The 1991 thriller 'Deceived", led by Academy award winner Goldie Hawn is defiantly an experiment for her.(From comedy's to a more dramatic role.) It starts fairly normal, and then just turns absurd and crazy in the final act, with some mixed results overall.It starts rather promisingly with a woman named Adrienne Saunders(Goldie Hawn), who enters a seemingly happy marriage & has a kid with a guy named Jack Saunders(John Heard). But, after he parishes in a car accident, she slowly starts to unravel secrets about him & twists abound!This film is directed by Damian Harris(who didn't go on to do much of anything) and written by Bruce Joel Rubin("Ghost"), and Mary Agnes Donoghue("Beaches", "Paradise", Veronica Guerin" and "white Oleander" etc). It is competently shot by Harris, & there are some well executed scenes, especially in the first half of the film.Goldie Hawn is fine, but not mind blowing as the straight person trying to unravel the web of lies surrounding her love. She seems a tad nervous on occasions, but it's great to see her flex her dramatic muscles here. John Herd is also pretty good. The problem is the final act...It is very absurd, and very cliched thriller material. But, the film never stops being entertaining. I would only recommend to die hard thriller or Hawn fans, other than that it's rather skippable. 5/10

John Heard is the supposedly deceased husband of Goldie Hawn. Of course things are not as they seem, and the confusing plot is riddled with loopholes and a profound lack of logic. There are way too many coincidences that appear out of nowhere. With all the effort Hawn puts into learning Heard's true identity, you would think she would wise up and run to the police. Even as bodies pile up, the detective work is inexplicably left up to Goldie. "Deceived" is not a bad movie, but it really isn't something I would recommend, unless you are a big fan of either John Heard or Goldie Hawn. They both do their best with a script that stretches believability beyond reason. - MERK

This movie was way too formulaic for me to enjoy. It's a very standard thriller by the numbers, that basically doesn't feature anything new or surprising and is one that is like hundred of other genres movies, especially like those made around the same time period.The movie is not just bad because it's so formulaic, it perhaps is even more due to the fact that the story is just so predictable. Seriously, the big twist? Who didn't see that one coming? It's no surprise, it's predictable and you just wait for it to happen. The movie often also gets quite ridicules. The 'villain' of the movie is basically the worst conman ever. He makes some gigantic mistakes and just does things that make no sense what so ever for the movie its story. Some sequences are obviously put in there to make him look evil but its so pointless all and adds nothing to the story. The movie also made me think like; 'Why didn't the Goldie Hawn character just called, or had gone to the police'. Seriously, there were several occasions in the movie that she could had easily convinced the police of her findings but instead she puts herself and her little daughter needlessly in danger.It's not like this movie is completely horrible or anything but for a genre piece it isn't anything special enough. It's the reason why you're still better off not watching this movie, even though you most likely won't be bored when you still do so. Even though the story is just bad and filled with way too many questions and plot holes, it's still a fast moving one. The movie feels much shorter than it in fact truly is.And yes, Goldie Hawn is a good actress but to she seemed out of place in this movie. She of course also isn't helped much by the movie its lacking script. She's just too naive at times and for no reason very cold and distant to the people she herself went to for help, to unravel the movie its 'big and shocking' mystery. The movie just doesn't always make you like her, or care about her character enough. The movie would had also been better of if they didn't cast John Heard. Not that he's a bad actor but it would had made the story perhaps a bit more surprising and at least not as predictable as it is now, if they had cast a more unknown name for the role. Besides, John Heard is a sort of actor that often seems to play the same type of roles in movies and also his looks never seem to change, not even now when he's getting older.Perhaps only watchable once but even then it's a forgettable one.5/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Goldie Hawn has never been a favorite, I must admit, but that is all the more reason to catch her in the one performance where she is not quirky, superfluous or silly.The theme of this story has been done before, but thanks to a fine performance by John Heard, the character of Jack Saunders is intriguing and foreboding. John Heard is an underrated actor who adds a somewhat mischievous, ominous and sometimes comical overtone to his roles (You may want to watch him in the earlier 1970's film "Chilly Scenes of Winter", and there was also a film short wherein he portrayed Fortunato, in Edgar Allen Poe's "Cask of Amontillado". He was excellent).Look for Ashley Peldon as the young daughter; Robin Bartlett, who is underused as Heard's estranged mother, and Tom Irwin, as Hawn's colleague from the art museum. The mystery is enough to keep you watching, and overall Heard's performance makes it all worthwhile. 7/10.