead. Even though that was a good show, that part was annoying.
2. The killer doesn't even bother to use gloves... ever! They seem to miss this in several movies these days. The fact is that with forensics the way they are you'd think that the newer writers would try a little and place at least gloves on their hairy killers.
Aside from that the movie was decent and worth watching.
1. The only person that believes that Brooke Burns' character didn't do it is her best friend who knows better... being that he's placed in jail; accused of had been hired to kill her husband, from her. Every single person that she tries to convince that there is a guy out there killing rich husbands and collecting from widows by blackmail: either denies it or calls her crazy. That alone is very unrealistic, if I'd believe her I know that one out of the hundreds of other people that she told in the film might just have given her the benefit of the doubt but no, rather it's the freaking world against "Kate Graham." I know, its a movie... but something's in film these days are just too blasé. It's sort of like in that show Tru Calling how no one listens to Eliza Dushku's character when she says that she can hear messages from the dead. Even though that was a good show, that part was annoying.
2. The killer doesn't even bother to use gloves... ever! They seem to miss this in several movies these days. The fact is that with forensics the way they are you'd think that the newer writers would try a little and place at least gloves on their hairy killers.
Aside from that the movie was decent and worth watching.
Entertaining to a Degree but Lacked Realism
Uriah4326 June 2023
This film essentially begins with an attractive woman by the name of "Kate Graham" (Brooke Burns) having marital difficulties with her extremely wealthy husband "Duke Fairbanks" (Barclay Hope) eventually culminating in him asking for a divorce. Although she is devastated by this, she turns down his offer to pay her $1 million as part of a settlement and simply accepts his decision and begins to pack what few belongings she has in their home. Not long afterward, Duke is shot and killed on his yacht and she becomes the prime suspect due to some evidence which contradicts her previous testimony on where she was during the time of the murder. It's at this time that she starts being harassed and threatened by a young man who demands that she pay him several million dollars for killing her husband. The problem is that, according to her, she has never met this man and the longer she refuses to pay him, the more evidence is leaked that incriminates her for the murder of her husband. Now, rather than reveal any more, I will just say that I found this to be an interesting movie due in large part to the uncertainty of whether Kate actually had something to do with the murder or not. That being said, however, I must admit that there were several scenes that lacked realism with her decision to assume a direct involvement in the investigation as perhaps the most glaring of them all. I mean, with all of that money at her disposal, she could have easily hired a private detective to help her out. I also don't understand why she didn't fire her personal attorney (played by Jay Brazeau) either. In any case, while this certainly wasn't a great film by any means, it passed the time fairly well and I have rated it accordingly. Average.
First half clever, last half pointless
Fernseher27 April 2008
Warning: Spoilers
The basic premise is interesting. A convoluted frame up where the killer seems to have thought of everything. There's a pointless unused side plot where all closed circuit cameras in the world are at his disposal. This is never used for any purpose but to annoy the heroine. Then there are completely unbelievable scenes of the victims not trying to fight back or even call for help while the bad guy incongruously tells them his weak motivation. But then in the second half she easily traces where the villain lives, picking the lock, and calls 911. Their slow response gives us one last shootout, but so what. I was hoping for perhaps some reasonable answer, like the bad guy had gotten help from someone she blabbed to, but no. There was absolutely no resolution whatever, the only suspect did it and she just knew where to find him. I love the actress. She's now got a decent part in a new TV show "Miss Guided", and looks better in dark hair and deep necklines.
OK - it's a 'B' movie.. but had some nifty elements..
canuckteach27 December 2009
We watched it - it was a passable time-waster built around a very charming leading lady, Brooke Burns (film a.k.a. 'Trophy Wife').
She won't challenge Meryl Streep for acting honors, but this was a low-budget vehicle built around the familiar device of a pretty, but determined, main character under attack by a sinister guy (a hacker, an extortionist, a serial killer, a combo - you choose). She will have to resolve to defeat him herself - there's no 'buddy' waiting to bail her out. In this case, the bad guy extorts money from women who have lost rich, but unpleasant, husbands in 'untimely deaths' - deaths he caused, 'on spec' - that is, on 'speculation' that the women will gladly pay a commission to be rid of the villainous 'ex'. It's not an entirely new idea - Alfred Hitchcock used a similar twist in his old TV mystery show.
The difference here is that the villain claims to be able to implicate poor Brooke in the murder-for-hire. That part is stretchy. Nonetheless, the camera work is nifty (reminding me of a Director using tribute-type camera angles to echo the genre), and the gadgetry makes for interesting - if implausible - entertainment.
It took me a while to realize that the 'killer' had his victims 'over a barrel' - they paid, instead of going to the Police. No wonder they don't want to talk to Brooke when she starts investigating these cases herself: these 'victims' are complicit in a crime. It's an intriguing kind of 'con' - you can't go to the Police with your story, after you pay. hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
While the computer and technical abilities of the perpetrator are strictly sci-fi, we saw a similar device used in a big-budget British mini-series with John Hannah entitled 'Amnesia'. The bad guy's ability to produce phony tech data was essential to moving the plot forward, and building the suspense to a surprising climax. The device isn't as well orchestrated in 'Trophy Wife', but it serves the same purpose: it keeps our hero fighting to get her story believed.
Finally: life has a way of imitating art.. as silly as the plot might seem, there are fraud, and murder-for-profit cases in the true-life crime annals that seem stranger than anything we've read in fiction.
So, I gave the film a 7 - for the 'heroine-battles-super-bad-guy-B-movie-suspense' genre.
She won't challenge Meryl Streep for acting honors, but this was a low-budget vehicle built around the familiar device of a pretty, but determined, main character under attack by a sinister guy (a hacker, an extortionist, a serial killer, a combo - you choose). She will have to resolve to defeat him herself - there's no 'buddy' waiting to bail her out. In this case, the bad guy extorts money from women who have lost rich, but unpleasant, husbands in 'untimely deaths' - deaths he caused, 'on spec' - that is, on 'speculation' that the women will gladly pay a commission to be rid of the villainous 'ex'. It's not an entirely new idea - Alfred Hitchcock used a similar twist in his old TV mystery show.
The difference here is that the villain claims to be able to implicate poor Brooke in the murder-for-hire. That part is stretchy. Nonetheless, the camera work is nifty (reminding me of a Director using tribute-type camera angles to echo the genre), and the gadgetry makes for interesting - if implausible - entertainment.
It took me a while to realize that the 'killer' had his victims 'over a barrel' - they paid, instead of going to the Police. No wonder they don't want to talk to Brooke when she starts investigating these cases herself: these 'victims' are complicit in a crime. It's an intriguing kind of 'con' - you can't go to the Police with your story, after you pay. hmmmmmmmmmmmm.
While the computer and technical abilities of the perpetrator are strictly sci-fi, we saw a similar device used in a big-budget British mini-series with John Hannah entitled 'Amnesia'. The bad guy's ability to produce phony tech data was essential to moving the plot forward, and building the suspense to a surprising climax. The device isn't as well orchestrated in 'Trophy Wife', but it serves the same purpose: it keeps our hero fighting to get her story believed.
Finally: life has a way of imitating art.. as silly as the plot might seem, there are fraud, and murder-for-profit cases in the true-life crime annals that seem stranger than anything we've read in fiction.
So, I gave the film a 7 - for the 'heroine-battles-super-bad-guy-B-movie-suspense' genre.
This movie is bad
Valkonian2 February 2008
I'm sorry, this movie is very bad.
I just watched this on Lifetime so I should have known better. As much as I love looking at Brooke Burns, this movie is terrible.
Let's start with the screenplay. Horrible. Completely not believable. The whole premise of the story is ridiculous. Could something like this go on? Maybe. But the way the screenplay is written, there's just no way. It's just so outrageous. Actually, it's comical when you watch it. The acting is pretty funny as well.
If you want to laugh at bad writing, bad filming, bad screenplay, watch this movie. It should be shown in all filming 101 classes about what NOT to do in film-making.
I just watched this on Lifetime so I should have known better. As much as I love looking at Brooke Burns, this movie is terrible.
Let's start with the screenplay. Horrible. Completely not believable. The whole premise of the story is ridiculous. Could something like this go on? Maybe. But the way the screenplay is written, there's just no way. It's just so outrageous. Actually, it's comical when you watch it. The acting is pretty funny as well.
If you want to laugh at bad writing, bad filming, bad screenplay, watch this movie. It should be shown in all filming 101 classes about what NOT to do in film-making.
Another movie showing a stupid plot and "dumb as a box of hammers" police
doycesub3 May 2016
I think that the negative reviews are very accurate and the others are watching a different movie than I am. I'm 38 minutes into it and can't believe the lack of investigation abilities that the "police" in this one have. I don't think they could catch a cold much less a criminal. Why is the person that admitted to the murder able to move about like a ghost and nobody seems to notice him? Why is the Kate Graham character doing her own investigation while the DA (dumb a**) police can follow her but no one else. I hope I make it to the end.
the review does not contain enough lines so: I think that the negative reviews are very accurate and the others are watching a different movie than I am. I'm 38 minutes into it and can't believe the lack of investigation abilities that the "police" in this one have. I don't think they could catch a cold much less a criminal. Why is the person that admitted to the murder able to move about like a ghost and nobody seems to notice him? Why is the Kate Graham character doing her own investigation while the DA (dumb a**) police can follow her but no one else. I hope I make it to the end.
the review does not contain enough lines so: I think that the negative reviews are very accurate and the others are watching a different movie than I am. I'm 38 minutes into it and can't believe the lack of investigation abilities that the "police" in this one have. I don't think they could catch a cold much less a criminal. Why is the person that admitted to the murder able to move about like a ghost and nobody seems to notice him? Why is the Kate Graham character doing her own investigation while the DA (dumb a**) police can follow her but no one else. I hope I make it to the end.
Don't waste a couple of hours of your life watching this
randy_kay9 June 2011
There's nothing about this film that is even remotely believable. Grey, overcast skies, oh, I recognize that place, it's Vancouver, Canada - home of the worst movies in the world! And this is yet another piece of garbage from there. Some guy named Harvey Kahn makes these terrible films. Here is an excerpt of something he said during the making of this film
>>In the 1967 classic The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman's title character gets some succinct career advice from a friend's father: "Plastics!" Vancouver-based producer Harvey Kahn, here to shoot Murder on Spec, had a similar experience in the 1970s. "I had a guy come up and put his arm around me and he said, 'Cable!'"<<
Yeah, well that guy that put his arm around Mr. Kahn must have seen some of his earlier work because this garbage ain't gonna ever be seen anywhere BUT cable so he was sure right about that!
>>In the 1967 classic The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman's title character gets some succinct career advice from a friend's father: "Plastics!" Vancouver-based producer Harvey Kahn, here to shoot Murder on Spec, had a similar experience in the 1970s. "I had a guy come up and put his arm around me and he said, 'Cable!'"<<
Yeah, well that guy that put his arm around Mr. Kahn must have seen some of his earlier work because this garbage ain't gonna ever be seen anywhere BUT cable so he was sure right about that!
Entertaining in spite of...
caa8212 February 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Where to begin commenting on this flick? It was thoroughly enjoyable, but more on the level of science fiction than the mystery/suspense/"noir" genre as intended.
The lovely Brooke is the young wife, estranged from a very wealthy (9 figures) husband, being divorced, but with the dreaded "pre-nup" precluding her gaining a lot of loot upon parting.
Hubby is murdered, her best friend (a gay! man) is incarcerated as her lover/murderer by the witless cops, and she is under surveillance/suspicion, also.
Enter a swarthy stranger - a man with a greater genius for computers and electronics at a level to make Bill Gates seem average - who wants $10-mil from the inheritance she can gain versus zilch if he incriminates her further. This guy has talents which, if hired by the CIA, could effect a solution to all Mideast problems, and with respect to terrorists, in perhaps a month or less.
Anyway, Brooke learns this guy has done the same thing previously - murdering rich guys with young wives, little or no family, and has shaken them down like he's attempting with her.
Along the way, for example, when she's approaching a woman in another city (she travels extensively on her mission), the cops there alert those at home. The detective from her home base travels there, and in company with a local tec, refers to Brooke as "One slick broad!" Actually, he may have said "clever broad;" but I laughed so hard, and then later wasn't certain which was the adjective used..
The "villain" is one interesting piece of work, who appears everywhere (as a friend's grandfather used to say, "like horse****), and whose fore-mentioned surveillance capabilities seem almost miraculous. He provides a synopsis of his family history and motivation to one intended victim. It's positively amusing.
The cops (or rather, one of them) finally begin to get the thought that someone other than Brooke might be perpetrating the events, but not until the last 1/6 or so of the presentation.
Again, interesting and entertaining, but for reasons different from what the creators intended.
The lovely Brooke is the young wife, estranged from a very wealthy (9 figures) husband, being divorced, but with the dreaded "pre-nup" precluding her gaining a lot of loot upon parting.
Hubby is murdered, her best friend (a gay! man) is incarcerated as her lover/murderer by the witless cops, and she is under surveillance/suspicion, also.
Enter a swarthy stranger - a man with a greater genius for computers and electronics at a level to make Bill Gates seem average - who wants $10-mil from the inheritance she can gain versus zilch if he incriminates her further. This guy has talents which, if hired by the CIA, could effect a solution to all Mideast problems, and with respect to terrorists, in perhaps a month or less.
Anyway, Brooke learns this guy has done the same thing previously - murdering rich guys with young wives, little or no family, and has shaken them down like he's attempting with her.
Along the way, for example, when she's approaching a woman in another city (she travels extensively on her mission), the cops there alert those at home. The detective from her home base travels there, and in company with a local tec, refers to Brooke as "One slick broad!" Actually, he may have said "clever broad;" but I laughed so hard, and then later wasn't certain which was the adjective used..
The "villain" is one interesting piece of work, who appears everywhere (as a friend's grandfather used to say, "like horse****), and whose fore-mentioned surveillance capabilities seem almost miraculous. He provides a synopsis of his family history and motivation to one intended victim. It's positively amusing.
The cops (or rather, one of them) finally begin to get the thought that someone other than Brooke might be perpetrating the events, but not until the last 1/6 or so of the presentation.
Again, interesting and entertaining, but for reasons different from what the creators intended.
Very good movie
terryaaa27 August 2017
Not a Hollywood budget, but well done. "Mister10%" is a little over the top, but the story line is very plausible. My BS meter never peaked once during this movie. A good story line. And l'm one to usually complain about the writing. Brook Burn is very good in this. The movie is titled "Trophy Wife" and this is the first time I've called for a sequel to a low budget movie. "Trophy Wife 2" please!
I loved the ending
JaneDoe614717 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I thought this was a good film for the LMN channel. It had me guessing throughout.
Like HOW did this guy get to listen to all the transmissions? How did he get to hook into all the surveillance cameras? How was he able to leave work at free will while being on the payroll?
Was his motivation merely money?
I loved the ending when there was retribution, and really wanted to smack his face when he broke into the prison's computer system to make phone calls. (And WHY was he able to merely roam about the prison like that?)
I gave it a "9" because it did have me wanting to see more. And I really liked it.
Like HOW did this guy get to listen to all the transmissions? How did he get to hook into all the surveillance cameras? How was he able to leave work at free will while being on the payroll?
Was his motivation merely money?
I loved the ending when there was retribution, and really wanted to smack his face when he broke into the prison's computer system to make phone calls. (And WHY was he able to merely roam about the prison like that?)
I gave it a "9" because it did have me wanting to see more. And I really liked it.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
