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 Geographic 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.

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.

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.

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.