Nowhere to Hide (1994 TV Movie) User Reviews

Got what I bargained for...

[ncduvall · 7/10 · 6 July 2006]

Well OK, it's a made for TV movie and it was showing on Lifetime Network so with all that aside...I'm just a Bakula fan. I have a Tivo search for Bakula showings and this auto-recorded. Actually, not a bad story at all if you can tolerate the Arquette family and a too-neat wrap it up kind of ending.

I enjoyed most of the movie's progression and I agree with the last comment post that the the kid's character was as oblivious as dry toast. However one can see he wasn't the center point of the movie other than the plot point that she was a perfect mother with total dedication to her only child.

This would have made a fantastic novel if the last five minutes of the movie were stretched out over a few chapters involving a long, drawn out set up. The TVM seems to be edited down to "we've only got five minutes left so wrap this thing up quick". It was a good movie to satisfy my Scott Bakula in a romantic role fix on a slow day.

Heavy on Drama and Light on Action

[Uriah43 · 5/10 · 30 September 2013]

"Sarah Blake" (Rosanna Arquette) is pending a divorce from her wealthy husband, "Sam Blake" (Max Pomeranc) and in the upcoming settlement she stands to make a fortune. Obviously, her husband doesn't like the settlement and decides to take matters into his own hands. As a result, Sarah is taken into the "protective witness program" in order to escape a contract taken out on her. In charge of defending her is a special agent named "Kevin Nicholas" (Scott Bakula) who goes to great lengths to keep her completely hidden. Anyway, rather than spoil the film for those who haven't seen it I will just say that this is a made-for-television movie that has some good points and some bad points as well. For one thing, it was rather heavy on drama and light on action. But then I suppose it had to be. I liked the surprising twist towards the end but I thought the actual ending was much too abrupt and convenient. Even so, I thought both Scott Bakula and Rosanna Arquette turned in adequate performances and overall the film was somewhat entertaining. All things considered I rate it as average.

A good premise with a weak ending!

[gazineo-1 · 5/10 · 17 July 2002]

Average mystery where a young and beautiful woman (Arquette) and her son are harrased by his ex-husband after the divorce. Afterward, enter the police and finally the FBI that offered special protection for the lady in distress because her ex-husband would be a great boss in the ranks of the organized crime in America. But is it the true? Good premise and so-so development completely marred by a simple and unconvincing ending. I give this a 5 (five).

Standard TVM, great twist - spoilt by poor, rushed ending

[bob the moo · 4 December 2001]

Sarah is going through her divorce where she has won custody of her son, 2 houses, half a business and a million cash. She is the target of an attempted murder and taken into protective custody of the FBI and she discovers her ex-husband is a leading mobster and her testimony is needed to put him on trial. With her life more in danger than ever she, her son Sam and FBI Agent Kevin Nicholas.

This starts as a pretty standard "woman in peril" TV movie and really stays that way for most of it. The film doesn't have that much excitement and just moves from one location to another with the main strand of the film being the romance between Sarah (Rosanna Arquette) and Kevin (Scott Bakula).

The performances are standard at best. Arquette is quite good as the woman in danger, but some scenes are just terrible - in the first five minutes alone she "plays" piano with her son as they both nod to different beats without seeming to move their arms sideways. Bakula is far too rigid as the FBI agent making it difficult to like his character and it makes the later romance with Arquette seem really unlikely. The standout performance is Max Pomeranc as the child Sam. He was brilliant in Innocent Moves and was good here too, but even he has very little to do.

20 minutes from the end there is a really good twist - I honestly didn't see it coming. And it is devastating - even more so because you don't expect something clever in a film of this standard. Unfortunately, rather than end the film on a bombshell that would have been a great (albeit sad) ending, the film stretches it out for another 20 minutes to get to a very lazy, convenient "happy" ending. This really blows it for me and I would much rather have seen the film end on a really clever twist.

Overall this is a pretty dull TVM. The thriller doesn't work and the romance is unconvincing. The twist is really good but bottles it and gives the TV audience what it wants - a happy ending that doesn't stretch your brain at all.

A pretty good TV movie

[stevepb · 6/10 · 5 January 2022]

This one's improbable but likeable, and as good or better than most made-for-TV movies, largely thanks to Rosanna Arquette.

There are some nice touches and a sense that everybody was doing their best to make it work.

When the complicated twist was revealed, I looked at my watch and saw the movie had about 10 minutes to run. Like others here, I wondered how the hell are they going to resolve all this? They sorta did, and sorta didn't.

I guess Rosanna Arquette just moved on to the next project and maybe never even saw the final cut of this. Whatever, she delivered a solid, honest performance.

Finally, I know I'm being pedantic, but it was an episode of "The Lucy Show" the kid was watching, not "I Love Lucy".

not for Scott fans!

[IsraeliClown · 4/10 · 11 October 2008]

Although i had heard this film was a little dry, I watch whatever Scott Bakula is in. At the start of this film I had high hopes for the classic cheesy but enjoyable Scott-gets-girl ending and until 20 minutes before the end it was going great. The plot twist was crazy and unexpected and very clever. I kept my fingers crossed that it would work out and it would all be some horrible misunderstanding, right up until when the credits rolled and I realised that there was not going to be a happy and contented ending. Unfortunately i was left regretting that i'd watched it and hurriedly putting on some quantum leap to restore my faith in the goodness of the Great Scott!

No Reason To Watch

[Theo Robertson · 3/10 · 20 May 2003]

Oh a vaguely once famous actress in a film where she plays a mother to a child . It`s being shown on BBC 1 at half past midnight , I wonder if ... yup it`s a TVM

You`ve got to hand it to TVM producers , not content on making one mediocre movie , they usually give us two mediocre movies where two themes are mixed together and NOWHERE TO HIDE is no different . The first theme is a woman in danger theme cross pollinated with a woman suffering from the pain of a divorce theme which means we have a scene of the heroine surviving a murder attempt followed by a scene having her son Sam ask why she divorced ? And being a TVM she answers that the reason is " That people change " rather than say something along the lines like " I`m a right slapper " or Your daddy cruises mens public toilets for sex " as does happen in real life divorce cases . And it`s young Sam I feel sorry for , not only are his parents divorced but he`s as thick as two short planks . Actually since he`s so stupid he deserves no sympathy because he`s unaware that a man flushing stuff down a toilet is a drug dealer , unaware that you might die if someone shoots at you , and unaware that I LOVE LUCY is painfully unfunny . If only our own childhoods were so innocent , ah well as Orwell said " Ignorance is strength " . Oh hold on Sam is suddenly an expert on marine life ! Is this character development or poor scripting ? I know what one my money`s on . And strange that Sam the boy genuis hasn`t noticed that if the story is set in 1994 then why do people often wear clothes , drive cars and ride trains from the 1950s ? But as it turns out during a plot twist it`s the mother who`s the dummy . Then there`s a final plot twist that left me feeling like an idiot for watching this

A Brilliant True-Story. Be Careful Who You Trust.

[famousgir1 · 10/10 · 18 November 2001]

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** ******May Contain Minor Spoilers******

Sarah Blake is a wealthy, divorced woman with a son, Sammy. When she finds out that her husband and his Mafia connections plan to kill her, the FBI put her under a Witness Protection Program, and tell her that so she can be protected, she and her son have to get new identities, and move away from there old town, etc. What she doesn't know though is that the so-called FBI who are protecting her and one of the agents on the program, who she ends up sleeping with and falling in love with, are NOT the real FBI and are also involved with her husband in getting all of Sarah's money and her son.

The cast in this movie, including Rosanna Arquette who plays the lead role Sarah Blake all give good performances here.

Nowhere To Hide is a great true-story and I haven't seen one like this in quite a while now. I can't believe what this woman has been put through. What a horrible husband she had. And, the guys pretending to be the FBI are horrible. How could someone do that? I'm glad they all got what was coming to them at the end of the movie. At least Sarah and her son were okay. It just shows you really have to be careful who you trust. If you want to see a great and exciting true-story movie, then Nowhere To Hide is for you and I give it a 10/10.

One for Rosanna Arquette completists only, and even they'll get more excitement from any episode of "Lizzie McGuire."

[Victor Field · 25 May 2003]

Few performers can claim to have made two unrelated movies that make a perfect double bill; Rosanna Arquette made "Nowhere To Run" in 1993, and the following year she starred in "Nowhere To Hide." Now, she has done some good TV projects - "The Executioner's Song," "Promised A Miracle" and "Son of the Morning Star" come to mind - but this is closer to "Poison" and "I Know What You Did" on the quality scale, alas.

From the opening scene with Rosanna and Max Pomeranc (as her son) engaging in the least convincing piano miming in screen history, you know you're not in for a quality watch; the basic storyline had possibilities - a soon-to-be-divorced woman (Miss Arquette) finds out that her soon-to-be-ex wants to kill her, and goes under the protection of FBI agent Scott Bakula - but the actual movie is so spectacularly dull that it took me three tries to get through it, something no movie with Rosanna Arquette has ever required me to do. (Not even "Off The Wall.")

You don't get much in the way of action, or even emotion, though it's unusual to see an American movie actually have Vancouver play itself for once instead of standing in for various U.S. cities (though it does that here as well). Bakula's too stiff to make an impact, and though Rosanna tries hard you get the impression she doesn't care much for the script... not that you can blame her. It's not until towards the end that it remembers it's supposed to be a thriller and throws in a couple of genuinely surprising plot twists, but by then it's too little too late. Call it a missed opportunity; a good storyline ruined by bad execution.

Executive producer Stan Rogow's other credits include "Lizzie McGuire." An animated version of Rosanna Arquette supplying commentary would have enlivened this 'un no end.

Unfairly mistreated by viewers. As an MTV movie it is excellent.

[claudg1950 · 10/10 · 26 February 2023]

Viewers are unfair in their criticisms of a film which, in my opinion, should have been shown in theaters. For example, watch how agent Nicholas is introduced. The writing there is superb. The man is really anal retentive; a robot, as Sarah points out. Later he melds into an attractive human being, and finally turns again and becomes a despicable eel. Equally convincing at all times: a great performance by Mr. Bakula.

Think of the main twist, twenty minutes before the end: it is shocking; those claiming they saw it coming are lying. Even in the final scene, the outcome of the dialogue with the ex husband is not obvious, because Sarah's situation had been taken to such an extreme of despair that a sad ending seemed to be the only reasonable conclusion.

All dialogues are very well written. And they are convincing: that is why the final twist is unpredictable. Experienced Dan Gordon, someone who knows how to write, was behind this.

In addition to Mr. Bakula, acting is impeccable by every other character; nothing wrong to say there either.

If we are going to be stuffy and look for any flaw, perhaps we may say the attempts on Sarah's life were too elaborate; unnecessarily complicated and prone to failure, to the point of being hard to believe. But they add to the general impression the makers so aptly managed to convey: this is not, after all, Italian neorrealism; it is a suspense film, a genre where "larger than life" is almost customary.

If someone thinks this is not a swell film my advice is: now that you know the ending, watch it again and tell us where the falsity can be noticed. I bet that even with the advantage of hindsight a fair viewer should admit that the product is flawless.