Change Your Image
vnssyndrome89
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Psycho Storm Chaser (2021)
"I don't like there to be screaming...until the end."
🌀PSYCHO STORM CHASER🌀 (TV movie 2021)
5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:16 min
BASIC PLOT:
Carl Highstrom (Rib Hillis) is having a bad couple of years. Being a meteorologist, and a storm chaser, he doesn't understand why people don't listen to weather warnings. He's decided it's his mission to make people listen, and those that don't, will have more to deal with than just the storm. Unfortunately, not everyone can evacuate when a storm's coming. This is the case for Ella Banks (Mary O'Neil). Her sister Hannah (Clarke Wolfe) is in a coma, and is being cared for by in home nurses, Abby (Tara Erickson) and Tony (Ali Zahiri). There is no one to help them move Hannah, when the evacuation order for Hurricane Carrie is issued. So, Ella and the nurses have decided to stay and care for her themselves. Little do they know, Carl knows of their intentions, and doesn't approve. He's already "taken care" of their neighbors, who had similar plans. Can Abby, Tony, Ella and Hannah survive the storm, and the Psycho Storm Chaser?
WHAT WORKS:
*RIB HILLIS IS PERFECT AS CARL HIGHSTROM - THE PSYCHO STORM CHASER I am a huge fan of Rib Hillis. He plays these melodramatic villains so well, and he's in on the joke, never trying to play it straight. His pastiche of different evil characters makes the movie hilarious, and very entertaining. Great job!
*THE ACTING IS DECENT FROM EVERYONE
I was never thrown out of the movie because of poor acting. For a low budget, made-for-tv melodrama, the acting is above average.
*THE STORM IS CREATED WELL, ESPECIALLY ON SUCH A LOW BUDGET
Yes, some of the CGI is cheesy, but it's supposed to be. This is a cheesy melodrama, so it fits right in!
*I LOVE THEY LEFT THIS OPEN FOR A SEQUEL Please! Create "Psycho Storm Chaser II"!!!
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*THEY DON'T BOARD THE WINDOWS In a hurricane, whether you stay or go, you board the windows. They don't even board the windows in the room with the comatose sister, flying debris would destroy the windows and the house very quickly.
*ANY COP WOULD CALL IN TWO HOMICIDE VICTIMS BEFORE SEARCHING THE HOUSE He would request backup before searching, and he would request some kind of assistance, even in a hurricane (especially at the beginning, before the storm locked people down).
WE NEVER REALLY KNOW WHY JACK & ABBY ARE HAVING PROBLEMS It would have been better to know, because it's the question everyone is asking, and there's never an answer.
*THESE TYPES OF MELODRAMAS, DON'T HAVE TO BE SO BLOODY At least when it comes to the main characters, a maiming, or being knocked unconscious works just as well as a murder. As far as all the other ancillary characters, killing is fine, but killing the main characters IS NOT NEEDED! It sometimes hurts the story, as it does here (it would have been better to just eliminate the character- have him knocked out, instead of kill him).
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*If you enjoy and understand the melodramatic art form, you'll like this. It's silly fun, it's a quality low budget atmospheric, and it's an enjoyable way to turn your brain off for a few hours. If you don't understand parody, or melodrama, if your take on life is a humorless one, I'd recommend watching something else. This type of entertainment is not meant to be taken seriously, it's almost parody, it's in on the joke, and invites you along for the ride. Bring a rain slicker!
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
A Husband's Confession (2015)
This movie can't decide what it wants to be... So it fails at everything
THE PREACHER'S SIN/A HUSBAND'S CONFESSION (TV movie 2015)
2 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:03 min
BASIC PLOT:
Evan Tanning (JR Bourne) is a successful preacher for a large congregation, and has a flourishing radio show. But his boss, Bill Taggart (Bill Lake) is a bit of a tool. He thinks he owns Evan, and when family struggles arise, Bill lowers the hammer on Evan.
When Evan was a young man, he joined the Army, and had a loving relationship with a woman named Monica (Diane White). Unbeknownst to Evan, she has a son, and now that she's dying of cancer, she wants her son to have a father. For some unknown reason, this puts Evan's job at risk. Having a biracial son you didn't know about is apparently something to be ashamed of.
He's also having trouble with his niece Jamie (Allie Gonino), who recently came to live with his family, after her mother's suicide. She's getting into trouble, and her boyfriend is coveted by Bill Taggart 's daughter, Tinsley (Stephanie La Rochelle). This is creating additional problems for everyone.
Will Evan ever learn to stand up for himself, and his family, and finally understand what it means to be a man?
WHAT WORKS:
*THE ACTING IS OK BY MOST OF THE PRINCIPAL ACTORS JR Bourne, Tara Spencer-Nairn, Bill Lake & Allie Gonino all do a fine job with such a a flawed script. But it fails them in a myriad of ways.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*THE DIRECTING & CINEMATOGRAPHY IS A MESS We are constantly too far away, and then too close to be an enjoyable watch. I don't know if I should blame the writer/director Michelle Mower, or the cinematographer Bill St. John. They both have a lot to answer for.
*NO HUSBAND, WHO WANTS TO STAY MARRIED, WOULD SIGN A CONTRACT GIVING AWAY 80% OF HIS LIFETIME EARNINGS Especially, when his wife explicitly said she didn't agree, and didn't want him to. He wouldn't sign it, if he wanted to stay married that is. It also makes him pretty unlikable, a cardinal sin in melodramas. We, the viewers, don't respect him, because he's a doormat, and we don't like him, because he treats his boss better than his wife. This is a pretty big flub by the writer, Michelle Mower.
*IN 2015, WOULD IT REALLY BE THAT BIG OF DEAL TO HAVE AN INTERRACIAL SON YOU WERE NEVER TOLD ABOUT? I can see if this were the 1960's-1980's, but 2015? He had a relationship with a black woman, while in the Army, a caring relationship. He shipped out, and she never told him she was pregnant. Why would this be a scandal in 2015? You could spin this into a joyous event, I have a son I didn't know about, so what's the scandal here? Also, why is there no DNA test? Wouldn't that be a requirement?
*I DON'T KNOW MANY TEENAGED BOYS WHO LET THEIR PARENTS DICTATE WHO THEY GO OUT WITH Especially when they are seniors in high school. What's with all the weak, pathetic men in this movie?
*THE SAPPY MUSIC IS AN EPIC FAIL Usually I'm a big fan of music in movies, but this is beyond saccharine, and the cloyingly sweet speeches that go along with it, are just as bad. Your teeth will rot from watching this clap trap.
*THIS MOVIE USES EVERY TRITE, HACKNEYED CLICHÉ IT CAN THINK OF and none of them work. It's a pathetic attempt at drama, and an epic fail as a melodrama.
*THE LAWYER WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THE TAGGARTS AFTER ALREADY TAKING JAMIE'S CASE That's a clear conflict of interest, and not believable in the slightest.
*THERE'S NO NEED FOR THIS FILM TO BE THIS BLOODY This movie can't decide what it wants to be. Is it a teenage conflict movie, is it a long lost son movie, is it a disgraced preacher movie, you'll never know, because it's really none of these. It's a haphazard melange of disjointed ideas that never form a cohesive story.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I DEFINITELY DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE! If you want to watch a good made-for-tv movie about a preacher, try Secrets of Eden (2012) starring John Stamos. It's so much better!
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
The Wrong Nanny (2017)
A Fun, Made-for-TV Time Waster...
HER FORGOTTEN DAUGHTER/THE WRONG NANNY/OUR NANNY'S KILLER SECRET (TV Movie 2017)
5 out of 5 stars Time to read: 1:34
BASIC PLOT:
Stella Armstrong (Lindsay Hartley) is a determined woman. She's trying to plan, and execute a fundraiser for pancreatic cancers. Stella wants to honor her mother, who died from this horrible disease. But things aren't going well, her twin babies are handful, and there's so much to do. Her husband, Tanner (Brody Hutzler), thinks it's high time she revisit the nanny idea, and finally get the help she needs. Stella reluctantly agrees, even though she's not comfortable with a stranger in her house. But the fundraiser is important to her, so she begins to search for a nanny. Most are not a good fit, until she comes across Blake Nolan (Freya Tingley). Blake seems perfect, the boys like her, and she even comes recommended by a trusted family friend (or does she?). Things finally seem to be on track, but Blake has strange emotional outbursts. At first, they seem harmless enough, but as time goes on, Blake's behavior becomes more and more bizarre. Can Stella uncover Blake's true motives in time to save her family from destruction?
WHAT WORKS:
*MOST OF THE ACTORS GIVE ABOVE AVERAGE PERFORMANCES Lindsay Hartley and Brody Hutzler have decent couple energy, and perform their roles well (as they always do). Freya Tingley and Bree Williamson both do a superb job, as the b*tches, one crazy, and the other spoiled. I also like Monique A. Green's portrayal of Juliana, it's only Walt's (Monti Sharp) character that doesn't feel authentic. He feels like an afterthought, or just a plot device, and that's never going to come out well.
*THE TRAILER IS ABOVE AVERAGE
The trailer is better than most, as are most trailers from Reel One Entertainment. I think it gives away a spoiler, but it's still well made, and encourages the viewer to see the movie.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WHY IS DETECTIVE TYLER SUCH AN ASS?
I understand we need Blake to react badly to Detective Tyler (Monti Sharp), but he's too over the top. They don't give us a reason why anyone would like him. This plot device needed to be reworked, his bad behavior literally stops the conversation in the room, and there's an uncomfortable silence. He also has no "bro chemistry," with Tanner (Brody Hutzler). It confuses the audience, as to why he is even in protagonists lives. Either give us a reason why they put up with his bad behavior, or eliminate it. Why not just make Walt a nice guy, and have Blake react badly to Juliana (Monique A. Green), his daughter, instead?
*WHY DOES STELLA HAVE TO GIVE A BAD SPEECH? She's the heroine, we want her to succeed, and show-up Meredith Woodley (Bree Williamson). So, why is her fundraiser speech so terrible? You never want to make your guests feel bad, or uncomfortable, especially when you're trying to get them to donate money. Also, she talks about big prom hair in 1996, but that was '86, not '96. I'm guessing the youngsters who wrote this Carlee Malemute and Jesenia Ruiz aren't aware of that. Hey guys, if you need an '80's or '90's consultant, I'm available. 😉
*THE COVER ART IS BAD
I don't know why it's so hard to find decent cover art these days. There are two posters available, both of them BAD! Neither express the feelings or the ideas of the movie.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*If you understand and enjoy the art form of melodrama, you'll like this. It's a well done, small budget, made-for-tv movie. If you like your characters with more depth, and more than a good vs evil storyline, then give this a pass (and avoid melodramas).
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
*The is a pet peeve, but in today's dumbed down society, I always hate to hear bad grammar in movies and on TV. We should strive for an educated, well spoken society. This movie uses "good" in the place of "well," on two separate occasions. This is incorrect, and an example of bad grammar we have all just adopted. I like this movie, and think Carlee Malemute and Jesenia Ruiz did a fine job writing it. But as writers, they have a responsibility to themselves, and their audience, to strive for excellence.
Demons from Her Past (2007)
Decent acting can't save this terrible script...
DEMONS FROM HER PAST (TV movie 2007)
3 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3:30 min
BASIC PLOT:
Allison Buchanan (Alexandra Paul) was robbed of the best years of her life, and what's worse, they were stolen by people she thought were her friends. The summer after high school was supposed to be about carefree adventures, something to enjoy before the obligations of her full ride scholarship weighed her down with responsibilities. But sometimes dreams can vanish in the blink of an eye, or be purloined by well placed lies, and that's what happened to Allison on a sunny afternoon in 1981.
Always responsible, Allison was driving three friends home from the lake, where they had been drinking all day. By late afternoon, the three boys, K. C. Hollings (Rob Stewart), Quentin Baxter (John Ralston), and Jeremy Warner (Kevin Jubinville) were all intoxicated, and acting stupid. On the way home, K. C. grabbed the wheel from Allison, and stepped on the accelerator, causing the car to hit a small child on a bicycle. While Allison ran to the child's side, and held his hand as he passed away, her "friend's" all ran away. They concocted an alibi with Quinton's brother, Ray (Michael Woods), who was a few years older, and had bought them the alcohol. They all claimed they were never with Allison in her car, but were together playing football. Allison paid a debt that wasn't hers, spending three years in prison. She let sleeping dogs lie for thirty years, but now she's ready to clear her name, and correct a terrible injustice that befell her, and the young boy on the bicycle.
Allison's determination to right this wrong is leading her into a perilous quagmire of blind corners, and impassible pitfalls.
Those irresponsible boys are now (for the most part) powerful men, with lots to lose. Their lie looms like a shadow over their successful and prosperous lives. They will do whatever it takes to stop Allison from achieving what she wants most - retribution.
WHAT WORKS:
*ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE FOR A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE This script is a waste of Alexandra Paul, John Ralston, Michael Woods, Cynthia Gibb and Rob Stewart's acting talents. It's also not worthy of Christine Conradt, who I know can do better than this.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*IF SOMEONE'S GRABBING THE WHEEL, WHILE YOU'RE DRIVING, WHY DON'T YOU SLAM ON THE BREAKS? Why would you continue to drive, and let him push on the gas? Why didn't Allison put both feet on the brakes, and hold them there?
*HILLBILLY POLICE HARASSMENT DOESN'T WORK IN MODERN TIMES If this was 1969, and we were watching Easy Rider (1969), I'd believe this type of hillbilly police brutality & abuse of power. But it's not, it's 2007, and this plotline does not work in the modern age. She's a woman on a mission - to take down powerful men. She'd know who to call when the harassment began, the state police, the justice department, the governor's office etc. She'd have a plan in place for their retaliation. If she didn't, she's an idiot, and deserves to die. Second, why do the preparators not have a plan for Allison's return? Why are they winging it, like planting guns on her, and expecting the arrest to stick? (How are you going to arrest someone for possession of a gun, when her fingerprints wouldn't be on it? It would be thrown out of court because the arresting officer had a grudge etc. Etc. Etc.) These inane plotlines are stupid, and JUST DON'T WORK Christine Conradt!
*WE'VE HAD THESE THINGS CALLED P-O-L-Y-G-R-A-P-H-S FOR OVER 100 YEARS They are tools the police and attorneys love! Allison, or her lawyer, would have demanded she take one to determine who was telling the truth. That would go a long way to proving who's right, especially if the results were leaked to the press.
*WE'VE HAD THESE THINGS CALLED B-R-E-A-T-H-A-L-Y-Z-E-R-S SINCE 1954 But we're supposed to believe Allison didn't have access to a breathalyzer either, they just convicted her for vehicular manslaughter with what? Magic fairy dust? Alien death rays? Those are about as believable as this terrible script.
*THE POLICE HAVE HAD THIS TOOL CALLED F-I-N-G-E-R-P-R-I-N-T-I-N-G SINCE 1910 But we're supposed to be believe the police didn't fingerprint Allison's steering wheel or car to verify her story?!
*WHY DOES BRIGITTE NOT KNOW WHO JC IS? One of Allison's betrayer's is now a prominent doctor, Dr. Warner, who has a fiancée, Brigitte. Dr. Warner plays poker every Wednesday night with K. C., so how come Brigette doesn't know who he is? Doesn't she wonder where her fiancée goes every Wednesday? Didn't she ever ask?
*SHERIFF BAXTER TOOK DRUG MONEY FROM A DRUG BUST, BUT HIS CAR DEALER FRIEND SAVES HIM FROM INTERNAL AFFAIRS? We're supposed to believe Internal Affairs took the word of a convicted drug dealer about stolen drug money, and that IA was going to press charges against Sheriff Baxter, on the drug dealer's word alone? Really? We're also supposed to believe Sheriff Baxter's friend, K. C. Hollings, a car dealership owner, somehow stepped in with IA, and saved him? How would someone who runs a car dealership be able to do that? Why would the audience believe it?
*VOICEOVER IS A LAZY SCREENWRITER'S TOOL Especially, when it begins suddenly at the hour and half mark.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I cannot recommend such a flawed script to anyone, and it's a shame, because the acting is above average for a made-for-tv movie. But Christine Conradt, the screenwriter, often leaves these types of giant plotholes in her scripts. You can't pretend there's no CSI, or police investigation tools, like polygraphs, fingerprints or breathalyzers in 1981, because THOSE TOOLS EXISTED. Police relied on those tools, more than they relied on a scared teenager's word. So, if your whole premise is so flawed, as not to be believed, it doesn't matter how good your actor's are. They aren't going to make your script watchable. I don't understand why Christine Conradt keeps making these kinds of mistakes, when there are workarounds. It's a shame, and after this many flawed scripts, she can't blame it on inexperience anymore. If you're looking for quality made-for-tv entertainment, and you're a fan of Rob Stewart, try My Mother's Secret (2012). If you're a fan of Cynthia Gibb, try Stalker's Prey (2017), and if you're a fan of Alexandra Paul, try Born and Missing (2017). Trust me, those are all quality made-for-tv movies, and this is not.
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Fatal Memories (2015)
Ludicrous, banal storylines are a waste of decent actors...
FATAL MEMORIES (TV Movie) 2015
1.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3:30min (lots to gripe about)
Plotlines are reminiscent of 11-year-old girls playing Barbies...
BASIC PLOT:
Sutton Roberts (Italia Ricci) is trying to save her little sister, April Parker (Magda Apanowicz), from a life behind bars. A year ago, Sutton found April over the dead body of their mother, and it's been downhill every since. April spent a year in a mental hospital, and now that she's out, Sutton only has six weeks to prepare to defend April at trial. She also has to deal with Glenn, her weak, pathetic husband (Zak Santiago), Whitaker, a detective who holds a grudge (Shauna Johannesen), and Luke Conner (Ryan Beil) a member of the press who won't leave them alone. All this, and she has to prove her sister isn't guilty of murder. What else could go wrong?
WHAT WORKS:
*NOTHING! NOTHING WORKS!
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*TWO SECONDS IN AND I'M ALREADY IN DISBELIEF... They wouldn't let some random guy with a camera onto their crime scene. Are you freaking kidding me?
*COPS WITH A PERSONAL GRUDGE AGAINST THE LAWYER OR CLIENT WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE CASE If not, the lawyer could use it at trial. Think OJ & Casey Anthony, those worked real well for the cops & prosecution, didn't they?
*I'M TWELVE MINUTES IN, AND THINK I'VE GOT IT FIGURED OUT, I hope not...
*THE HUSBAND IS A SELFISH ASS...I guess he forgot the part of the vows that go "for better or for worse". He's not likable to say the least, and I'm sick of seeing these kinds of jackasses in made-for-tv movies. Why would a strong, capable career woman be with a mewling, selfish, spoiled man child like this? Answer: SHE WOULDN'T! I'd love to see a supportive man in these types of movies occasionally.
*THE CAMERA ANGLES AND SHOTS ARE WEIRD AND SHAKY It's distracting to say the least...
*HERE COMES THE DEUS EX MACHINAS A tow truck driver wouldn't call the police, that's just lazy writing. But even if he did, why is the car still on the street, WITHOUT the tow truck driver? If he came to the scene, saw there was a problem with the breaks, as he was hooking it up to take it away, THEN he would call the police. But he's nowhere to be seen, so did he call BEFORE he got there? Why would a tow truck driver call the police, BEFORE he knows there's a problem? The whole plot device is stupid, with circular logic, EPIC FAIL!
*LAW FIRMS DON'T FIRE THEIR ASSOCIATES BECAUSE A CASE HAS BAD PRESS Her boss literally says, "control the press, or clean out your desk". WHAT? For one, this movie doesn't need anymore antagonists, for two, much like the tow truck driver, THIS IS A STUPID, WASTEFUL PLOT DEVICE! It doesn't build suspense, and her reaction is weak and pitiful, just like with her husband. This is not the type of reaction we expect from a woman who's been presented as smart and capable, which is the type of woman, most in the viewing audience would like to watch. Quite frankly, I'm disappointed in the two female writers, Roslyn Muir & Crystal Verge.
*WHEN APRIL IS ACCUSED OF ATTACKING GLENN, SUTTON WOULD NEVER ALLOW HER TO BE QUESTIONED BY THE POLICE Especially, since the one doing the questioning, is Detective Whitaker, who has a grudge against them both. Again, ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?
*SUTTON SAID SHE'S USED ALL HER PERSONAL SAVINGS ON "PRE-TRIAL COURT COSTS", LIKE WHAT?! Usually, that type of PRE-TRIAL money goes to scientific testing, or private investigators, but Sutton is using neither. So, where is all of her money going? They just keep saying, "court costs, court costs" which is meaningless. More nonsense, in a movie that's already full of it.
*THE POLICE ENTER A BUILDING, WITH AN ALARM GOING OFF, AND THEY BRING THE CAMERAMAN WITH THEM?!
Not only do they bring a civilian cameraman with them, but he has a cop behind him, with a gun drawn. So, we are supposed to believe they let a civilian into a potentially dangerous crime scene, where he can contaminate evidence, and get himself, or someone else, shot? Can you say lawsuit? Can you say tainted evidence? Can you say beyond ridiculous?
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This movie reminds me of when me and my friends would play Barbies when I was about 11, that's the sophistication of the storylines. If this was supposed to be a suspenseful thriller, it failed miserably, and I cannot recommend you sitting through a banal series of missed opportunities. If you're a fan of Magda Apanowicz, I'd recommend Devil's Diary (2007), it's a fun, made-for-tv teen scream, that delivers. If you're a fan of Zak Santiago, I'd recommend A Girl Like Me: The Gwen Araujo Story (2006), a highly rated made-for-tv tear jerker. If you're a fan of Kevin McNulty, try For the Love of Nancy (1994) (a made-for-tv tear jerker), or any of his other made-for-tv movies. He's been in some good ones (but this is NOT one of them)! Try ANYTHING but this!
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Love You to Death (2015)
Not only a boring movie, but laden with terrible messages to women...
DEADLY SECOND CHANCES/LOVE YOU TO DEATH (TV movie 2015)
1.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 5 min (lots to complain about)
BASIC PLOT:
Yasmine Winters (Bree Williamson) grew up hard. She's now an ADA, with a daughter, Paige (Emilija Baranac), but when she was a little girl, she was horrifically abused by her father, Jack (Wesley Salter). She also watched him violently abuse her mother, and her sister, Laura (Jill Morrison). Jack's horrific brutality ends up killing the girls' mother (indirectly). But instead of shaping up, and caring for his daughters', he abandons them, leaving a teenaged Laura to care for her young sister, Yasmine.
A case, similar to her mother's tragic end, was recently assigned to Yasmine. It's caused her to have panic attacks, and PTSD symptoms, including passing out in the courtroom. Joan, her boss, insists she take a stress leave, and go see her sister, Laura.
But the stress, and the case follow her, and there are some horrors that just won't stay in the past. Can Yasmine realize which dangers are real, in time to save her family?
WHAT WORKS:
*NOTHING! NOTHING WORKS! I will say Bree Williamson does an ok acting job with the hackneyed script she's given. It's also decently shot, and directed, for a low budget, made-for-tv movie.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WHY IS JOAN NOT ON THE CREDITS? Joan is Yasmine 's boss, who has several speaking scenes throughout the movie, yet she's not on the opening credits, and she's not listed on IMDb either, why? Neither is Governor Locke, Security Guard Stone and a few others. I find it offensive to leave out the ancillary characters.
*DA WINTERS NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE LOCKE CASE Yasmine would never be assigned to a case that mimics her mother's death. It's likely the defense would get ahold of this information, and use it against her in court. Her superiors would give the case to someone else.
*THE JUDGE SAYS BECAUSE THERE'S A SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT, IT MUST BE TRUE That's nonsense, but she would declare a mistrial while an investigation took place into the alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
*THE TV NEWS REPORT MAKES IT SOUND LIKE PEOPLE BELIEVE THE RICH & POWERFUL GOVERNOR, NOT THE SMALL DA People would be more apt to believe a powerful governor bribed the jury to get a mistrial for his son, than a ADA with a grudge, bribed the jury to get a conviction. Again, this is a reason why ADA Winters would not have been assigned this case to begin with (she has motive, because the case mimics her mother's death)
*THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO INVESTIGATE ADA WINTERS' MISCONDUCT ADA Winters was prosecuting Gov. Barry Locke's son, Timothy, and the governor was also a witness in the case. These facts would preclude him from taking any official actions through the governor's office, relating to this case. He would not be allowed near the investigation, and he would not be given confidential prosecution case files.
*WHY HAVEN'T LAURA & YASMINE SEEN EACH OTHER IN YEARS? And why does Joan, Yasmine's boss, get to tell her where to go on holiday (she tells her to go see her sister, who now lives in the house where their mother died)? Why insist Yasmine go to her childhood home, a place laden with terrible memories of the very things she's trying to forget? Why not go to the Bahamas instead? And why does your boss get to tell you where to go on vacation?!?
*NO ONE WHO HAS A SISTER CALLS HER "SIS" It's a clunky, overused way to show the audience the sororal relationship. It's stupid, it sounds wrong to the audience, and should be abandoned as a writing technique. As a writer, if you do your job properly, we'll know who these women are to each other.
*IF YASMINE IS THIS TRAUMATIZED, SHE PROBABLY NEEDS INTENSIVE PSYCHIATRIC CARE Yasmine is passing out in court (from a panic attack), being forced to take a stress leave by her boss, and having PTSD like flashbacks, both in court, and in her childhood home. As a clinician, I would recommend therapy at least twice a week, and maybe even inpatient treatment for her. I certainly wouldn't recommend she return to the place of the initial trauma (without professional help), and work on a case that's a constant reminder of the abuse she suffered, and witnessed, as a child.
*ON AVERAGE, 3 WOMEN ARE MURDERED EVERY DAY IN THE UNITED STATES BY A CURRENT OR FORMER PARTNER That's a disgusting statistic, and what's worse, it usually happens when the male partner tries to lure the female back (from a safe environment), with promises of change. I was infuriated when this aired on Lifetime Television, a channel for women, promoting messages that could put women in danger. While I agree with the premise of healing, I don't agree with statements indicating forgiveness and reconciliation are the only ways to release anger. In fact, those tropes could harbor real danger to women who are facing abuse from a partner. My advice to current, or former abuse survivors, the only safe thing for you to do is to NEVER see your abuser again. Get some help, heal your wounds, find a safe place, grow strong, but NEVER see him again!
WHY DID TWO MALE WRITERS FEEL THE NEED TO CREATE A PEN NAME TO HIDE THEIR IDENTITIES?
The script writers Jason Bourque & Keith Shaw, created a ghost name as the writer, someone named Lindsay James, but there was no such person on IMDb, until I created the credit, which verifies, it is a pen name. Why did Jason Bourque & Keith Shaw feel the need to hide their identities? Is it because this movie is riddled with sexist tropes, that could be harmful to women? Cathy McKernan wrote the original treatment, but I doubt this is the vision she had in mind for her story idea. It's hard to believe any woman could be involved with a script this dangerous to women.
*THE RIGHT MAN CAN FIX EVERYTHING! MORE TERRIBLE MESSAGING TO ABUSED WOMEN!
A partner will not fix anything, until you work through your own trauma, and help heal yourself. Paige meets Peter (Mike Dopud), the good guy next door, and her problems melt away. What a bunch of nonsense! Unless you get help for your emotional wounds, your relationships will fail (as I'm assuming Yasmine's relationship with Paige's father did, or he would still be in the picture). Who wrote this tripe?
*PAIGE'S FATHER IS STALKING HER, EVEN THOUGH SHE HAS A RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST HIM and that's supposed to be ok, because Paige needs forgiveness in her life? The man was severely abusive to both daughters, and their mother. He abandoned them when their mother died, but they're supposed to forgive and forget? You don't need to forgive to let go of anger, and you certainly should KEEP TOXIC PEOPLE OUT OF YOUR LIFE, especially ones who try to bully or guilt you into forgiveness, as Jack does to Paige, Laura & Yasmine.
*THE TERRIBLE MESSAGES JUST KEEP ON COMING Yasmine agrees to take over as public defender (wait, isn't she an ADA?) for Carla (Dani Alvarado) a client of Laura's, who's also an abuse victim.
When Yasmine chides Carla, her new client, about her current behavior, her drug use, hanging out with reprobates, and being charged with a felony, Laura comes rigorously to Carla's defense. Laura believes all these behaviors are excusable, because Carla is trying to numb the pain of the domestic violence she suffered. When Yasmine reminds her that child protective services will never allow Carla to have her child back, given her current behavior, Laura says they should excuse it because of her abusive background. WHAT?! Laura is saying it's ok to be a drug addicted, partying mother, to a small child, just because you were an abuse victim? Are you kidding me? What about Carla's daughter?! Doesn't she have the right to a safe and healthy environment? Everything Yasmine said to Carla was correct. Get sober, drop your party friends, grow up, and be a good mother. Excellent advice.
*LAURA TAKES HER NIECE, PAIGE, TO MEET JACK, THE ABUSIVE FATHER, BEHIND YASMINE'S BACK I cannot believe this movie. I cannot believe Lifetime Television bought it. Laura takes Paige to meet her grandfather, WITHOUT telling her first, and knowing Yasmine, Paige's mother, is against it. Laura is forcing Paige to go against her mother, and forcing her to lie to her mother, by springing this meeting on her. Laura knows Yasmine has a restraining order against Jack, so she's breaking the law by bringing him to the house where Yasmine is staying.
When Paige wants nothing to do with Jack, and storms off, he becomes angry at her, and at Yasmine, showing he hasn't changed, and is still toxic. Laura's reaction to his anger is very dysfunctional, and enabling to Jack, showing she is not ready to have a relationship with him either. Jack blames everything on his drinking problem (a common excuse from abusers), and everyone says Yasmine needs Jack in her life to heal. OMG, COULD YOU BE ANY MORE WRONG!? Even if Jack has changed, and even if he's ready, YASMINE IS NOT! She clearly needs help to address her issues, BEFORE she'd be ready to have any kind of relationship with her father. Guilting or forcing her into a relationship with him, would do more harm than good. Does no one care what's best for Yasmine, the person with the issues Jack caused?
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
I'm angry at Lifetime Television, for buying a script HARMFUL TO WOMEN. This is WHAT NOT TO DO when facing abusive relationships. It is one terrible message after another.
On a separate note about the script, this would still be terrible without all the bad messaging to women. This is what I call a "Barbie script". It is reminiscent of storylines my nine year old self, and my nine year old friend's, would come up with when we would play Barbies. In other words, it's fatuous to the point of being laughable. It's legal storylines are so puerile, they become trifling and ridiculous, almost insulting to an adult audience.
The Wife He Met Online (2012)
Unlikable protagonists, and a villainess you'll root for...
THE WIFE HE MET ONLINE (2012 TV movie)
5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3min
BASIC PLOT:
Georgia Maricett (Sydney Penny) is a woman with issues, but she's determined to put them to rest, and start a life with her new husband, Bryant Meyers (Cameron Mathison). Unfortunately for Bryant, there are some things he doesn't know about Georgia, like how she tried to set her last boyfriend's house on fire, and how her mother died under mysterious circumstances.
Bryant is consumed with Georgia, and misses some of the red flags he should be paying attention to. His ex-wife, Virginia (Cynthia Preston) is more intuitive about the situation, and she's determined to find out if her suspicions are correct. She wonders why Georgia did not invite one single person to her own wedding? Georgia seems to have an excuse for everything, but that's not enough to quiet Virginia's unease.
The final straw is an altercation between Megan (Emily Burley) , Bryant & Virginia's daughter, and Georgia. Megan won't tell Virginia exactly what happened, but a mother can tell when something's off, and Virginia is sure something is not right here.
She begins an exhaustive deep dive into Georgia's former life. Can she uncover Georgia's enigmatic and shadowy past in time to save her family's future?
WHAT WORKS:
*SYDNEY PENNY DOES HER USUAL GOOD JOB WITH WHAT SHE'S GIVEN Sydney Penny is great as Georgia, an unbalanced woman with an ax to grind. Her slow movements, leading to bursts of rage, really work here.
*THIS MOVIE PRESENTS PSYCHOLOGICALLY VALID POINTS PRESENTED IN A MELODRAMATIC WAY Every man in Georgia's life has let her down, and then cut and run, starting with her father. Men don't like to face this fact, but the statistics don't lie. When there's a crisis in families, men run. This is what's happened to Georgia her whole life, making HER TOO SYMPATHETIC! If Bryant really loved her, he should get her the help she needs, not dump her like a piece of trash. He also shouldn't lie to her about working so closely with his ex, or anything else. If he didn't love her that much, he never should have married her to begin with. It's a believable trope because we all see it so often, but it does make the protagonist (Bryant) very unlikable.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*ALL OF THE PROTAGONISTS ARE UNLIKABLE, INCLUDING BRYANT'S YOUNG DAUGHTER, MEGAN Georgia overreacts when Megan (Emily Burley) uses her laptop, but she's not wrong in saying Megan should ask first, before using it. And what's with this kid flipping out like Georgia's after her with a knife, when all Georgia did was tell her to get some manners? Megan actually calls her mother at work, because she's told to ask before using a laptop? And then she forgets the whole thing, when Georgia buys her off with a video game? It makes Megan look spoiled, greedy and histrionic. It's ridiculous, and again, it makes Megan, unlikable, not Georgia.
*BRYANT TELLS GEORGIA HE'S NOT A LIAR, but literally 30 seconds before, she caught him in a lie about working with a woman he slept with! Bryant (Cameron Mathison) is a liar, and Georgia is not wrong in assuming men lie when there's something to lie about. Again, this makes the "protagonist," Bryant, unlikable, and the "villainess," Georgia, more sympathetic. That is the opposite of what you should have in a good melodrama.
*BRYANT SAYS TO GEORGIA "I WILL NEVER ABANDONED YOU LIKE YOUR FATHER, OR LIE TO YOUR LIKE YOUR MOTHER." But, you guessed it, he does both! Are we supposed to root for these people? Because I'm not. I hope Georgia kills 'em all! They're a pack of spoiled, self-serving, selfish, solipsistic creeps!
*SHE'S NOT MRS. GEORGIA MEYERS! This is just a pet peeve, but if she was Mrs. Georgia Meyers, she'd be married to Georgia. She is in fact, Mrs. Bryant Meyers, or Mrs. Meyers, or Georgia Meyers, or even Ms. Georgia Meyers, but she's not married to herself. I wish people would learn proper title usage! And while we're at it, why does Virginia (Bryant's ex-wife) still have his last name, even after she's remarried? That's not right either.
*VIRGINIA, BRYANT'S EX, USES A FLIMSY PRETEXT TO SNOOP INTO GEORGIA'S BACKGROUND Virginia (Cynthia Preston) acts like the "fight" Georgia had with her daughter Megan, is enough of a reason to violate Georgia's privacy, and go after her. Again, she makes it seem like Georgia did something wrong when she told Megan (Virginia's daughter) to get some manners, and ask before you use someone's laptop. This is not unreasonable behavior, but everyone acts like she committed murder by disciplining Megan a little harshly. It's not enough of a reason to call seven people, violating Georgia's privacy, and injecting herself into her ex-husband's marriage. Calling Georgia's ex is more than stepping over a line, it's a deal breaker. To make matters worse, it's not even a good source of information (who speaks kindly about their ex?). Virginia is a habitual line stepper, who's behavior needs to be checked. Why doesn't she understand her investigation into Georgia's past, could cause serious issues with Bryant, the father of her child? Why doesn't her new husband tell her to back off? This is just more lazy writing from Christine Conradt. And again, Virginia's behavior makes the "protagonists" unlikable, which is a cardinal sin in this type of melodrama. (Side note: How did Virginia get a copy of Georgia's resume to know whom to call? Just another plothole.)
*THIS IS A COLLECTION OF THE MOST UNLIKABLE PEOPLE YOU'LL EVER WATCH The whole theme of the movie, from EVERYBODY (except Georgia) is, if people don't serve your needs, throw them away. There's no compassion, understanding or loyalty from anyone. Virginia throws Bryant away, Bryant throws Zenya and Georgia away, etc etc etc. It's a group of people who believe in disposable relationships, and there's not one likable character in the whole movie. The sad thing is, this movie could have been a great melodrama with some tweaking from
Christine Conradt, but it just didn't get it.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*If you like made-for-tv movies, and you like rooting for the villainess, then definitely give this a try. I would also recommend this to fans of Sydney Penny. She's the standout here, and gives a worthwhile performance. It's a fun time waster, with some entertaining moments. However, if you like the good guys in your movies to be honorable, or if you like your movies rooted in reality, then give this a pass.
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Poisoned Love: The Stacey Castor Story (2020)
Great made-for-tv adaptation of the many faces of Stacey Castor
POISONED LOVE: THE STACEY CASTOR STORY (TV movie 2020)
6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:35 min
BASIC PLOT:
This film is the dramatization of the true crimes of Stacey Castor. Stacey was a black widow serial killer, who murdered two husband's by poisoning them with antifreeze. When she was at risk of being caught, she framed her daughter Ashley, and then poisoned her as well, after leaving a typed suicide note by Ashley's side.
WHAT WORKS:
*THIS MOVIE PROPERLY HIGHLIGHTS HOW NOT TO BLEND A FAMILY. These adults are so wrapped up in their own happiness, they never take the children's needs into consideration. How selfish do you have to be to move your seventeen year old daughter, in the middle of her senior year? They could have waited until she graduated, and most of these problems wouldn't have been here. People should have to get a license to have children.
*CHANELLE HARQUAIL-IVAAK DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB AS ASHLEY, THE FAMILY'S IP
Chanelle Harquail-Ivsak portrays Stacey Castor's oldest daughter Ashley, the "Identified Patient" of the family. The IP is often the black sheep, ostracized for not playing along with the dysfunctional family dynamics. Chanelle does a fine job showcasing Ashley's destructive behavior, and portraying someone who knows they're living in a malignant and maladjusted environment, but who's powerless to do anything about it.
*THIS MOVIE IS VERY WELL SHOT for a low budget, made-for-tv drama. This is a credit to the director, Jim Donovan & cinematographer Ryan McMaster.
*VERY WELL ACTED for a low budget, made-for-tv true crime drama. Nia Vardalos does a good job as Stacey Castor, and Chanelle Harquail-Ivsak is believable as Ashley, the troubled, older daughter. I'm also a fan of Mike Dopud, his performance as David Castor, a man in decline, is very well done.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*PEOPLE DO NOT TYPE SUICIDE NOTES There's always some type of personalization added, hand written notations, professions of love, signatures, drawings, etc. I'm assuming the real Stacey Castor typed her daughter's fake suicide note too, as is portrayed in the movie. This would be a huge red flag to the police.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This is an engaging, and heartbreaking portrayal of a real life tragedy. If you enjoy made-for-tv recreations of true crime, you'll like this. It's well done, well acted, and the script is well written. It's a successful low budget, made-for-tv drama, and it succeeds, where others have failed.
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Past Never Dies (2019)
There are worse ones out there...
MY FATHER, MY KIDNAPPER/PAST NEVER DIES (TV movie) 2019
4 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:57 min
BASIC PLOT:
Jane Marsh (Erin Karpluk) was kidnapped while still a young woman, by the sadistic serial killer, Timothy Fast (Brent Stait). She had a daughter, Charlotte (Larissa Dias), by Timothy, while still in captivity. Jane not only managed to survive, but also escape with her life, and the life of her young daughter.
Twenty years later, and the two women have moved on under assumed names. Jane and Charlotte are now Lena and Casey Winters, living as normally as they can, with the events of the past never really gone. Casey is plagued by nightmares of two figures, stalking her. She feels there's truth in these dreams, but her mother refuses to talk about the past.
But when women in their town start going missing in a similar way to Lena/Jane's abduction, Casey finally insists her mother answer her question about the two figures in her dreams. Did Timothy Fast have an accomplice after all? Is he still out there kidnapping women? And will he let the two who got away, stay hidden?
WHAT WORKS:
*THIS IS A CAUTIONARY TALE TO WOMEN
Never turn your back on a stranger, help other women when they're in a bad situation, and don't put off victim energy, even when you're afraid.
(However, Casey opens the door, at night, without looking out the peephole, a big no no.)
*EXCELLENT COVER ART
A rarity these days, and worth a mention.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*THERE ARE SOME REALLY ODD SHOTS, where it looks like the filmmakers are trying to shoot a street scene, instead of a conversation between two people. The blocking, and shot choices make for a very visually awkward film.
*WHY IS CASEY TO BLAME FOR THEIR IDENTITIES BEING RELEASED TO THE PRESS? She says it's because Casey embarrassed the reporter, Bryce (Dylan Sloane), but that doesn't make sense in any kind of real world scenario. We're supposed to believe because he was embarrassed, he decides to blow two crime victim's lives? And how would he find out, especially if the courts sealed the records? It's a stupid plotline, unneeded, and clunky. It also makes Lena/Jane (mother) less likeable, and that's a fail in a melodrama.
*PEOPLE ARE SO NON CONFRONTATIONAL THESE DAYS, NO ONE WOULD ADDRESS CASEY WITH SUCH VITRIOL There's a press conference, and the audience members are hateful and abusive to Casey! WHY?! There's no reason to treat a crime victim so shamefully. Women who have come out of these types of situations are NEVER treated this way, quite the opposite. So, it's a fail by Shevon Singh (writer), because my belief is no longer suspended.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This one is iffy. Most of the acting is decent (for a low budget made-for-tv movie), and the story had potential. But it falls short in a lot of areas, and also moves into torture porn, which is unneeded in my opinion. It's not terrible, there are some decent moments, and if you can ignore the glaring plotholes, and stupid, useless storylines, it could be an ok time waster. It is what it is - a Lifetime movie. If you enjoy these types of movies, you may like this. It's darker than most, and the subject matter is disturbing, so if sexual assault, or the brutalization of women bothers you, I'd give this one a pass. But if you're looking for a way to turn your brain off for a couple of hours, you could do a lot worse (like any Lifetime movie made after 2021).
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
A Woman Hunted (2003)
Clichés, plotholes, & deus ex machinas fill this disgusting, exploitative excuse for a script...
A WOMAN HUNTED/OUTRAGE (2003 TV movie)
1.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 4min (lots to b*tch about)
WARNING: Graphic depiction of a sexual assault
Opening scene, cop hides behind car door
Saw her sleeping, but she wasn't
BASIC PLOT:
Lainie Wheeler (Alexandra Paul) is not having a good year. First, her husband leaves her a Dear Jane letter, abandoning her and their two children for the sunny shores of Thailand. Next, her best friend dies from breast cancer, but it takes awhile, and she lingers at a nearby hospice for more than six months. Lainie spends so much time at the hospice, she decides to abandon her TV producing job, and applies to work with the dying. She gets a rush from working there, so she decides to stay on, even after her friend has passed. A rush is not the only thing Lainie gets from working at the hospice, she also picks up a nasty drug habit. It costs her custody of her children, and her new boyfriend, Matt Harper (Tim Post). Lainie realizes a drug rehab is her only option, and after completing it, she decides to go back to her old profession - TV producer. Her friend gets her a gig covering a baseball hero, Harry Brewer (Jonathan Higgins), but the job is outside of town, in the middle of nowhereville. On her way home from the shoot, Lainie runs off the road due to bad weather. Harry Brewer, the baseball player she just met, happens along at just the right time, with promises of a working phone, and a warm safe place to wait for the tow truck. Lainie thinks her luck is improving, and she'll be able to see her children tomorrow. But the night is dark, and full of death, and for someone, tomorrow will never come...
WHAT WORKS:
*NOTHING WORKS, THIS IS TERRIBLE! I'm giving this a 1.5 because of Alexandra Paul's & Linden Ashby's acting. There is nothing else remotely believable or redeeming about this loser script.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WHY WOULD A HOSPICE HIRE A TV PRODUCER TO CARE FOR PATIENTS? It takes dedication to work in a hospice, and they don't hire just anybody, even if you have a medical background. They vet people carefully who are going to be working with the dying. Lainie Wheeler (Alexandra Paul) is NOT a nurse, she's a TV producer, but they show her dispensing medication. That WOULD NOT happen. Also, Lainie wouldn't make enough working at the hospice to cover the standard of living she's used to, it wouldn't even cover her house payment. The hospice would see she's not cut out for the job, and remove her. They rotate the staff out if they see any signs of detriment to their mental or emotional health. That's a pretty flimsy foundation to build your premise on, and it doesn't hold up.
*HARRY BREWER ISN'T SADISTIC ENOUGH TO BE A KILLER
It's implied Harry is angry at women because his wife left, and took half his money. That's a very different motivation from those of a serial killer. Serial killers usually aren't successful, but Harry is. Hey writers (I'm talking to you Morrie Ruvinsky), people need REALISTIC motivations, so we as viewers believe your story. Harry either needs to be maniacal sadist, or just a jerk, and I don't believe you've succeed at either.
*WHY DOESN'T SHE GO TO THE POLICE? More unrealistic motivations and behaviors from the main characters. Lainie Wheeler (Alexandra Paul) might hide a rape because she thought no one would believe her, but after this type of violence, it's highly unlikely she wouldn't call the police. He's confessed to her that he stabbed his wife, so she knows he's violent (and it's on the record, or could be easily verified). He also premeditatedly gave her sweats, so it would be easier to rape her, there are signs of a violent struggle, etc. My suspension of disbelief is GONE, and we're not even to the half way mark of the movie. S-A-A-A-D!
*IF SHE HAS RAPE TRAUMA SYNDROME her actions (running away, dissociating from the whole sexual assault) might be more believable, but she doesn't have it, because she does none of those things. People with Rape Trauma Syndrome don't cover up crime scenes with rubber gloves. What is her motivation for doing this? When they find his body, it will have her DNA on it, so what's the point? IT MAKES NO SENSE!
I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I knew this was written by a man BEFORE I even looked. Morrie Ruvinsky is the writer/director, and if he's going to be writing about women, for women viewers, he'd better get it right, and this is far from right (especially when dealing with such sensitive subjects).
*POLICE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO QUESTION LAINIE'S CHILDREN Are you kidding me? THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN
*WOMEN DON'T TEND TO BE VIOLENT TO STRANGERS WHEN ON DOWNERS Lainie is not a violent person, and the one incident where she hallucinates and the police are called (which is the deus ex machina, so the police will suspect her later), isn't believable either. She said she was on uppers, downers and opiates. She could get the downers and opiates from the hospice, but it's unlikely they would have any kind of speed on hand. It's also the only drug likely to make you hallucinate and violent. These are all deus ex machinas, AND THEY AREN'T BELIEVABLE. The police immediately suspect Lainie of being involved in a crime. Why? She's a virtual stranger to Harry Brewer, with NO MOTIVE. Why do they suspect her? Because she had a drug problem? Half the world has had a drug problem. Again, if the writer had done his homework, he'd know - men externalize, women internalize. Women drug addicts tend to hurt themselves, men tend to hurt others. Ex: Women may prostitute themselves to get their drugs, men steal. Cops know these sad facts, they also know 98% of the time, when one spouse goes missing, look to the other spouse for your perpertrator. But the cops don't even mention Harry Brewer's ex, with whom he had a violent past. And we're supposed to believe this garbage?
*A SOCIAL WORKER HAS LITTLE CONTROL OVER VISITATION ONCE IT'S BEEN SET BY THE COURT Also, in this country, we are innocent until proven guilty, cops asking questions is not grounds to remove visitation from a parent. Did this terrible writer, Morrie Ruvinsky, bother to do ANY research before he wrote this turd?
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I cannot recommend this movie. It's one of the worst I've seen, and I watch A LOT of TV movies. It feels like the writer, Morrie Ruvinsky, knew he was writing for a women's channel, and threw every women's issue he could think of at the script (abandonment by a spouse, breast cancer, rape, domestic violence, unfair treatment of women by the police, etc) and NONE of it worked. This script should NEVER have been greenlighted, and it's a waste of Alexandra Paul's and Linden Ashby's talents.
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Lost Behind Bars (2008)
Not even Paget Brewster can save this terrible script...
LOST BEHIND BARS (TV movie 2006)
2 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:56 min
BASIC PLOT:
Lauren Wilde (Paget Brewster) is a documentarian, whose latest project is on death row inmates. The last subject of her film is Kevin Reese (Antonio Cupo), a man convicted of killing his girlfriend, her husband, and two small children. He has no memory of the event, but since he was found at the scene, covered in blood, he has accepted his fate.
Lauren is not satisfied with the official story. The more questions she asks, the less answers she has, and none of it is adding up. She's uncovered dirty cops, sleezy lawyers, missing case files, and lots of threats from just about everybody. Lauren is convinced she's headed in the right direction, but when two murders take place while she's investigating, she knows her life is in imminent danger. With only three days left before Reese's execution, can Lauren put the pieces together in time, to save his life, and maybe her own?
WHAT WORKS:
*PAGET BREWSTER IS A COMMANDING PRESENCE IN WHATEVER PROJECT SHE TAKES ON Paget Brewster does a fine job (for the most part) with this flawed script. When she slips, it's due to the inadequacies of the material she's working with, not because of her acting chops.
*THE SMALL TOWN SETTING IS BELIEVABLE The locations used set the stage for a claustrophobic, close minded, small town, ready to get out their torches and pitchforks. Good job to the location scouts, and to the location manager, Karen Zajac.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*THERE'S ZERO CHEMISTRY BETWEEN KEVIN & AMANDA If everyone is supposed to believe it's a crime of passion, then you need passion! And there's not any between these two. To be honest, she looks like she's repulsed by him.
*A RICH TROPHY WIFE MEETS A ROADSIDE MECHANIC, AND AFTER ONLY FIVE MINUTES, SHE AGREES TO GO TO HIS TRAILER PARK TO LOOK AT HIS ARTWORK?! Really? What is this, a letter from the 1980's Penthouse Forum? This is supposed to be a believable plotline from writers, Mac Hampton & Luanne Ensle!
*HE'S A TORTURED ARTIST? First of all, his artwork is barely art at all. Second, what does it mean to be a tortured artist? And why would that make you need booze & pills? It doesn't make any sense, and it's a stupid plotline.
*LAUREN GOES TO DETECTIVE REDLER, AND HE SAYS THE CASE FILES ARE MISSING Wouldn't she just go to Reese's lawyer instead? In a death penalty case, appeals proceed up to the last second. Reese's attorney's would have all the necessary documentation she's looking for. On another note: with the case files suddenly missing, he would get a stay of execution. This is just silliness, to the point of being insulting, even for a made-for-tv time waster.
WHY DOES DETECTIVE REDLER WORK OUT OF TWO DIFFERENT BUILDINGS? When we first see Detective Redler (Robert Wisden), he's coming out of the Hillsdale County Public Safety building, telling us he's either a sheriff, or state police. But ten minutes later, he's in a completely different building, labeled "Police Department", indicating he's a local cop. Why have the two buildings? This is confusing to the audience to say the least.
*WHY DOES MARK EVANS, LAUREN'S PARTNER KEEP TELLING HER TO STAY OUT OF THE CASE? Mark (Doron Bell), keeps demanding Lauren stay out of Reese's case. Why?! As a fellow documentarian, he'd want the best story possible, and clearing an innocent man is certainly a better story than covering the last month of a guilty inmate's life.
*THE CHIEF FORENSIC SCIENTIST OF A SMALL TOWN, SUDDENLY RETIRES TO A TROPICAL LOCALE, AND NO ONE IS SKEPTICAL? Gayle Lerner (Meg Roe) the head of forensics on the Reese case, is suddenly retiring to Costa Rica, and at a young age, but no one is suspicious she might be compromised? Why does Lauren trust Gayle? Also, why does Gayle always look like a deer in the headlights, no matter the scene? Eating pizza? Deer in the headlights. Listening to a heart wrenching story, still deer in the headlights! Get a new facial expression!
*I'VE SAID IT BEFORE, & I'LL SAY IT AGAIN, YOU DON'T NEED TO KILL OFF CHARACTERS, WHEN A WOUNDING OR COMA WILL DO So many made-for-tv movies are needlessly bloody, and this is no exception. There's no need to kill people off, as a writer, if you need to remove them, a grievous injury (with a miraculous healing at the end of the movie) works just as well. It's a lazy writer's crutch & it often muddles the story (as it does here), instead of helping it.
*REESE'S EXECUTION WOULD BE STOPPED AFTER LAUREN UNCOVERS MCCAFFREY'S MALFEASANCE Lauren uncovers severe malpractice on the part of Jerry McAffrey (Bruno Verdoni), Reese's attorney. This would be enough to get a stay of execution while the matter was looked into by the court of appeals. More inane plotlines from Mac Hampton & Luanne Ensle.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I can't recommend this film, except to die hard Paget Brewster fans. If you absolutely must see everything she's in, she is the only thing worth watching here. By the half way mark, I'm looking longingly at the fast forward button. I'm bored, I don't believe the main characters would be this stupid, there's plotlines that don't make sense, and the absolute worst part is, I don't give a damn about any of the characters. This is a waste of Paget Brewster and
Robert Wisden, two fine actors, who deserve better. Don't waste your time.
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Deadly Vows (2017)
Fred Olen Ray does Lifetime proud with this over the top, made-for-tv melodrama...
A WEDDING TO DIE FOR FOR/DEADLY VOWS
(TV movie 2017)
5.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:15 min
BASIC PLOT:
Charlie Dillon (Cameron Jebo) believes he's finally found the woman of his dreams! Helena (Brittany Underwood) is smart, sexy, successful, and shares his traditional values. His parents, Nancy (Kathryn Leigh Scott) & Stuart (Henry LeBlanc) couldn't be happier. Their adopted daughter, Becca (Charlene Amoia), has recently divorced, and the family is hoping this wedding will fill the hole left by Becca's failure.
Helena is a pastry chef, and even has her own business. She tends to be a bit overprotective when it comes to her baking. So, when Nancy suggests they use her friend, Mrs. Mazurek (Darleen Pickering Hummert), to cater the wedding, Helena becomes enraged. She recovers herself, but not before Becca decides her future sister-in-law might be a bit unhinged.
Becca decides to do a little investigating, and what she finds is just the frosting on the cupcake...
WHAT WORKS:
*THE OVER-THE-TOP MELODRAMATIC ACTING IS PERFECTION It's supposed to be a cloying throw back to the 50's, and it works! Helena's 1950's dresses, the fact that baking is her life, her "old fashioned values", all of this makes it hilarious, campy fun. It's a silly, diverting caricature of a Stepford wife, except this time the Stepford wife fights back. Helena lures you in with her bonhomie, but what lurks behind her smile is something much more ominous.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THE SOUND
There is something seriously wrong with sound, when Elena talks to herself in the mirror. You can't understand a word she says. Someone should have caught, and fixed this.
*IT'S LATE ENOUGH FOR PEOPLE TO BE IN BED, BUT MRS. MAZUREK LEAVES HER FRONT DOOR OPEN?! I think every woman watching this knows that's BS! Helena comes to confront Mrs. Mazurek at her bakery. We know it's late, because she calls Nancy, but everyone but Becca is already in bed. But we're supposed to believe a woman alone at her place of business, would leave the front door open, while she's closing up? NO ONE WOULD DO THAT, especially not a 60ish woman, who's ALONE! Give me a break!
*WHEN HELENA HITS MRS. MAZUREK WITH THE ROLLING PIN, SHE DOESN'T EVEN COME CLOSE This really should have been reshot, she's not even close to her.
*BECCA IS PORTRAYED AS A SMART, STRONG WOMAN not the type of person who would put up with being the black sheep. This family treats her like crap, & favors their biological child, without even trying to hide it. I know this is done so they won't believe Becca about Helena, but it doesn't work. All it does is make the Dillon family unlikable, and for this type of melodrama, that's a fail. It would have been better if they didn't believe Becca because her recent divorce left her bitter, but she never seems bitter. Instead, it seems like they don't believe her because they don't like her, and that makes them so unsympathetic, you don't care what happens to them. That doesn't work, these are supposed to be the people you're rooting for. (This is a throwback to the original (The Perfect Bride (1991), where the whole family is mad at the black sheep sister, Laura (Kelly Preston))
*WHY WOULD BECCA TAKE GLENN'S PHONE, INSTEAD OF GIVING IT TO POLICE? Becca invites Glenn (Helena's ex brother-in-law) to come to the house, and confront Helena. Glenn turns on his recorder before he enters the house. Helena attacks him, knocks him unconscious, and the police are called. Becca finds Glenn's phone, but instead of giving it to the police, she takes it, and goes for a drive. WTF!?
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I would definitely recommend this to people who UNDERSTAND and enjoy the art form of melodrama. The director, Fred Olen Ray, is successful at making campy, over the top, fun movies, and people who don't like his stuff, should really get a sense of humor. This is not an Oscar winner, IT'S NOT TRYING TO BE! It's a remake of the 1991 TV movie, The Perfect Bride (1991), but the writers (Rolfe Kanefsky) & (Mark Sanderson) decided to go in a hyperbolic direction, exaggerating the characters almost to the point of parody. Helena is a Stepford wife - with a knife! It saddens me to see only a few other reviewers understood the filmmakers intentions. If you like silly, made-for-tv melodramas, you'll love this. If you like reality rooted movies, avoid at all costs.
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
I'll Be Watching (2018)
Above average made-for-tv thriller...
I'LL BE WATCHING (TV Movie)
6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:15 min
BASIC PLOT:
Kate Riley (Janel Parrish) is finally getting her life together. Aging out of the foster system, she's now enrolled in Portland Community College. She's working hard to find her place in this world, when the worst happens. Someone notices her... And it's not the type of attention anyone wants. It starts out with bloody roses left on her doorstep, and escalates into violent professions of love and admiration. Kate is assigned a group of dedicated detectives to watch over her, but in the end, it's not enough. Now Kate's on the run, and the stalker has decided to punish the women of Portland until she returns. Can Kate finally stop running long enough, to make a life? Or will her stalker always be watching?
WHAT WORKS:
*GREAT USE OF VISUAL METAPHORS Throughout the movie, the filmmakers shine a baby spot on the stalker's eye. It's a fantastic visual metaphor, it reiterates the fact that the stalker is always watching. Also, they use a lot of purple in the background lighting. This is a nod to the roses the stalker leaves, and the book the movie's based on, "The Purple Rose", by Christi Walsh
*BETTER THAN AVERAGE FRAMING OF SHOTS This film has some outstanding shot set ups, especially for a made-for-tv movie. The filmmakers took the time to do things properly, the result elevates this out of the realm of the low budget TV movie. Excellent decision making from Jodi Binstock (director) and
Alexander Yellen (cinematographer).
*GREAT USE OF MUSIC
The haunting songs used throughout the movie accentuates the creepy atmosphere of the film. I wish more low budget filmmakers would realize the power of good music.
*EXCELLENT PERFORMANCES FROM EVERYONE
Everyone here does a great job, the standouts are Conner Marx, as the stalker, Rob Estes as Detective Paine, and Janel Parrish as Kate Riley.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WE NEED TO TEACH OUR WOMEN TO BE STRONG Kate tries, and fails at being a fighter. I'm not sure if this a fail of the book, the screenplay, or our society, but I'm sick of seeing weak women on my TV. I realize Kate tries to find her strength, but in the end, she needs men to save her. It's pathetic! We need to teach our daughters to NOT BE AFRAID in situations like these, and to put that knife where it belongs, BEFORE he has a chance to use it. We do that by showing women it's possible. Entertainment can affect change! I do not understand how this is written by a woman (Sydney Ortman) for a female audience, yet it still has the protagonist this weak. As a viewer, and a woman, I'd like to see more storylines where the woman saves herself (like Fatal Flip (2015)), instead of women having to be victimized first, before they attempt to find their inner strength, and still have to be rescued by a man.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This movie has it's good points. It's an above average TV movie, the acting, directing and cinematography are all better than you'd normally see. It's a good story, but with a weak ending. If watching weak women constantly need saving is your thing, then you'll probably like this. If you're like me, and are sick of seeing timid women repeatedly rely on men for everything, you should probably give this a pass (or at least be prepared to throw things at your TV).
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Deadly Encounter (2004)
A made for women remake of "Duel"...
DEADLY ENCOUNTER/OVER THE EDGE (TV movie 2004)
6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3 min
BASIC PLOT:
Joanne Sanders (Laura Leighton) has a lot on her plate. She recently divorced her cheating husband Keith (Frank Schorpion), and now she's raising their 13 yr old son, Eric (Danny Mags), all on her own.
She works nights as a hostess at a jazz club, and often doesn't get home until after 2AM. On her drive home, Joanne is often tired, and one night, she accidently cut someone off. She stopped, and tried to ascertain if the driver of the other vehicle was alright. However, he wouldn't even let her get close, instead backing up when she approached him. When she decides it's best to just leave, he chases her, pushes her car, and tries to kill her.
Joanne manages to escape, but little does she realize, this was just his first foray into what he believes is justified retribution.
The stalker begins a relentless invasion of Joanne's life, intent on terrorizing her at every turn. She will have to draw on all her inner strength to survive this "Deadly Encounter".
WHAT WORKS:
*THE CAR CHASE/ACCIDENT SCENE REALLY WORKS It's very reminiscent of the Stephen Spielberg tv movie, Duel (1971), but with a fresh perspective. As a single woman, working the nightshift can be frightening. But throw in a psychotic driver, and a rain storm, and it becomes downright terrifying. This movie puts you there with Joanne, you feel her trepidation and unease. It's very well done.
*LAURA LEIGHTON DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB AS JOANNE SANDERS, A WOMAN PUSHED TO HER LIMITS
Anyone who watched Laura Leighton on Melrose Place (1992) knows she's a good actress, but this movie shows she also has range. It's about as far from her Melrose character, Sydney Andrews, as you can get, yet she pulls it off beautifully. Well done Laura!
*GREAT PERFORMANCE FROM A YOUNG DANNY MAGS Danny Mags gives an excellent performance as Joanna's son, Eric. This movie is very well cast, a credit to Vera Miller & Nadia Rona (casting agents).
*THE EX-HUSBAND'S EXCUSES WOULD RING TRUE FOR A LOT OF WOMEN Keith (Frank Schorpion), Joanne's ex-husband, blames her for their son's anger. He asks if she's been turning him against his father, and she replies, "You've been doing a pretty good job of that all on your own." Many women have had this experience, and it adds a layer of authenticity to this film.
*I'M SO GLAD THIS MOVIE DIDN'T KILL ANYONE WHO DIDN'T NEED TO BE KILLED
So often in TV movies, they are needlessly bloody, making them less believable. This movie tows the line, with just the right amount of suspenseful violence. Good job Duane Poole (writer)!
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*THE POLICE WOULD KNOW IT'S A MAN WHO CHASED HER Sgt. Collins, the cop Joanne tries to report the incident to, gives her a hard time when she tells them it's a man, but she couldn't see into the vehicle. He wouldn't chide her for thinking it's a man. Cops would know it's a man. Road rage incidents are almost always men, and when they aren't, the woman gets in your face at the scene. A woman would not go to the trouble of hunting Joanne down, and terrorizing her. That's a man's behavior, and even if the cops couldn't do anything to help Joanne, they would still know it was a man who was stalking her.
*NO WOMAN WOULD GIVE HER FRIENDS LOCATION TO A VOICE ON THE PHONE
I have a real problem with this one, because it falls into the realm of a deus ex machina. Carol (Cary Lawrence), Joanne's best friend, knows she's being stalked, and knows how serious the situation is. She would NEVER give out Joanne's location to a voice on the phone, even if the voice said it was a police officer. NO WOMAN WOULD!
*HOW DOES THE STALKER KNOW JOANNE'S ROOM NUMBER? This is part of the previous deus ex machina. If the stalker got the hotel Joanna and Eric were staying in from Carol, he still wouldn't have the room number. Hotel/Motels WILL NOT give out room numbers (I've worked at many, and I know). So how does he know which door to go to? If he knocked on every door, someone would complain, and either security, or the police would be involved. So, how does he know the room number!?
*WHY DOES JOANNA SAY TO THE DETECTIVE SHE'S SURE SHE KNOWS WHO THE STALKER IS, WHEN SHE'S NOT SURE?
Women learn not give men reasons to think them hysterical, so why does she say she's definitely sure, when she's not?
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I would definitely recommend this to Laura Leighton fans. But I would also recommend to anyone who enjoys a good made-for-tv thriller. It attempts to be as good as the original, Stephen Spielberg tv movie, Duel (1971), and I like it just as well. I would also recommend to those who like to see women take charge of their own problems, or to those who enjoy a diverting TV movie. Pop that corn, and enjoy!
ON A PERSONAL NOTE:
*THIS MOVIE SHOWCASES THE TYPE OF SITUATION ALL WOMEN SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR. We should teach our girls, and young women, how to defend themselves from threats, and how to control their fears in any situation. Arming yourself is a personal choice, and should only be considered if you have the moxie to use the weapon effectively (understand, that may mean killing another human being). If we taught our girls how NOT think, or behave like prey, we'd have a lot less victimization of women in this world.
*I'M SICK OF CAT WOMAN COMMENTS
Why is it ok to say older women with cats are pathetic, but older women with dogs, are ok? I find that offensive, and I am sick of hearing it from writers. (Full disclosure: I have cats, AND dogs, so I guess that makes me only half pathetic?)
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, OR PRODUCTION IN ANY WAY. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Stalkers (2013)
This subject matter deserved sooo much better...
WHISPER OF FEAR/STALKERS (TV movie 2013)
If I could give this no stars, I would...
1 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3 min
BASIC PLOT:
Two woman, one an ADA (Jodi Lyn O'Keefe), and one a detective (Drea de Matteo) create a task force to fight and catch stalkers.
WHAT WORKS:
*THERE WAS ONE GOOD LINE... Tim Star (Brendan Fletcher), the IT cop tells Detective Harkin, "The mustache mafia around here doesn't even think I'm a real cop." This is the only decent line in the whole movie.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*COPS DON'T CARE ABOUT DIRT BAGS and Detective Cliff's (Henry Simmons) whole speech to Detective Harkin (Drea de Matteo) about how she's crazy for wanting to wipe the smile off of a murder's face, wouldn't be met with hostility. More likely, he would instructs her not to do that in public, or don't leave a mark etc. Her behavior needed to be over the top to get that speech, and it wasn't, so it's only 3mins in, and I'm already rolling my eyes.
*FILMED W-A-A-A-Y TOO CLOSE I don't know why filmmakers these days think we have to be able to count the pores on people's faces, but back that camera up. I don't need to be between two people, while their kissing. It's disgusting, and NOT good filmmaking.
*THIS IS ONE OF THE WORST FILMED MOVIES I'VE EVER SEEN Not only is the camera too close to everyone, but it jumps around haphazardly, for no reason at all, like the cameraman was drunk. Then there's the terrible lighting, one second too dark, the next to bright. There's a lot of weird shots of the back of people's heads, or where you can't see all of their face, or where there are objects in the way of the actors. This is a mess, and I'm not sure if I should blame the director, Mark Tonderai, or the cinematographer, Miroslaw Baszak. They both have a lot to answer for.
*THE MAIN CASE IS NOT A GOOD ONE TO SHOWCASE THE STALKING PROBLEM This is not because it's a lesbian couple; it's because they aren't really a couple. The victim, Jen Andrews (Lela Loren) had an affair with her stalker, Ivy Hinks, making her less sympathetic. Jen's an obnoxious crybaby, and I really don't care what happens to her (or anyone else for that matter). The writer/filmmakers don't know how to present the victim, so we the viewers, empathize with her. Instead, they show us dolls the stalker made, and bruises the victim got , but no backstory (other than a drunken Christmas party) to make me care about the stalking victim. I was more interested in the first victim, who was murdered in the beginning of the movie, a mother of two, killed by her estranged husband. This movie world have been better served either showcasing stranger stalking, as it's more suspenseful and terrifying, or focusing on a woman with children, being stalked by an ex romantic partner. But Ivy and Jen are just ridiculous, to the point of being insulting to the audience.
*THE BOOK THIS IS BASED ON WAS WRITTEN BY A WOMAN but the screenplay was written by a man (David Wiener), and I immediately could tell. This is a Lifetime production, meaning everyone knows where this will air, on a channel for women. Sometimes, men who write for women, end up being condescending, because they don't have a female perspective. There are several scenes that try to showcase sexual harassment, and patronizing behavior from male superiors, but it comes off feeling more like women's experiences in the 1960's & 70's, not 2008 (when the book was written) or 2013 (when the movie was made). Mr. Wiener (the writer), would have been better served asking a few women if the scenes ring true, because they don't, not for today's women.
*DETECTIVE DIANE HARKIN -AKA GINA MORETTI DOESN'T SEEM THE TYPE TO RUN FROM ANYTHING But we're supposed to believe she's running from a stalker too. This is an inane, unneeded plotline. If you need her to be passionate about stalking, have her be close with a stalking victim who died (like a sister, or friend). But having her be a victim herself is beyond stupid! For one, the actress, Drea de Matteo, puts off one kind of energy - badass. You don't believe this woman is a victim of anything, more like someone who'd rip your throat out if you looked at her wrong (which she actually tries to do to a murderer in the first 5mins). So, yet again, completely unbelievable, and insulting to the audience.
*IVY, THE STALKER, IS NOT THREATENING
She's comical, ridiculous, and cliché, but not scary. It's a pathetic attempt to create suspense, and Ivy's dialog and threats are so bad, they're almost funny. This crosses into parody, on more than one occasion. It's inane, acinine, puerile, preposterous, farcical, ill-conceived, and generally derisory of the whole stalking issue. This subject matter deserved sooo much better.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*Great filmmaking should showcase a series of well framed stills, strung together, to create your movie - that's filmmaking 101. I should be able to take any of those stills, and know what was happening in that scene (without sound, or reference). That is not what happens here. The utter failure to block a shot, hold the camera still, or shoot at a reasonable distance, makes this film almost unwatchable. It is a disjointed, haphazard melange of bad camera angles, wobbly or too close shots, and terrible lighting. If this kind of thing is a deal-breaker for you, then definitely give this a pass. Even if it's not, give this a pass, it's one of the worst made-for-tv movies I've ever seen.
CLOSING NOTES:
*THIS IS A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I HAVE NO CONNECTION TO THE FILM, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Island of Shadows (2020)
Above average made-for-tv atmospheric...
ISLAND OF SHADOWS/IS THERE A KILLER IN MY FAMILY? (TV movie 2020)
5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:30min
BASIC PLOT:
Carly Travers (Anna Hopkins) is a successful true crime writer, and she's discovered a murder mystery in her own family's history. She's determined to uncover the truth, much to the chagrin of her husband, Kevin (Christopher Jacot).
Carly was attacked by a disgruntled family member, of the subject of her last book, and her husband, Kevin, hasn't gotten over it. He also doesn't like how obsessed Carly gets when doing research, or how much attention she gets from fans. Kevin's unease is why she came to the island under the guise of a vacation, and didn't tell him it was really a fact finding mission.
Carly's distant relative, a woman named Diana (Erin Agostino), was murdered, and the killing has never been solved. There were sightings on the island, of a figure in white, seen several times before the death. Kevin and Carly are staying on Crawford Island, in Diana's house, and Carly is more determined than ever to find out what happened to her relative.
With enough time and investigation, Carly is sure she'll be able to unmask Diana's killer. What she didn't expect, was to see a ghostly figure in white, running through the island's woods.
Now Carly isn't sure who to trust, or what to believe. Can she uncover the mysteries of the past, while unveiling the secrets of the present?
WHAT WORKS:
*ANNA HOPKINS DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB AS CARLY TRAVERS Anna Hopkins does a fine job portraying a strong, accomplished woman, being drug down by a weak, envious husband. She embodies the character, so we, the viewer, believe in her.
*MOST OF THE CASTING IS SPOT ON Almost every character is well cast, with one exception, Louise Bellak (Susan Gregson), Kathy Bellak's (Vickie Papavs) mother. She's supposed to be close to 100, and the woman they chose is not near old enough to be playing an octogenarian.
*THE ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE FOR THIS TYPE OF MOVIE In this movie, there's not a lot to complain about, acting wise. I never had a moment I was thrown out by bad delivery from the actors.
*GREAT ATMOSPHERIC Great use of a location to create a creepy, isolated atmosphere. The small waterfront community is also authentic, which gives the film credibility.
*GOOD DEATH SCENE A believable death scene is not something you see very often in made-for-tv movies. However, Alex Paxton-Beesley does a great job in this one.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*PACING IS OFF By the 1:25 mark (out of 2hr), their should be more suspense built up, but there's not. There should have been other things Carly "discovers", and then is tormented with, but that doesn't happen. What's left is a watered down attempt at gaslighting.
*IF THEY'RE GASLIGHTING HER, THERE SHOULD BE MORE OF IT. By the 1:25 mark (out of 2hr), there's only been one or two incidents of gaslighting, and only one kind. There should be more, and it should be more intense, building with intensity every time it's done.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This is an above average made-for-tv atmospheric. It utilizes the ambience of the island to add an extra dimension to a decent mystery story. Is it the best I've ever seen? Of course not, and it doesn't try to be anything more than what it is - a diverting, low budget, mystery story. If you enjoy that type of entertainment, then definitely give this a try. It's a fun bit of escapism, without much to complain about. If you like your movies with huge budgets, lots of special effects, and lackluster storylines, then try the latest superhero movie, because this won't be for you.
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
A Surrogate's Nightmare (2017)
Decent made-for-tv faire...
A SURROGATE'S NIGHTMARE (TV movie 2017)
5 out of 10 ⭐
BASIC PLOT:
Angela (Poppy Montgomery) is returning to her small Washington town for the the first time in many years. The reasons for her homecoming should be sad ones, but that's not how she feels. Angela is here to attend her mother's funeral, and finally bury the past, along with her mother. She's also here to comfort and support her younger sister, Shelley (Emily Tennant). Shelly was close to Joan (Glynis Davies), their mother, and she's feeling the loss in multiple ways. Joan was determined to be a grandmother, and was constantly pressuring Shelly and her husband, David (Steven Krueger) into having a baby. But Shelly had a secret she never told Joan, and now the weight of this secret is unbearable. Shelly was never brave enough to tell her mother she's infertile. She let Joan buy baby clothes, and bully David, all the while knowing she could never conceive.
All of this is news to Angela, since Joan discouraged any relationship between the sisters. But Angela is determined to make up for lost time, and help Shelly through her regret. Angela's even offered to become a surrogate for David and Shelly, so they can find have the family they've always wanted. After the implantation works, and Angela becomes pregnant, David's behavior changes. Is he hiding something? He did have an argument with Joan, mere hours before her death, and the police are not convinced Joan's death was an accident.
David's strange behavior is not Angela's only concern. She ran into an old friend, Curt Meyers (Ty Olsson), after her mother's funeral. At first, Curt seemed eager to reconnect with Angela. But as time has gone on, his behavior has become increasingly bizarre. Is he following her? Or has the pregnancy made Angela more suspicious? Why does Curt continue to allude to some past wrongdoing, while at the same time, pursuing Angela?
Will all the deceits of the past stay hidden, or will the truth demand to finally be heard?
WHAT WORKS:
*GREAT FORESHADOWING The movie unfolds in an interesting way, with clues that keep you guessing.
*ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE Everyone here does Fantastic job, especially Ty Olsson, as the unhinged ex-boyfriend, Curt. Emily Tennant gives a quality performance as Shelly, the fragile wife and sister. Steven Krueger also does a fine job playing David, the sometimes smarmy executive, who seems to care more about his job, than family.
*FILMMAKING IS EXCELLENT Vijay Sarin and Vic Sarin worked as both directors and cinematographers on this movie, and both did a fantastic job. The movie can be storyboarded by using stills, and that's the mark of a well shot movie.
*THE SETTING ADDS TO THE AMBIANCE
This film is shot in the fall, in a small town in Canada, called Kelowna. The place adds a unique visual layer to the film, and gives it added depth and believability.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*ANGELA'S SUSPICIONS ABOUT CURT ARE EXAGGERATED This isn't a deal breaker, after all, this is a melodrama. Things are supposed to exaggerated.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I would recommend this movie to fans of melodramas, to those who enjoy made-for-tv movies, and fans of Ty Olsson and Emily Tennant. Both give standout performances. If you're looking for deep character development, and intricate storylines, look elsewhere.
Obsessed (2002)
Well done portrayal of erotomania...
Obsessed (TV Movie 2002)
6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:57 min
BASIC PLOT:
Ellena Roberts (Jenna Elfman) has finally found the man of her dreams. David Stillman (Sam Robards) is a world renowned neurosurgeon, who's handsome, accomplished, and learned. The only problem? He's married to someone else, and he's just had Ellena arrested for stalking. Is he trying to conceal their secret affair from his wife, Claire (Jane Wheeler), or is Dr. Stillman right in thinking Ellena is hiding a dangerous secret?
WHAT WORKS:
*THIS MOVIE PROVIDES BOTH SIDES WELL It gives a plausible account to what could have happened, on both sides. Quite frankly, if men would like the benefit of the doubt in these types of situations, they should speak up more, when they see other men behaving badly - in whatever form. Men are punished as a whole, because they tend to cover for, or pretend they don't see, or outright lie for, other men, who are behaving badly. A good example of this is when Dr. Stillman (Sam Robards) lies to his wife, Clare (Jane Wheeler), about a note slipped under the hotel room door. Why does he lie, if there's nothing going on? Because he thinks his wife won't believe him? If men realized lying was the ONE cardinal rule not to break with women, they'd be more likely to just tell the truth, and face the music. Lying is the unforgivable sin, NOT cheating.
*THIS MOVIE USES MUSIC WELL It has two main songs, "Fallin" by Alicia Keys, and "Siren" by Red Delicious. They both fit well, and are used as a metaphor for Ellena's erotomania, throughout the film.
*THE ANCILLARY CHARACTERS PROVIDE A GOOD FOUNDATION TO AN INTERESTING STORY
Kate Burton does a fantastic job as Sara Miller, Ellena's lawyer, who takes the assignment, without knowing all the facts of the case. Sara's journey to uncover Ellena's "lives", while still trying to provide her with a decent defense, is laudable, and well portrayed by Kate Burton.
Lisa Edelstein gives an authentic performance as Charlotte, a journalist Ellena meets in jail, who becomes her confidante, and constant companion.
And last, but not least, Mark Camacho gives another fine performance as Sam Cavallo, the prosecutor. He's a great character actor, and never phones in his roles.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*VISUALLY, THIS FILM HASN'T AGED WELL Meaning, when you watch it on a modern TV, you can tell it's from 2002. This doesn't make it bad, it's just a bit grainy.
*LOTS OF THE SHOTS ARE BIZARRE
There's lots of shots that are looking up, and are too close. It's distracting, and odd. It may be because it was shot in standard, not widescreen. Either way, it's not a deal breaker.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I would definitely recommend this film to fans of Jenna Elfman, and fans of movies that are based on a true story. The filmmakers did a fine job of unraveling the narrative, in an enjoyable, postulating way, without giving away too much. Jenna Elfman does an excellent job as Ellena Roberts, an erotomaniac who's dissembling disguise is so believable, even the omniscient viewer doesn't know what the truth is. It is a low budget, made-for-tv movie, so if you're not a fan of that type of entertainment, give this a pass. But if you love a good melodrama, then pop that corn, sit back and enjoy!
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
A Woman Betrayed (2013)
Can't recommend, even to fans of made-for-tv movies....
THE PREACHER'S MISTRESS/A WOMAN BETRAYED (2013 TV movie)
2.6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3:20 min
BASIC PLOT:
Gwen Griffith (Sarah Lancaster) does not have the best track record when it comes to picking men, a fact her mother, Ellen (Eleese Lester), never lets her forget. Gwen has a son, Alec (Logan Lindholm), from an affair with a married man, that ended tragically, and Gwen is determined to never let anything like that happen again.
She is much more cautious now, but both her mother, and her best friend Sidney (Natalia Cigliuti), are encouraging her to date again. So, when Gwen meets what seems to be the perfect man, Ed Baker (Drew Waters), she still takes things slow.
Ed's caring, considerate, and appears to be a gentleman, and to top things off, he's good with Gwen's son, Alec.
But sometimes, things that seem to be too good to be true, aren't true, and Gwen is beginning to realize Ed may not be what he appears. She discovers Ed has a wife, Kelly (Julia Barnett), and two children. To make matters worse, Gwen finds out Ed is not a pharmaceutical rep, but a mega-church preacher, in a nearby city. His wife knows about the affair, and instead of blaming Ed, she blames Gwen.
Gwen is beginning to realize there are dark forces swirling around her, and working to destroy her life. She needs to discern who they are, and what they want, before her whole world crumbles.
WHAT WORKS:
*SARAH LANCASTER IS BELIEVABLE AS THE MOUSY, NAIVE SINGLE MOTHER
Sarah Lancaster is believable as Gwen, the timid introvert, without many friends, or suitors. She does a passable job as the vulnerable single mother, with lots of problems.
*NATALIA CIGLIUTI DOES HER USUAL GOOD JOB EXUDING BAD GIRL ENERGY
Natalia Cigliuti does her usual melodramatic good job playing Sidney, the bad girl, even if some of the things her character does don't make any sense.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WHY DOES SIDNEY SHRED GWEN'S MORTGAGE CHECK, AND WHY DOES GWEN TAKE IT TO WORK TO MAIL IN THE FIRST PLACE? Why doesn't Gwen just mail her check from home? We see her filling it out, and putting it in an envelope at home, so why does she take it to work to mail? Also, it's not enough they're framing her for murder, Sidney has to cause her mortgage to go into foreclosure too? Why? It never really goes anywhere, and is another dead end plotline.
*THE PI IS PRETTY OBVIOUS David Wyatt (Bryan Mitchell), the private investigator Ed's wife hires is not very good at his job. He's running around on a well lit street, with a huge camera in his hands, basically screaming, look at me, I'm following you! He doesn't even try to hide, or be discreet. It was pretty silly.
*THE PACING IS SLOW At about thirty minutes in, it seems to start moving at a crawl.
*OH BROTHER... HERE COMES THE DEUS EX MACHINAS Gwen's married ex-boyfriend, and father of her son, attacked her when she was pregnant. He somehow "convinces" the police she attacked him, for no reason. In reality, she was defending herself from his drunken attack, after he learned of her pregnancy. NO COP WOULD BELIEVE MOUSY, PREGNANT GWEN ATTACKED ANYBODY! They wouldn't go on the word of a drunk, against a sane sober person, even if he was their friend. Here's a fun fact all cops know, if a pregnant woman dies (by foul play) 98% of the time, it's the baby's father who kills her. The stats are higher for babies conceived in infidelity (like Gwen). No cop would put his future livelihood on the line, for a friend, by believing a timid pregnant woman attacked her drunk baby's father. This is a deus ex machina, so Gwen can have some history of violence in her past. But it's NOT believable, not even a little bit. So, I'm thrown out of the story, by lazy writing from Kevin Dean & Michelle Mower. We're also supposed to believe this drunk guy was granted a restraining order...against this frightened pregnant girl... by a Texas judge? Who are you freaking kidding? IT'S SO STUPID! And what really bothers me, IT'S NOT NEEDED! This takes place in Houston, and Texans don't have the best record when it comes to not convicting innocent people (anyone remember Darlene Routier?) In other words, if Sidney framed Gwen, she'd probably be convicted, with or without a history of violence. This whole deus ex machina could have been left out, and the story would be much more believable (and enjoyable). A side note: because Gwen had had a negative interaction with the police previously, she would be far less likely to cooperate, or even answer questions (especially hostile questions) from the police this time around. This is another reason why this is a terrible plotline.
*IS IT ME, OR DOES DREW WATERS (ED) LOOK LIKE HE MIGHT TURN INTO A VAMPIRE? I've seen Drew Waters in other TV movies, and never thought he might sprout teeth before. Maybe it's the way he's lighted here.
GWEN'S MOTHER IS A MONSTER Instead of just telling Gwen, that Ed has been lying to her about his identity, she drags her to a public place to show her? What a b*tch! Also, NOT BELIEVABLE!
*I WATCH A LOT OF THE TV SHOW Cheaters (2000) and usually the first words asked by the person being cheated on, to the "other woman/man" is "Did you know he/she was married?" Kelly Baker (Julia Barnett), Ed's wife, knows Gwen was unaware he was married, but still comes to her place of business, to scream at her. If you were a preacher's wife, and wanted to keep your husband's affair on the down-low, wouldn't you be more discreet? It's so preposterous a scenario, that it moves into ridiculousness. It's completely unbelievable as a real world confrontation, for so many reasons. So again, I'm thrown out of the movie, and this is another epic fail from Kevin Dean & Michelle Mower (the writers).
*GWEN DOESN'T HAVE A BACKBONE WHEN ED'S WIFE SHOWS UP AT HER PLACE OF BUSINESS She literally doesn't say one word to Kelly, Ed's wife, even when Kelly calls her a wh*re in front of her boss. Instead, she marches over to Ed's Church to confront him?!?? It's totally out of character for Gwen, and for any sane woman. She'd have told Kelly where to go, and then she'd never see Ed again. This is so ridiculous, it's hard to watch, even for a melodrama.
*WHEN GWEN MARCHES OVER TO ED'S CHURCH TO CONFRONT HIM, he begins telling her he loves her, within earshot of his secretary. WHAT?!? This is the stupidest attempt at a melodrama I've seen. What's next, are the characters going to be abducted by aliens? Because that's just as unbelievable as the rest of this script.
*DETECTIVE ALVAREZ DELIVERS HER LINES LIKE SHE'S READING THEM OFF OF CUE CARDS Angela Rawna gives a wooden, awful performance as Detective Rita Alvarez, but a large part of it is the terrible lines she's being forced to deliver. Maybe if she had something better to work with...
*TOO MANY INGREDIENTS RUIN THE SOUP... And too many motives ruin the TV movie. There are two main motives here, which makes for a clunky, UNBELIEVABLE plot. Those aliens are gonna land, and abduct all the characters at any moment, I can just feel it...
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I love melodramas. I love the good vs evil storylines, the silly, exaggerated scenarios and characters. But this is not a successful melodrama, because you still have to have believable plotlines. Instead of exaggerating believable behavior, they instead throw in plotlines THAT WOULD NEVER HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE! It feels like it was written by someone who hates the melodramatic art form, or worse, by someone who doesn't understand it, and just did this project for money. It's an epic fail from writers, Kevin Dean & Michelle Mower, and I can't even recommend it to fans of made-for-tv movies. This movie is almost unwatchable, and I had to skim through parts, just so I could finish the review. I recommend this to film students as a reference for how NOT to make low budget melodramas.
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Client Seduction (2014)
Not the best... Not the worst...
NOT WITH MY DAUGHTER/CLIENT SEDUCTION (2014 TV movie)
4.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3 min
BASIC PLOT:
Melissa Eco (Ally Sheedy) is a high powered attorney, who needs an image makeover. She's been defending the rich and powerful for so long, she's forgotten why she got into the law in the first place. Melissa decides she needs to get back to her roots, and find a client who really needs her help. Besides, defending someone pro-bono will look good in the papers.
Unfortunately for Melissa, the defendant she finds is not as innocent as he first appears. Greg Milles (Rhys Ward) has been charged with the murder of a socialite, but he swears it wasn't him. He claims it was his friend, Dennis Brunner (Erik Knudsen), and all he did was wait in the car. Melissa is suddenly thrust into a world she doesn't understand, where street kids cover for one another, and manipulate others, just to stay alive. What's worse, her teenage daughter, Abby (Annie Clark) has been snared by Greg's charms.
Melissa will have to imploy all her wits to uncover Greg's real motivations, and save her daughter from the clutches of a madman, but will it be enough?
WHAT WORKS:
*RHYS WARD IS EXCELLENT AS GREG MILLES Rhys Ward is just the right amount of creepy, while also being convincing, just like a real sociopath. I never felt like I was watching an actor, just a successful con man.
*THERE ARE SOME GREAT ONE LINERS FROM GREG. When Melissa asks Greg if he provoked the cop into hitting him, he responds, "I'm poor, that's good enough for them." He seems to have just the right thing to say, right on the tip of his tongue. It works.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*SOME OF THE LEGAL MANEUVERING IS HARD TO BELIEVE Some of the things Melissa says in court are not very believable. And when Greg asks Melissa if she believes he didn't do it, she says that's her job. But that's not true, and most defense attorneys never even ask if their client did it or not. It's irrelevant, and not necessary information to provide the best defense. It's usually better if they don't know.
*THE DAUGHTER LOOKS WAY TOO OLD TO BE PLAYING SIXTEEN
Annie Clark is not convincing as a teenager AT ALL! She was 22 when this was made, but she looks older (just the way she carries herself). It's not good casting. They also imply Greg is under 18 (they say he's being tried as an adult), but he's clearly not, and I don't know the point in saying otherwise. He could be just as sympathetic at 22 (Rhys Ward could get away with playing 22, as he was only 25 when this was filmed).
*THE DAUGHTER, ABBY, LIKED TOM (GREG'S FRIEND) but after she meets Greg, and he dismisses Tom (Stephen MacDonald) right in front of her, she suddenly switches to Greg. I know sociopaths are supposed to be charismatic, and all that, but they shouldn't have shown her so into Tom. It's confusing to the viewer, and clunky writing.
*THE MOTHER-DAUGHTER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MELISSA & ABBY DOESN'T WORK Why is Abby living with her mother, if they hate each other, and there's a father in the picture? Why is their relationship, which was only strained before, coming to a head now? The negative progression feels forced, instead of unfolding in an organic way. It's too bad to, because otherwise, it's not a bad plotline. Also, your daughter commits a felony, and you let her keep her phone? Ummm... Yeah right.
*I'M SICK OF SEEING TV MOVIES USING TEENAGEHOOD AS AN EXCUSE FOR BEING UTTERLY STUPID Just because someone is in their teenage years, does not make them an imbecile. Abby would know better than to commit felonies, or hangout with criminals. Just because she's young, does not make her an idiot.
*WHY WOULD GREG WANT TO ANTAGONIZE MELISSA BY USING HER DAUGHTER? Wouldn't you want your lawyer working hard for you? It doesn't feel believable in any kind of real world way. Lawyers, like doctors, have a myriad of ways to hurt you if they have a mind to, ways you wouldn't even realize. It makes no sense for Greg to take on Melissa, by using her daughter.
*THIS MOVIE COMPLETELY FALLS APART AT THE END and as we all know, the ending is the only part that matters. It's too bad, because there's some quality acting here, but the storyline is completely preposterous, to the point of ridiculousness, even for a melodrama. I don't know what the writer Al Kratina was thinking when he wrote this ending.
*ALL MELISSA HAD TO DO WAS EMAIL HERSELF THE EVIDENCE ON GREG'S PHONE then all the rest of this is moot. You can't show her using a smartphone, and then not have her backup the incriminating evidence. It's ludicrous to the point of being insulting to the audience.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This movie is so much better than the drek they are putting out today, it's hard not to want to give it a better rating. But the ending is a mess, so 4.5 is the best it gets. I would recommend this to fans of Rhys Ward, who is definitely the standout here. His performance makes the movie watchable, and even semi entertaining. If you like made-for-tv movies, there are worse ones out there. It's not terrible for a background time waster.
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Hometown Killer (2018)
An above average made-for-tv thriller...
HOMETOWN KILLER (TV movie 2019)
5.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:20 min
A new take on the movie Unlawful Entry (1992)...
BASIC PLOT:
After being attacked in her own home, Tara (Kaitlyn Black) is relieved to see the police show up. But what she didn't expect to also see, is an old friend from high school, Penny (Ashley Gallegos). Penny is now a cop, and a bad ass. She takes down Tara's intruder without even breaking a sweat. Tara is more than relieved, and grateful, and she's also hopeful she can right some wrongs perpertrated on Penny back in high school. Tara goes out of her way to reconnect with Penny, not realizing the danger she's putting herself, and her family in. Not everyone recovers from traumatic events so easily, and beneath Penny's smiling exterior is a fount of unending rage, and lust for revenge.
Will Tara discern the real predator in her midst in time to save herself, and those she loves?
WHAT WORKS:
*THE ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE for this type of movie. Kudos to Kaitlyn Black & Ashley Gallegos, who are the standouts. They both do an excellent job as survivor and villainess.
*THE STORYLINE IS NEW & ORIGINAL
This is not your run of the mill Lifetime movie. It's not something I've seen before, and it's done well on a small budget.
*CLOSES STRONG The ending is not a let down, and that's refreshing for this type of film.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*LIGHTING IS TERRIBLE! This is not the first time I've said this about TV movies, and it probably won't be the last. The lighting is atrocious, everybody is constantly in shadow (and that doesn't work for anyone).
*SO MANY SHOTS ARE TOO CLOSE
I do not need to be able to count the pores on the actresses nose, and with this movie, I could.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I would definitely recommend this movie to fans of Kaitlyn Black, and to fans of Ashley Gallegos. This is an above average made-for-tv thriller, and an entertaining hour and a half. It's an engaging thriller, with a fresh take on an old idea (revenge). Don't watch if you like intricate plot/character development, or big budget pictures. This is just a diverting made-for-tv movie, with a twist. It's not trying to be anything else, but it succeeds at what it is.
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
The Perfect Bride (1991)
A fun, silly, made-for-tv time waster...
THE PERFECT BRIDE (1991 TV movie)
5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3min
BASIC PLOT:
Ted Whitman (Linden Ashby) thinks he's met the perfect woman. Her name's Stephanie (Sammi Davis), and she's a bit mysterious. He's only known her three months, but for Ted, that's enough. He's head over heels for her, and so is his family. All except his sister, Laura (Kelly Preston), who doesn't quite trust Stephanie. She can't figure out why everyone is so gung ho for her, especially since Laura continues to catch her in lie after lie. She lies about her past, about her family, about everything. Stephanie has a way of explaining away these little indiscrepancies, and everyone just believes her. In fact, their faith in Stephanie has caused the whole family to turn on Laura. The more Laura uncovers, the angrier they get... at Laura. Can she uncover Stephanie's real identity and motives before anyone else dies?
WHAT WORKS:
*HAVING STEPHANIE REVERT TO HER BRITISH ACCENT WORKS Stephanie is driving Darlene somewhere (to dispose of her), pretending to be Laura. A car pulls out in front of them, and she reverts to her real accent (British), and says, "bloody hell!" In those types of situations, or when drunk or sleepy, people tend to let their "original" way of speaking come forward.
*HAVING TED'S EX GIRLFRIEND , SHOW UP TO WRESTLE AT HIS BACHELOR PARTY really works as a reason Stephanie would go off. Deidre (Tamara Clatterbuck) has already made it clear, she'd be open.. to Ted's advances, even saying so right in front of Stephanie. Having Stephanie see this, and then having Ted lie to her about it, is the last straw on a fragile mind, that's on the verge of collapse.
*CRAZY GRANDPA IS A BREATH OF FRESH AIR John Agar plays crazy grandpa VERY well, and he's the only member of the family I care about (other than Laura).
*PRODUCTION VALUES ARE ABOVE CURRENT MOVIES This looks, sounds, and feels like a real movie. You never feel like it was made on the cheap, or not up to par, as you do with ALL made-for-tv movies today.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WHY IS THE MOTHER SO HATEFUL TO HER OWN DAUGHTER? First she gives Stephanie, a total stranger (her future daughter-in-law, whom she's known for mere hours) her wedding dress to wear, WITHOUT even asking her daughter, Laura, first. Then when Laura balks, the mother gets mad at HER. I'd put my mother in her place if she did this. It's unacceptable to let anyone wear your wedding dress, EXCEPT your daughter, unless you've ASKED your daughter first. It's a betrayal FOR SURE! But this mother seems oblivious, which makes her more than unlikable. Therefore, I hope she gets SLAUGHTERED. Maybe that's the idea.
*IT SEEMS LIKE STEPHANIE IS FLIRTING WITH THE LAURA It's a bit bizarre, to have Stephanie behaving flirtatiously with her future sister-in-law. It's very wink wink type of stuff, but still there. Odd.
*MAYBE I'M HYPERSENSITIVE BUT... If my family treated me the way they treat Laura, I'd cut these toxic people out of my life, and never see them again. The mother's behavior is over-the-top evil to her own daughter, and the brother is a sanctimonious ham (which Linden Ashby has a hard time pulling off, probably because he's too nice in real life). They are all horrible people, which makes them hard to sympathize with. I never cared what happened to any of them. It's never a good idea to have your protagonists so unlikable, especially in a melodrama.
*THERE'S NO CHEMISTRY BETWEEN TED & STEPHANIE
They don't have anything in common. You can never understand what they see in each other, and so it just doesn't work
*WHY DOESN'T THE CATERER CALL 911 Was this written by a man? Because a woman's instinct is to call for help, no matter who her attacker is. It isn't to go outside in the dark, and then try to find, and confront the attacker. That's what a man would do. It's just stupid, and not what ANY woman would do, but especially NOT an older woman.
*DARLENE HARRIS IS THE WORST WITNESS IN THE WORLD
She comes on a plane to identify this woman, and she can't because she's in a wig and glasses? What use is she?
*ALL COPS BELIEVE IN ONE THING: THERE ARE NO COINCIDENCES IN HOMICIDE So, even if George (Ted's best friend & a cop) was drunk & horny at the bachelor party, he WOULD listen to Laura's facts regarding men dropping like flies, the day before they were to wed Stephanie, AND the fact they were all engaged to nurses (like Stephanie).
*CRITICALLY ILL COMA PATIENTS ARE NOT LEFT UNATTENDED I have this problem with lots of Lifetime faire, people can't sneak into the ICU, and murder people. Not in 1991, and not today.
*AFTER LAURA IS THE HEROINE & RISKS HER LIFE TO SAVE HER BROTHER... No one says "Thank you!", or "Are you alright?" NOTHING! She's left alone, and you hear people in the background worrying about Ted, but NO ONE says ANYTHING to her. UNBELIEVABLE!
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*If you enjoy made-for-tv melodramas, you'll probably like this. It's a silly, fun, time waster, that's now also a nostalgic romp back to 1990. Enjoy!
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
The Perfect Neighbor (2005)
Not the worst, not the best...
THE PERFECT NEIGHBOR (TV movie
4.5 out of 10 stars
Time to Read: 1:01 min
BASIC PLOT:
Donna Germaine (Barbara Niven) is a disturbed woman, living in her own delusional reality. Childhood trauma has left her seeking love in all the wrong places, and her latest disastrous attachment is within the Costigan family. Donna has her sites set on William Costigan (Perry King), and she's not going to let anyone stand in her way, not his wife Jeannie (Susan Blakely), his co-worker Ashley (Tori Hammond), or even her own Aunt Grace (Lila Bata-Walsh). The more Donna ingratiates herself into the Costigan family, the more dangerous her obsession becomes. Can William and Jeannie discover Donna's true motives in time to save themselves, and clear William from a false murder charge?
WHAT WORKS:
*THE BASIC PLOT WORKS for a low budget, made-for-tv melodrama. It could have been elevated into real entertainment with a bit more character development, but the story is fun enough to make it watchable.
*THERE ARE TWO POSTERS FOR THIS MOVIE and both of them are above average. Quality posters/DVD covers are a rarity, and deserve a mention.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WHAT IS WITH ALL THE CLOSE UPS? I don't know who thought it would be a good idea to shove the camera that close to middle aged actors, but they need to think again.
*THE DELIVERY OF LINES IS PRETTY WOODEN All the characters, with the exception of Barbara Niven, deliver their lines in a very stiff fashion. This is a melodrama, so some of that can be forgiven, but it does have a detrimental effect on the movie overall.
*THE CHARACTERS ARE ALL ONE DIMENSIONAL Again, this is a melodrama, so deep character studies are not what you'd expect to find. Still, having the characters be this flat, it's hard to care about any of the outcomes. I expect better out of Ken Sanders.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*If you are a fan of made-for-tv melodramas, there are worse ones out there. It's not terrible, not good, just mediocre TV movie faire.
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Deadly Isolation (2005)
Don't watch the last 3 mins!!
DEADLY ISOLATION (2005 TV movie)
4.8 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:55 mins
BASIC PLOT:
Susan Mandaway (Sherilyn Fenn) is not recovering well from her husband, Ron's untimely demise. After years of happiness, Ron took his own life, without explanation. Susan has taken her grief to their remote island hideaway, and has shut herself off from the world. To make matters worse, unbeknownst to Susan, Ron was involved with a jewelry heist, and now the other two gangsters involved, have broke jail, and are coming after Susan.
One of the predators in her midst is "Jeff Watkins" (Nicholas Lea), a professed dot com millionaire, who was injured, and needs her help. He's really Patrick Carlson, one of the jewel thieves who escaped from prison, and will stop at nothing to find "his" diamonds.
Can Susan discover the truth surrounding her husband's death, and uncover "Jeff's" true Identity and motives, in time to save herself?
WHAT WORKS:
*PERFECT CASTING Nicholas Lea is perfect as "Jeff Watkins", the villain with a smiling face, and Sherilyn Fenn is outstanding as Susan Mandaway, the vulnerable widow, living on the remote part of an isolated island. Even the ancillary characters are well cast. Marcel Jeannin does a fine job as Kirby Grantham, the boy next door cop, who's in love with Susan. And Andreas Apergis does his usual good job as the more evil half of the criminal duo.
*PERFECT ATMOSPHERIC The locations are beautiful, but with an impression of remoteness and isolation. There is an underlying feeling of vulnerability running throughout the movie, simply due to it's isolated locale. It's a hidden reminder of how defenseless Susan (Sherilyn Fenn) really is, living alone in such a secluded place.
*THE UNCOMFORTABLENESS (NRE) BETWEEN "JEFF" AND SUSAN IS DONE SO WELL that it makes the viewer uncomfortable watching them. That's a real credit to Nicholas Lea & Sherilyn Fenn as actors.
*PLOT DEVICES ARE WELL LAID There are several visual cues that alert Susan to "Jeff's" duplicity, and they work! So often in these types of movies, the visual cues and metaphors are cheesy, but not here. They are well placed, and believable.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*THE MOVIE NEEDS A HERO & IT DOESN'T HAVE ONE, and I think that's why there's such a low rating here. By the 2/3rds point in the movie, "Jeff" is still sweeping Susan off her feet, we expect more from him, and he disappoints. What's worse, there's no one who fills this role, making the viewer subconsciously angry at the movie as a whole (even though the first half is decent). But as any screenwriter knows, you have to wow them at the end, and this movie definitely does not.
*THE "HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE IN LOVE" SPEECH DOESN'T WORK It's pretty cheesy, it's not how adults talk to one another, and just doesn't work. It's so bad, it disrupts the flow of the movie, ejecting the viewer from their suspension of disbelief.
*WHY WOULD RON, SUSAN'S LATE HUSBAND, KILL HIMSELF, AND LEAVE GANGSTERS AFTER HIS WIFE? It seems to me, no matter the reasons Ron had for killing himself, he would find a way to stop the gangsters from coming after Susan. Why would you leave in a way that puts the woman you love in peril? You're not going to save your wife in one way, just to put her in danger in another way. It's a pretty gaping plothole, & it doesn't make sense in any kind of real world way.
*WHO IS CAL? We never find out. Maybe he is some old friend of Ron's, but the whole scene he is in MAKES NO SENSE! I think they were going for trying to tell Susan something was wrong with Ron, but it's an EPIC FAIL! Why would Cal avoid talking to Susan after Ron's death? They need to tell us definitely who Cal is, and why he would avoid a grieving widow, because the whole scene is bizarre.
*PATRICK/JEFF ISN'T WEARING GLOVES DURING HIS RUN IN WITH KIRBY His prints would be everywhere, and could be a real problem for him. This could have been fixed easily, and I don't know why filmmakers leave plotholes like this.
*SUSAN'S LAST SPEECH RUINS THE WHOLE MOVIE It's bizarre to suddenly have voiceover (the lazy screenwriter's crutch) in the last 3 minutes, when there was none before. What's worse, you'd have an ok movie if it wasn't there. But it is there, and the last 3mins of Susan's voiceover RUINS THE WHOLE MOVIE! Why not have her find the diamonds, and get a reward for their return? Why does she need to leave the island, and hate on her dead husband? It's just a mess, and why the scores are so low.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I can recommend this for the quality of acting, and for the efficacious use of location to produce a successful atmospheric. BUT, I recommend shutting it off BEFORE the last 3mins. If you watch the last 3mins, it will taint the whole thing for you, and it's better to just turn it off before you get there. It does have some problems, but compared to the dreck that's on these days, it's a breath of fresh air.
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
Framed for Murder (2007)
Weak story, bad acting and lots of plotholes...
FRAMED FOR MURDER (TV movie 2007)
3 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:20 min
BASIC PLOT:
June, a weak, mentally unstable woman is framed for her abusive husband's murder. Rather than fight the charges, she accepts a plea deal, and serves eight years for manslaughter. Her sister Claire (Susan Walters) takes custody of June's son, with her husband, Jason (Perry King).
June emerges from prison a changed woman. Determined to get her life back, and prove her innocence, not just for herself, but for her son as well, she begins a targeted campaign against her husband's killer. She enlists the help of her former cellmate, Charlie (Claire Brosseau), and Charlie's brother, Victor (Jonathan Higgins). They seek the help of PI, Diane Desalvo (Lisa Langlois), an old family friend. But their fact-finding mission has drawn unwanted attention from the real killer, and one of them won't survive.
Will June learn the truth about why she was framed? Will she ever be able to clear her name, and be reunited with her son? Or will she meet the same grizzly end as her ill-fated husband?
WHAT WORKS:
*THE MOVIE IS SHOT WELL Douglas Jackson never phones in his movies. This is directed, and shot well thanks to Jackson, and his cinematographer, Bert Tougas.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*THE POLICE TELL JUNE, THERE ARE NO BRUISES ON HER PERSON, BUT HER CLOTHES ARE RIPPED, AND THERE ARE SIGNS OF A STRUGGLE Police know, especially by 2007, that some abusers are keen not to leave evidence, like black eyes, or broken bones, on abused women. We never see her Mirandized BEFORE she's questioned, either. They never ask questions, like -Who called the police to the house? There's a lot of information that's just brushed over, so she takes the plea deal, and goes to prison for eight years. That's sloppy writing by Christine Conradt & Richard Dana Smith.
*WE NEVER GET THE BACKSTORY ON EVIL SISTER, CLAIRE, & THE BLONDE GARDNER, NICK
How do Claire (Susan Walters) and Nick (Kevin Jubinville) get together? How does their affair begin? What's his involvement? Why is he willing to kill for Claire? These are questions we SHOULD have answered by the time the movie is 2/3rds over, but again, they are just brushed over.
*THIS FEELS LIKE CHRISTINE CONRADT REWORKED ONE OF HER PREVIOUS, MORE SUCCESSFUL SCRIPTS and came up with nothing! This movie has many of the same plotlines as The Perfect Marriage (2006), but not done as successfully. The filmmakers even use a redhead for the main character (just like in The Perfect Marriage (2006)). It was a fine made-for-tv melodrama, this is not.
*PACING IS OFF By the 1:15 mark, I'm thinking of fast forwarding through, because nothing is happening. I should say, the same stuff is happening that happened 30 min ago, the same fights, the same break-downs, THE SAME!
*CHARACTERS ARE TOO ONE DIMENSIONAL
I know this is a melodrama, BUT, you have to have more story if I'm supposed to engage with the movie. The story is flat & repetitive, and there's not enough character development/backstory for me to care about any of these people. Not one of Christine Conradt better scripts.
*THE SON, IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT Neither Claire, or June, seem to have much feeling, or thoughts for him. Claire had been raising him for the last eight years, but remarks they'll find a good home for him, like he's an unwanted puppy. He is June's biological son, yet she seems not to care, and therefore it feels tacked on, and not needed.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I can't recommend this movie. It is a bad redo of The Perfect Marriage (2006), and even though that has a few problems, it's a fun time waster. This is not fun, and is instead just a waste of your time.
CLOSING NOTES:
*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch/rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in full, or in part, by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews (less trolls and fanboys), and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.