This made for TV movie is perhaps one of the best factual accounts that I have watched in a while.

The story of a single mother brilliantly played by the beautiful Estella Warren is one of those film that won't let you look away for a second. You cant keep you eyes off the screen. Yes I did find it that good.

The plot consists of a single mother ( Warren) who after a quarrel that turns physical with her boyfriend, goes to the local emergency room for treatment. The doctor on duty.played quite well by John Hannah sedates her (Warren) and rapes her. she goes to the police who initially doubt her story . Doctor Darian (Hannah) is something of a local "darling" and almost the entire town sides with him and against the victim. (Warren). The Doctor uses his good relations with the local authorities to defame his victim, and uses extreme measures to elude prosecution.

Forced to relocate she then embarks on a crusade to prove that she was in fact raped by the Doctor. Needless to say the Doctor continues with rather creative ways to pass DNA tests. Not getting justice from the authorities she goes and hires a private investigator to get her due justice.

I will not divulge further details since many readers have not seen this film.

The courage and perseverance of this woman, in seeking justice is truly inspirational.

This is a true story that to the dis-credit of many societies happens quite often. Something we all need to fight for change. .

To deal with some of the comments made by others, this is a film made for Canadian television. As such it is well made, but does not have the fanciest production values. It does a good job of capturing the attitudes and social mores of a small town on the Canadian prairie and how the citizens would react when confronted with something they don't want to believe.

This is the first film where the former Olympic athlete and model Estella Warren is given the chance to carry a film by herself and she does an excellent job, making me wish that she would spend more time making films in Canada and less time in Hollywood. where I don't think she is taken seriously enough as an actress.

Basically the film explores how society reacts when a woman from a blue collar background (Warren) accuses a prominent small town doctor (Hannah) of rape. On a larger scale it is also an exploration of problems involved in many rape cases, where the accused is a prominent individual, and the victim becomes not only a victim of her attacker, but of society as a whole.

Warren makes the character believable. She actually underplays the emotional aspects, which makes her more believable and anchors the film in reality. As her accused attacker Hannah does a good job of playing outraged and smarmy. His attitude, especially during some of the final scenes in court are both hard to take and frightening in their arrogance.

Overall this film does a good job of exploring issues which society does not like to face and builds suspense and emotional power without resorting to the overdone histrionics that might be expected from American television or Hollywood's dealing with such an explosive issue.

This unfortunately is a very true story about a woman in Canada and her ordeal with a medical person. The movie might be a bit boring to some, but it was interesting to find out how this ended. If anyone wants to know the true story, you can find out about it on a show called "Forensic Files". It is always absurd when a woman is seen as a tramp or the town slut out to ruin a man's reputation or career. I am not sure why men always try and discredit a woman as she says that something has happened to her at the cause of a man. If you have a mother, sister, niece, aunt, grandmother and they went through a terrible ordeal, would you not believe them? To be violated in such a brutal manner is painful just to hear about it, but women go through it every day.

I like watching movies. I go to the local video shop and see titles that might interest me. I come back home, before I rent, and come on to IMDb and read reviews to, hopefully, get a true reflection of the movie. If ever I have been given a bad reflection, it is with this film. This is a low budget T.V. movie. Nothing more, nothing less. Not a bad movie. But I could have waited until it was shown mainstream. I hope it was very loosely based on a true story, because the credibility was just not there. I would hasten to add that I hate reviews that go on about the cinematography etc. etc. etc. All I want to know is "did you enjoy the movie". My final comment is, watchable movie, not completely a waste of time, but wait till it's on television, and catch it, or don't. You won't miss too much.

Don't waste your time. It's loosely based on the true crime perpetrated by a doctor on one of his patients. What is unfortunate about this film is that the producers changed the facts probably just enough so they would not have to pay the actual victim, Candice Foley, for the rights to her story. This true story is accurately portrayed in the documentary series "True Crime: The First 72 Hours" which airs on National Graphic Channel. You get all the facts in riveting detail and in less than half an hour. Also, Lona Manning penned a very good article on this case, "Rapist, MD", which you can read at crimemagazine.com, an excellent site with substantial information of criminal, legal, and judicial content.

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

I hate to sound unappreciative of any artistic endeavor, or unreceptive to stories of the weak being mistreated by the strong, but I can't help wondering how much longer they'll be grinding out scenarios that fit this template: Helpless young woman is raped (or otherwise abused) by a man (or men) of greater social worth -- here a doctor, there a famous high-school jock -- and she complains to the authorities. The authorities try to shake her off, not take her seriously. Nobody believes her. The community ostracizes her. She persists bravely and in the end manages to bring her abuser down. You can get a variation of the scenario by substituting some giant corporation for the rapist. (Cf., "Erin Brokovitch".) I understand that this is "based on a true story" and that poetic license must be granted -- but, wow. The characters could have had numbers attached to them and the narrative lifted, still throbbing, from some handbook for genre movies.

In this case, the victim is a single mother in a small Canadian town. The abuser is the snooty doctor with the English accent who gives her a general anesthetic to treat some minor injuries she received in a fight with her boyfriend. While Estella Warren, as Kimberley, is all doped up, the English doc takes advantage of her to rape her.

Kimberley brings a civil suit against the doctor (John Hannah), but docs have a full hand of Aesculapian authority. (Not to mention lots of money and charisma.) Who, other than a doctor, can tell the President to go to bed for a day and drink plenty of fluids? Man, that's POWER.

The story then follows the usual trajectory, so ostracism is next. The whole community seems to STARE sullenly at her, wherever she goes. The close-ups we see are of faces that are old and wizened and, if they're women, they wear harlequin glasses like unto a Roz Chast cartoon. Kimberley must finally pack up and leave town, while the doctor luxuriates in his own sham aura of victimhood. In the end, the Great Physician seems to contract a case of terminal stupidity. At about the time Kimberley is read to give up, he pulls the same stunt with another young woman. The case now -- finally -- goes to court, and during his testimony the doctor explains that he tampered with evidence, obstructed justice, and committed perjury in SELF DEFENSE -- because he couldn't allow his reputation to be ruined by a young slut. I needn't reveal the verdict.

Estella Warren is pretty good as the victim. She's no tiny prey, but a tall, full-bodied, and abrasive young lady. She doesn't know the meaning of the word "simper." She turns into a positive pest, and that's what the role calls for. John Hannah, as the doctor, comes across as not much more than another seasoned actor. He's not bad, but he doesn't bring anything extra to the role. The direction is competent too. There's no confusion about where we are or who's doing what, and no unnecessary displays of directorial razzle dazzle. The story is told without unmerited garnish.

If I've been critical of the movie it's not because I think incidents like this don't happen, because they certainly do. Some examples have been caught on tape. It's just that we leap to the conviction that it happens SO OFTEN. My guess is that it's a pretty rare event, given everything that an established physician has to lose. So we can't claim there are thousands of sneaky doctor/rapists out there. Maybe there are, but we have no way of knowing. We need, I think, to also keep in mind that accusations are easy to make, and that they're difficult to refute because you can't prove a negative. (Prove to me that you did NOT rape this girl is a little like saying prove to me that there is no God or that there are no such things as UFOs. It can't be done.) And in judging cases like these, we need to bear in mind that it's enjoyable for some people to be a victim. (Not to be victimized, but to be thought of by others as a victim.) A certain moral weight attaches to the role. People sympathize with you and treat you with greater kindness, as with mothers in Munchhausen-by-proxy syndrome. There are two ways to get people to carry you around. One is to be powerful enough to order them to do it, and the other is to collapse. The role of victim involves a collapse in the face of irresistible social or physical forces.

Given the weaknesses and the over-familiarity of the plot, though, this is a reasonably well-done movie, with Estella Warren particularly good. I don't see much point in recommending or not recommending it because, if you're fond of these kinds of films, you've seen it already in one form or another. They're kind of like the many action movies that star Schwarzenegger, Willis, Van Damme, Stallone, and the rest. If you like one, you're liable to like all.

I really like Estella Warren as an actress, but I felt that her lines were awful. I mean, her character in the movie was so obnoxious that I felt little sympathy for her and I definitely couldn't relate to her. The movie was kind of neat because it was a true story. I am from Saskatchewan and I remember hearing about the incident on the news. It was good that they did a lot of filming in Saskatchewan and I even know one of the guys that they had play a scientist, which is really neat. The movie could have been good if they had made Estella Warren's character more likable and more like a real person. The other characters were quite good and I liked how they made the whole DNA part look so scientific.

Enjoyed the movie on Movie network Sunday Nov 30/03. Felt that the flashback scenes to the rape was shown too many times. Once would have been enough. the point was made. Estella Warren did a good job in her role. Reminded me of an Erin Brockovich type character but of course in a different vain.

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

This movie is based on a real case that is again making headlines. (I don't want to write a spoiler, so it you are interested, do a Google about Doctor Schneeberger.) The story is quite accurate and held my attention throughout.

This story held riveting suspense. Hard to write a movie based on real events. Brilliant job! This film kept me involved in the story through to the end and should be an inspiration to others who may find themselves in similar situations to keep vigilant in their search for the truth.