IMDb > Vows of Deception (1996) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb

Reviews & Ratings for
Vows of Deception (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 6 reviews in total 

9 out of 12 people found the following review useful:

An okayish TV Drama, but nothing new

Author: mickeyboy86 from London, England
11 August 2001

I thought this was a typically TV style film with no real effort to make itself as anything more. Ex- Charlie's Angel, Cheryl Ladd, is fairly watchable as the seductive and subtlely wicked step mom of a young man and husband to a rich, but lonely old guy. His brother is Nick Mancuso, the detective that brought her into the small town on Parole. Well basically the women wants the husband's cash and also his twentysomething son, the husband thinks she is for real, the son can't keep up fighting her sexy and seductive behaviour forever and the detective knows that she'll ruin his life. With a little more sexyness, this would've been a cheesy, soft-porn flik, but with the constant need to start touching bodies and removing clothes only to cut to next scenes and relatively bad acting, forced into the worn story, this is something left uncomfortably in the middle

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

The actual Lucinda

5/10
Author: jamie_arkansas40 from United States
4 November 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie is a true movie and not a bad one at that. The actual Lucinda is Susan Grund. She married Jimmy Grund . A very prominent family from Peru Indiana. I read the book "Deadly Seduction" and the movie leaves a lot out. The book is so much better. This woman , if thats what you want to call her is very deceiving. Before she married Jimmy Grund she was married to Tom Whited Sr. She beat her stepson's so bad he is now mentally retarded. One of his hands remains in a curled position due to his mental retardation and after-effects of his medication to curb is seizures. He can only volunteer one coherent word and that word is Food. She is one sick human being. Susan Grund is the only one who knows exactly what happened that night in August. She still insists she is Innocent of the charges . Connie and James A. Grund (parents of Jimmy) still live in the same house on Main Street in Peru. Their feelings about Susan have never mellowed and they visit the grave of their murdered son each weekend. Gary Nichols (best friend of Jimmy) is still a detective for the Peru Police Dept. and has continued to work surveillance operations for the FBI and statewide drug organizations mainly on drug related cases. Darlene Worden (Susan's Sister) says she will still not stop loving her sister despite the murder she committed and the fact that Susan refuses to reply to her letters. Darlene admits she wishes she had not split the family by informing on her sister to the authorities. Nellie Sanders (mother of Susan) remains convinced that others were involved in the murder of Jimmy besides her daughter. Me personally cant imagine anyone else but her to have done it as Jimmy was a well respected and liked man. Nellie still lives in the same rundown house on 3rd street, Peru; the house that Susan so desperately tried to leave behind. Susan is now in a house she needs to stay in PRISON !!!!!! I hope the info I have provided you helps. Anyone with questions to this just post them if I can answer I will be happy too. I am also going to give you a timeline in hopes this can be of good info. Timeline

August 4, 1992: Police state that they have no suspects in the death of James A. Grund.

August 5, 1992: Grund's death is ruled a homocide instead of suicide.

November 4, 1992: At 5 a.m in the morning Susan Grund is arrested for the murder, Susan pleads innocent of the charges and is being held without bond.

June 3, 1993: Susan Ann Grund testified that she hid the gun that she found near her husband's body to protect her stepson, with whom she had been sex~ ually involved.

September 27, 1993: The trial starts

April 15, 1994: Susan Grund is sentenced to 40 years, with eligibility for parole in 2024.

June 7, 1996: The book "Deadly Seduction" Comes out.

November 13, 1996: The movie comes out on CBS

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 4 people found the following review useful:

Now That's Gratitude For Ya!

6/10
Author: sol1218 from brooklyn NY
3 November 2007

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

***SPOILERS*** Somewhat confusing crime drama that's based on a true story, maybe that's why it's so confusing, about this parolee Lucinda Michaels, Cheryl Ladd, who gets involved with this very very very successful lawyer the sweet and very likable Clay Spencer, Mike Farrell, and takes him for the ride of his life; straight into the city morgue.

This whole sordid adventure started out as a harmless prank on the part of Lucinda's parole officer local cop Matt Harding played by John Cassavettes look alike Nick Mancuso. Playing a practical joke on his friend Clay, who's been divorced for some six years, Matt has him set up with his parolee client Lucindia feeling that he and Clay, as well as Lucinda, will get a big laugh out of the whole deal. It turns out that Clay ends up going ape-sh*t over the shapely and hot as a pistol Lucinda, who was some eight months pregnant at the time, and before you can say Jackie Robinson the two were hitched, married, in the biggest social event that town had in years.

Grateful to her husband at first for all the things that he's given her together with her new born child, from her previous husband, Britiany,Clair Marie Hooker, Lucinda turns as rotten as a months old container of spoiled milk as she starts going on a spending spree leaving Clay in debt, over her extravagant lifestyle, tens of thousands of dollars. Lucinda really goes overboard when she starts to turn the screws on Clay's young and handsome, like his pop, son Nick, Michael Woolson, who despite all of Lucinda's trying resist her very sexy and aggressive advances which must have taken superhuman self-control on Nick's part.

Clay smelling a rat when an acting scared and concerned Lucinda tells him that she's getting obscene and threatening phone calls has Matt tap his, and Lcinda's, phones. It's then when Clay finds out that his very greedy and ungrateful wife is trying to seduce and screw his innocent and very confused son Nick, who has a study girlfriend Samantha played by Cody Tucker, behind his back and decides to cut the two-timing hussy out of his will. As it turned out Lucinda gets to Clay first not only leaving him dead with a bullet to his left temple but his totally innocent son Nick implicated in his fathers murder.

The movie "Vows of Deception" was pretty good for the first half but started to really lag after Clay's body was discovered in his mansion by Lucinda. We were giving the runaround to if Clay's death was a murder or a suicide. All the evidence seemed to point to the obviously innocent and framed, by Lucinda, Nick. Still it was hard, even if you fell for Lucinda's frame-up, to see how Nick could have knocked off his old man.

The two, Nick & Cay, were always getting along fine and only Lucinda's lies about her step-son was the only evidence, if you could call it that, against him. Nick for his part was such a good and feeling son that he refused to bring out Lucinda's infidelities towards his father and his rejections of his step-mothers efforts in trying to get him romantically involved with her. That in itself would have easily cleared Nick of Lucinda's ridiculous charges of murdering Clay, but Nick kept it under the table in order not to soil his fathers good name and memory.

****SPOILER ALERT****In the end it was Matt, who felt very guilty for having him introduce Lucinda to Clay, that broke the case wide open by finding the murder weapon, Nick's gun, where Lucinda hid it. This before she could plant it on Nick, or in Nick's home, in what Lucinda called Plan B that would have iced Nick, with a murder rap and conviction, and had her get off Scot-free in her husbands and Nick's fathers murder.

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 18 people found the following review useful:

Fairly decent movie with some stars

5/10
Author: Bob Peterson from Kettering, Ohio, U.S.A.
17 September 2004

I thought this movie wasn't "exceptionally" good. I did, however, think it was worth watching. The movie centered around an older, sexier female, played by Cheryl Ladd of the "Charlie's Angels" days. She tries to go after the money of a friend of a detective. Overall, the storyline I thought dragged on and needed something else. There also was her sister played by Nancy Cartwright who does the voice for Bart Simpson on the show, "The Simpsons." If you are in to dramas, it's definitely worth watching. I found that I was watching it for a little bit then turning the channels back and forth during commercials. I don't think there could be anymore to the story because of the way it ended.

Was the above review useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following review useful:

Another one bites the dust~

10/10
Author: Chainstaya Dimond
9 February 2014

She's purely a sociopath/psychopath that would have been 10 steps beyond anyone, they are these animal victims! If only they would see past their procreation devices perhaps they would have had a chance. Lowlife's that ruin decent kind good folks lives should get the death penalty to ensure no one ever again…yeah & also they lost their freedoms & all the wonderful senses we come here with. But not in this Country, they get all the protection the laws are suppose to protect us with, that's another crime & sin! They receive the gift of life, sometimes 3 lifetimes, and do they really serve them all out? According to the info at hand, many get bleeding hearts sorry while the fatalities get justice not! Ya think these scumbags were the hero's w/all the glorification they get labeled & a movie plus airtime…the victims have no voice, hell barely mentioned huh?

Was the above review useful to you?

3 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

A bad Cheryl Ladd flick

Author: guil fisher from New York City, NY
22 May 2010

Of course, no one ever claimed she was much of an actress. This film proves it. Ladd goes around playing sexy and that's about it. No moments but puckering and prancing about in revealing costumes too tight and too small for her. And what a waste of talented actors such as Nick Mancuso and Mike Farrell. They must have been desperate to take on this project or the money was too good. It's pretty obvious about what will happen in this. Isn't it always when a bimbo marries a rich man? This is no different. Michael Woolson as the son tries to stay far away from the whore wife. But the script makes him succumb to her fancies.

All in all I give this a 2 and a half for the presence of Mancuso and Farrell and the attempt of Woolson. But 0 for the performance by Ladd.

Was the above review useful to you?


Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings External reviews
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history