User Reviews

High school kids can be pretty dumb. When I was a sophomore I couldn't understand why I had to take orders from some of the teachers, since I could outrun all of them. As far as the Other Side of the Cold War was concerned, we wondered what all the nonsense was about talking. Why not lay down the law, and if they violate it, let's let 'em have it.

It was a Newtonian world. It depended entirely on mechanics. Adolescence, for a boy, was like one long weight-lifting contest. Judging from the kids in this docudrama, things haven't changed much. If anything, they're even dumber. In a recent survey of college seniors, only 23% knew James Madison was "the father of the Constitution" but 98% knew that Snoop Doggy Dog was a rapper. Shameful.

Well, I'm done scolding. Someone help me down off this soap box? Thank you. Four high school kids -- three boys and a homely girl -- are seduced into murdering the husband of a prize-winning insurance salesman by the guy's wife, who is in charge of the high school's Media Center. They shoot the guy in the head and she pays them ten thousand dollars and makes herself into a sexual receptacle for the handsomest boy. I would never have done anything like that in high school. The fist fights were tough enough. Of course, none of our teachers were as fluffy and sexy as Helen Hunt. Not that the young art teacher, Miss Elaine Cohen was a slouch, but it just wouldn't have happened. If Miss Cohen had made herself available and asked me to off her boy friend, I wouldn't have done it. I don't think.

The plot sticks pretty close to the historic events. It's kind of clumsy, the way real life is clumsy. A good dramatic structure would have the kids succeeding on the first try. But, as often happens, these kids are scared by the magnitude of the crime and they fail the first two tests. They're all ready to go -- until it's time to go. Then they "get lost" or the timing was off.

After each failure, a disbelieving Hunt remonstrates with the kids and withholds her sexual favors from the best-looking kid. She finally makes the arrangement that works, while warning them to use only the pistol -- no knives, because knives are sloppy and get blood all over the furniture and carpets and it never comes out. And lock the dog away before you do it. "The last thing I want is a traumatized dog," she mutters in all earnestness.

Helen Hunt handles the role well. She's alluring in a curious way, with an oddly shaped nose and drooping epicanthic folds. Nicely built, too. The kids aren't as good. Actually, they're pretty bad. The "handsome kid" can act about as well as you or I can. The girl is a bit more convincing in projecting a character with the intelligence and moral sensibilities of a rather mature head of broccoli.

Hunt's motives are left murky. Was she jealous of Greg's success? Not likely, because she'd just gotten a promotion herself. Another lover somewhere? Nah. Greg was faithful, and she was only manipulating the kid she was banging. Money? It's not mentioned.

The reason we're puzzled is that we sometimes treat life as if it were a coherent and easily grasped fictional narrative, something out of Agatha Christie. It's difficult for us to understand that the exercise of power can itself be a powerful motive. The ability to bend others to your will. It's one of the reasons people want to be president, even though they make less money than a professional ball player. It's the only reason Charles Manson organized his family. Another motive is related to Munchausen syndrome by proxy. Everyone will shower tears and affection on the poor bereaved widow. Also a good murder will bring a few moments of excitement to a boring marriage, while at the same time ending it.

If you want to see an excellent, if fictionalized, dramatization of the Pamela Smart story, see if you can find "To Die For." Nobody is more seductive than Nicole Kidman as Pamela Smart -- and no one could be more stupid than Joaquin Phoenix as the handsomest boy.

If there was a time when a movie should have been longer "Murder In New Hampshire: The Pamela Smart Story" was one. The movie which is poorly casted seems rushed. We do get very little time to really get into the characters let alone feel for anyone. Helen Hunt as Pamela Smart is over the top and so convincing. Chad Allen as William "Billy" Flynn I think couldn't act his way out of a room with no walls.

While the actors who portray the kids are well below par the actors playing the adults are above par. The main issue though that this movie has is it spends too much time showing the intimacy between Pamela and Billy that it starts to lose track on the main plot. What should have been a 3 hour movie to really balance it out is only 90 minutes and the amount of information they had up to that point was enough to give the viewer a real dose of what happened.

I have read everything on this case even two books and I admit they skipped a lot. She was as innocent as Godzilla is real. She used her body to seduce a 15 year old and convinced him to kill her husband. The kids were actually slow learners and very unpopular at school. Pamela on the other hand wanted success on the level of Barbara Walters and was intimidated by the fact that she was stuck teaching kids that were not as smart as they should have been. This movie just doesn't show the dark side as it could have but I will add that it did do a better job than "To Die For".

It just comes off as a average TV movie that could have been much more than what it is.

Largely disappointing film which does a terrible job of accounting the shocking and brutal murder of a young newly married New Hampshire man at the hands of his wife's school boy lover and his teenage friends.

Neither Joyce Chopra nor her screen writing team have made any attempt to emotionally involve their audience, and any attention to the details of this tragic case is completely non-existent, thus leaving the viewers frustrated and starved of information.

The entire cast are all very ordinary and uninspiring which results in a potentially fascinating and aggravating true story (although claimed to be fictitious in the end credits) becoming an uninteresting drag. Watch an old "Colombo" re-run instead!

Thursday, August 4, 1994 - T.V.

I loved this movie. It's too bad that Pamela Smart does not take any responsibility for any of her crimes and actions. She is as guilty as anyone can be. I'm glad she ran out of appeals and legal options and that her pardon was denied. She took them to the Federal level. She says she deserves leniency because she's been good in prison. I don't know about you but I think people are supposed to be good in prison. Chad Allen was great in this movie.

Reasons Pamela smart is guilty: 1. She had an affair with a teenage boy.

2. She is a sociopatic liar.

3. She is cold hearted.

4. She did not show any emotion when her husband was murdered.

5. Denial.

6. Knew everything about the crime.

7. Jury and evidence found her guilty.