Trust (2000 TV Movie) User Reviews

Caroline Goodall and Nathaniel "hubba hubba" Parker

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 19 June 2012]

I love the way British do mysteries, and I love Nathaniel Parker, so I was eager to watch "Trust," a 2000 film.

A "brief" (attorney)Anne Travers played by Caroline Goodall finds that she has to serve as her husband Michael Mitcham's (Mark Strong) attorney when he is arrested for the murder of a prostitute. Unfortunately the case is filled with obstacles, not the least of which is that Anne finds out about an incident before they were married, and some affairs since. Anne is no saint herself - she's sleeping with his best friend, Andrew (Parker); however, she has ended it. Andrew, however, is pretty persistent. The evidence against Michael is mounting. Then devastating surprise testimony all but ruins the case.

Very good, if too long given the script, with red herrings and a neat twist. With something like this, I find it's best not to analyze the plot too much unless I really loathe it and need to find something wrong. Otherwise I just buy into it.

I do agree with other reviewers on this site that it ran long and that the characters were not very likable. However, I liked it. Strong had the strongest role and delivered; Nathaniel Parker was sexy and hard to read, which was totally appropriate; and Goodall gives an emotional performance.

It kept me watching, that's for sure.

Trust Is a Three-Way Street

[nammage · 6/10 · 18 November 2018]

Caroline Goodall plays the lawyer Anne Travers who ends up defending her husband (Mark Strong) from a terrible crime of murder. From early on and up to almost the very end the question is: did he actually do it? It doesn't really matter because he's guilty of so many other things such as: adulterer, fathering a child wih another woman that he may or may not have raped, and many more disgusting things. But if you're thinking 'poor ol' Anne' well, she has done some terrible things, too, such as holding over her husband's affair over him while she's currently in an affair with a man named Andrew (Nathaniel Parker), and also she may have also committed an attempted murder (or murder) herself with a woman that her husband was having an affair with. Ooooh, the drama!

It's easy to figure out that there's really no one in this film to root for but I don't think that's the point of this film. Usually, that's how it is. Investing in a character to root for. No need in this film.

I saw this on Prime as a two-part TV series but it's actually just a one part TV Movie. It was overly dramatic in some scenes and usually I would count that as a negative but I felt it actually worked here. Overall, while not a great film I did enjoy it...for what it was.

A compelling movie

[Freddie-6 · 4 September 1999]

This is a good English movie.The plot was well thought out,and the standard of acting was high,which you would expect from the cast of seasoned personnel.My only complaint was that the movie seemed to be stretched out and maybe could have run for 20 minutes less.

Couldn't stop watching.

[suescatlady · 9/10 · 9 September 2022]

Really fine acting. Especially Nathaniel Parker. I was sure I knew who did it. I didn't. Did the author write the script and lose interest the last 10 minutes? The ending doesn't fit. It is like someone who wasn't familiar with the story wrote the ending. Why didn't the killers actions leave tell tale signs of guilt? While the ending is implausable and disappointing it doesn't negate the quality of the performance. It just leaves the watcher frustrated by a really odd ending that doesn't make any sense.

Fine movie. Worthy of 2-1/2 hours of viewing. Just too bad the ending was so poorly crafted. Almost like putting a dill pickle on top of an ice cream sundae. What one wants is a cherry on top. Something that fits and compliments.

Residing in the states, unfamiliar with most of the actors. I have seen a few shows with Nathaniel Parker and have enjoyed all of his performances. He always comes across as a likeable character.

Inconsistencies and Plot Holes Spoil Thriller

[gcd70 · 4/10 · 2 May 2010]

Another run of the mill thriller from England which is spoiled by too many inconsistencies. David Drury's film from Richard McBrien's script has too many plot holes, and one too many coincidences leave the viewer disbelieving and flat.

"Trust" really felt like a made for television venture, and clearly needed a great deal more work on plot and character development. You will end up not caring who did what and why. The cast included the talented Caroline Goodall, as well as Chris Armstrong, Patrick Field and Christopher Beaumont.

Saturday, September 11, 1999 - T.V.

Contrived ending ruins the rest

[khatcher-2 · 5/10 · 24 October 2004]

What at first appears to be an excellent 'whodunnit' in the best British style, with pretty good performances all round, 'Trust' carefully constructs an interesting scenario in a very plausible step-by-step process which keeps the viewer glued to the screen. A woman's body is spewed out of the back of a refuse truck onto one of those great urban rubbish dumps; she is thought to be a prostitute.......but is she?

The film is up to the level of and comparable with Diarmuid Lawrence's highly recommendable 'The Echo' (1998) (TV) (qv) - until the final scenes, that is. As the denouément is sputtered out, the totally implausible outcome renders all that has gone before to the level of a cheap Agatha Christie story.

Plot holes galore -- just a total mess

[scottjtepper · 3/10 · 13 May 2020]

This dog of a TV movie is currently playing on Amazon Prime. When it was broadcast it was a four parter. It's been condensed to two parts. But whoever put it up on Amazon wasn't very careful. Part 2 is interrupted 4 times with several minutes of black screen and then a count down from what was supposed to be a commercial insertion to the movie again. But no worries -- that actually improves this mess.

The plot holes are hilarious. When Dr. Michael Mitcham's long time friend Andrew Pearce turns on him at trial and testifies falsely to make it appear that Mitcham murdered the victim, Anne Travers, Mitcham's wife and his solicitor at trial (I am not making this up!), meets him in his cell during a break in the trial and asks him to think of something that would help his case. Something! Anything! Of course, this is ridiculous since it turns out Travers killed the victim.

And the final scene. Is it a flashback or has Travers "taken back" Pearce as her lover. (I am not making this up!)

What a catastrophe of a film. The producers of this catastrophe had no respect for their audience, lying all the way through and foisting completely dishonest scenes on the audience which were inconsistent with the "truth" revealed at the end.

If you have two and a half hours to waste, spend that time scrolling through the second half of the movie on Amazon Prime and watch the blank commercial inserts.