Guilt

Low-budget, some wooden acting and dialogue (particularly the receptionist). There is a decent kernel of a story which, with more polished directing, casting and dialogue could have been an above average Michael Winnerish sort of film. Best actor: Tom Wilson as Mitchell - the counsellor's former patient who comes clean about making stories up about his 'abuser'.

Janet should be in hundreds of movies. I look at some of her activities, as in helping people across the universe. This brings tears to my eyes in a joyous occasion. She my favorite. Shay,I believe God is really gonna take you places that no man can block.

Boring and pointless. The vigilante looked more like a guy than a gal. She was built like a Russian hod carrier. Narrative could have been written by a 12 year old. It goes nowhere.

The film could have been enhanced with better casting, tightening of the edit and a proper sound design and mix. So much foley was completely missing or off the mark. Not enough bold atoms and sfx work. Score mixed flat without volume dynamics. Some of the shot framing was random and artlessly executed, with mostly uninteresting camera positions and shot combinations. As a result of the aforementioned, there's little tension and atmosphere within the film. Some of the actors were not believable. The first victim, and the receptionist, the casting for these two - terrible. The lead protagonist could act well but was the wrong choice for the role. The Grace actor was doing a good job but it's up to the director to calibrate her and the other actors to perform more or less extreme in places. It's hard to pinpoint what is wrong. While watching, it felt like a bit of everything could be improved. Casting and sound (sfx, score, mix) were the biggest sore thumbs for me. Always willing to give Aussie flicks a go, but I can't pull punches just because it's Aussie.

Gosh Whatta great surprise of a movie..... Really enjoyed it from the excellent start, the twist midway then to the solid ending. I was super impressed with Janet Shay ...... Her varied looks were awesome..... From tough / mean to sweet / empathetic then to smart / sexy...... EXCELLENT Find!!!

For an apparently low-budget Indy film, I thought the acting, directing, and staging was well-done. It held my interest. It's not a vigilante film so much as a character study but which shows some of the violent acts. There are no scenes of children being abused so I disagree with calling it a difficult subject; the subject of the film is the shrink, who they explain has been in war zones as a military doctor, and then hint that she stopped treating children because it was too difficult for her to see their pain. The film briefly reveals that her own sister had been abused as a child and that Jess feels guilty for not having been able to stop it. Most reviewers mistake the Guilt as being Jess's when it's revealed one of her victims had not actually molested anyone. In the film, we are expected to take that at face-value yet in the real world many adults who were molested as children start denying the abuse in an effort to reclaim a normal life. Here, the child, now 17, admits the truth and then kills himself. Jess does go through some emotional dilemma at that point, but whether she feels guilt for any of her deeds she proceeds to commit another murder: Grace. Jess saw through Grace's lawyer-concocted defense, as could the audience. In the end, we see Jess going off to start her hobby in a new town, presumably with a new identity. As a woman with a degree in psychology, we know her having a cork-board in her living-room and a detailed journal was not because of a lack of intelligence but because she felt what she was doing was very important -- insanity aside. I think the title, Guilt, stems from her not being able to save her sister from being abuse, yet that is such a small conversation in the film most viewers miss it and think Jess feels guilty for her crimes, as does the write-up.

This is the type of chick flick I can get behind! The acting was great, cinematography excellent, and the plot awesome! Anyone rating this under 6 stars is guilty of the crimes committed in this movie . Thanks!

I realize a movie is only as good as its writers and what is allowed on camera. So I'll give the actors and actresses a pass for this analysis. As shared by a few others, the story was very predictable. It jumped around a bit, trying to rush through the story, but could have used a bit more filling in the gaps to what brought the main character to her behavior. Speaking of the main character, I kept being reminded of "The Punisher" or "The Phantom" same idea of vigilante justice. If action wasn't the main idea behind the film, even the sneaking out of the house, just before the police got there, could have used more camera time. There were a few long pauses, where film time could have been better used, lessening the dead space between scenes. Could have used less of the times dragging each body to their demise, maybe just a hit here and there, till the second to last one or maybe the very first one, then insinuate the rest. Anything to shorten the film, giving space for deeper content to fill that space. Anyway, this is just my humble opinion. I'm no film producer; I simply love movies and have been enjoying film for many great years and could see this film going much further, but the ending had me wanting deeper content, more meat behind the story.

Dr. Jessie Muller served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and her experience may may have changed her forever. As a psychologist, she is now a dedicated professional who used to work with children. It turns out, however, that she is leading a secret life as a vigilante murdering pedophiles after they have been released from prison. The film's title gets at the heart of a shocking revelation to Dr. Muller that at least one of her killings was based on false evidence and that she killed an innocent man. But that insight does not change the doctor's behavior. She brutally kills Grace O'Connor, who fell into a grey area because of the abuse she received from a monster. The court suspended her sentence and allowed her to walk free. Dr. Muller should have recognized that the woman may have been suffering from the Stockholm Syndrome. The filmmakers were successful in dveloping a nuanced protagonist and an intriguing set of characters surrounding her. One of the most interesting is Helen, the receptionist at the psychiatry office, who senses that something is deeply troubling Dr. Muller. After Helen discovers the doctor's diary, the walls will start closing in on her. The sadistic Dr. Muller sees herself as an avenging angel. But her overweening righteousness eventually catches up with her. The film was excessively violent, especially in the treatment of Grace O'Connor. But there was an effective, ambiguous ending to the film that suggested that the doctor may be granted the precious "second chance" in life that she denied the victims of her merciless fury.

First off, she is a bad-ass. It does have a clever twist in the middle that make you think, but other than that, you are all in for Vigilante Jessie. Wish we had more vigilantes in the world.