Film critic Kirk Nicewonger said the film "takes a serious issue ... and manages to turn it into a ludicrous exercise in scenery-chewing and cliche-spewing". He notes that it is inspired by a true story, but opines "there's no reason that a decent movie can't be made out of this material". He further laments that the movie "draws its characters so cartoonishly that it's impossible to take seriously". He states that Michael Gross's character "does everything but twirl his mustache and tie Kramer's character to the railroad tracks", and that Kramer's acting is "so woodenly upright that she could pass for a
mizzenmast". Movie reviewer John Martin says the issue with the film is that "you know that the villain will eventually be caught" and you "never feel much affinity for the heroine in the fact-based tale". He says Gross is "effective" in his role, and that Kramer's acting had "little strength or passion". In her review, Suzanne Gill wryly asks; "was the title of the movie drawn from a fish bowl on the network receptionist's desk?" She argues that with "disappointing predictability, the forces of good and evil sally forth onto the field of honor" in the film, and that Gross is "a suitably oily and malevolent Romeo", but the story would have been better "suited for NBC's Dateline than the Monday Night Movie". Carole Horst wrote in
Variety Magazine that the "script does a good job focusing on abuse of power, exposing the pain that the victims of sexual harassment endure, especially the self-blame and loss of self-esteem". She complimented director Chuck Bowman for "keeping the pace snappy and the story rolling and interesting". Horst also notes the "lovely British Columbia locations" used in the film. ==See also==