It's like a movie from the 80-90s. Cringe laugh, lame jokes, awkward talking... I have no idea how this movie was made in 2019. It really is awful. But the idea behind it seems like a good one.
12 Reviews
5 for the nice try
shefchenko28 March 2022
Absolute trash - even the production team caterers deny working on it.
iranu-7419518 February 2021
Storyline is pointless to cover. To say the acting is bad, would be an insult to bad actors elsewhere. The "Dad" actor is up there with: Muppets, Sand, Dog poo, discarded cardboard, methane. The "Mom" actor is on medication throughout.
Script Extract: Mom & Dad argue about getting rid of daughter:
(Dad> to Mom) "How can you ask me to kill our daughter - we're a Family for God's sake"
That's it.
Adapted in danger
Stanlee10710 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Wow, this film is so irksome. The amount of clichés in this are ridiculous: There is the lead protagonist girl with her "best black friend", doctors that have so much free time & hardly works (that is unbelievable), the reportor friend that helps uncovers the plot, the token bad guys that follow the protagonist & her friends. Her handsome husband that is a toy boy that doesn't seem to have a job and is a house husband.
This movie is so bad that, even if you take out the clichés narrative to enhance this film, it still bad. Finding out about your "real parents" does not make for an entertaining film no matter what the producers of this tries to convince you otherwise. It is beyond stupid, cops are inept & only the protagonist can solve this. Jesus, I could not have made this up. If you do not want to watch paint dry then do not waste your time on this film. I regrettably watched this so please do not make the same mistake as I did!
This movie is so bad that, even if you take out the clichés narrative to enhance this film, it still bad. Finding out about your "real parents" does not make for an entertaining film no matter what the producers of this tries to convince you otherwise. It is beyond stupid, cops are inept & only the protagonist can solve this. Jesus, I could not have made this up. If you do not want to watch paint dry then do not waste your time on this film. I regrettably watched this so please do not make the same mistake as I did!
Lifetime quality, or in other words no quality whatsoever.
deloudelouvain3 December 2020
If there is one consistency with Lifetime movies it's the mediocrity. I don't think I ever watched a good movie on Lifetime, and I wonder why I still watch a movie from that channel every now and then? In this case it was by mistake, I could have turned it off as soon as I saw it was frrom Lifetime television but got too lazy and just went with it in the hope they finally would make a decent movie. But they didn't, it's again a very cheesy story, where nothing is logical, where the coincidences are so ridicule it becomes annoying. Not only is the plot bad, but the acting is below average, almost cringing to watch. There's a reason why those actors are in television movies and in nothing else. The soundtrack is also typical for those bad movies, you wonder why nobody told them about it when they make a new movie, it's bad, repetitive and awful to listen to. I think this will be my last Lifetime movie ever, unless I get tricked into it again, but that will be my own fault.
Predictable but watchable
phd_travel28 January 2020
Warning: Spoilers
With all these genetic tests out there this is a timely thriller about the can of worms you can open with the results. It's quite an intriguing thriller when a young woman finds out who her father is. He denies her existence and her friend a reporter digs further. It's not hard to guess she was the product of an illicit affair. As the truth surfaces it's those trying to cover it up resort to murder. Although it's predictable it is watchable and the cast is pleasant to watch. The ending is good. The explanation is very clearly spelt out. There is a small feel good twist.
Perhaps the Worst Lifetime Movie of all Time!
mabra-9745821 February 2020
A Troubled Lineage
lavatch6 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
Dr. Candace Burke is a pediatrician planning to have a family. A high priority for her is to discover the identity of her birth parents now that her adoptive parents are deceased. After running a DNA test and enlisting a resourceful investigative reporter, Candace learns that she was sired by a local real estate tycoon named Tom Mason. But her attempt to connect with Mason leads her into a nightmare.
Early in his marriage to his domineering wife Jeanette, Tom had a dalliance with a real estate intern named Henrietta. At the prompting of Jeanette, the baby was snatched and put up for adoption. Apparently, Henrietta was murdered by Tom at the behest of Jeanette.
As "Adopted in Danger" (a.k.a., "Killing Your Daughter") unfolds, it becomes clear that Jeanette Mason is doing her best to imitate Lady Macbeth. Jeanette has a twisted notion of "protecting her family" when, in fact, the revelation of a child out of wedlock would likely have no adverse affect on the family business.
The film was overly unpleasant due to the murders of old Felix Rossman, Tom's business partner. Candace's bestie, Allie, is also murdered when she is mistaken for Candace in a Las Vegas hotel swimming pool. And the helpful reporter, Margot, has her brake line cut, resulting in her death. All three of these fatalities were the results of the deranged mind of Jeanette. For the screenwriters, was it really necessary to eliminate these three characters by violent means?
After creating a psychopathic villain in Jeanette, the filmmakers really outdid themselves in a wild denouement where it is revealed that Tom not did not murder Henrietta. Instead, he escorted her to the Canadian border, gave her a bundle of cash, then kept in close touch with her for thirty years! Now, after the arrest of Jeanette, Tom and Henrietta are "an item"!
In her initial DNA test, Candace learned that she is half-Irish and half-Dutch. After Tom serves his light, six-month prison sentence, there will certainly be many family discussions where Candace can ask both of her parents about her Irish-Dutch heritage!
Early in his marriage to his domineering wife Jeanette, Tom had a dalliance with a real estate intern named Henrietta. At the prompting of Jeanette, the baby was snatched and put up for adoption. Apparently, Henrietta was murdered by Tom at the behest of Jeanette.
As "Adopted in Danger" (a.k.a., "Killing Your Daughter") unfolds, it becomes clear that Jeanette Mason is doing her best to imitate Lady Macbeth. Jeanette has a twisted notion of "protecting her family" when, in fact, the revelation of a child out of wedlock would likely have no adverse affect on the family business.
The film was overly unpleasant due to the murders of old Felix Rossman, Tom's business partner. Candace's bestie, Allie, is also murdered when she is mistaken for Candace in a Las Vegas hotel swimming pool. And the helpful reporter, Margot, has her brake line cut, resulting in her death. All three of these fatalities were the results of the deranged mind of Jeanette. For the screenwriters, was it really necessary to eliminate these three characters by violent means?
After creating a psychopathic villain in Jeanette, the filmmakers really outdid themselves in a wild denouement where it is revealed that Tom not did not murder Henrietta. Instead, he escorted her to the Canadian border, gave her a bundle of cash, then kept in close touch with her for thirty years! Now, after the arrest of Jeanette, Tom and Henrietta are "an item"!
In her initial DNA test, Candace learned that she is half-Irish and half-Dutch. After Tom serves his light, six-month prison sentence, there will certainly be many family discussions where Candace can ask both of her parents about her Irish-Dutch heritage!
Not a new movie
qassddd23 February 2020
A smorgasbord of cinematic delights!
paulgibson-2980628 July 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Every once in a while, a Director delivers a smorgasbord of cinematic delights and that is what Craig Goldstein has achieved with 'Killing Your Daughter'.
Without wishing to spoil your viewing pleasure of this modern day classic thriller, the plot revolves around a young lady called Candace (played by the excellent Allison Paige), who was adopted and wishes to find her birth parents as she wants to start her own family with her hunky hubbie (Tyler Johnson in typically good form). Very conveniently, her chum is a journalist and manages to find out with 99% certainty, with a DNA match, that her father is Tom Mason (played by the always excellent thespian Jason Brooks, who bears an uncanny resemblance to the late, great Christopher Reeve of Superman fame).
Mason turns out to be a local developer who has acquired a considerable fortune and, when confronted by Candace, he denies all knowledge of her. This meeting then triggers off a series of very unfortunate events for her chums and needless to say, mayhem of a murderous nature swiftly ensues.
Paul Ruddy obviously did his homework when it came to casting the part of Tom Mason's psychotic wife Jeannette. Sarah Aldrich is a 'tour de force' as the 'femme fatale' and she delivers a powerful and entirely convincing performance throughout the film. Indeed, the acting skills of all the cast adds only adds to the enjoyment derived by the viewing public.
Special mention should be made of the elderly gentleman whose acting skills were cruelly curtailed thanks to a large pillow being forced upon his face whilst trying to enjoy a well earned sleep...it is hoped that he will get a chance to display his acting credentials in future similar blockbuster movies.
Ultimately, this thoroughly enjoyable, gripping and tear jerking classic, acts as a warning to young ladies of all ages not to become acquainted with adopted daughters whose birth fathers are wedded to psychotic wives and to elderly gentlemen in care homes to beware strangers wearing hoodies and wielding large pillows in the dead of night
Highly recommended!
Without wishing to spoil your viewing pleasure of this modern day classic thriller, the plot revolves around a young lady called Candace (played by the excellent Allison Paige), who was adopted and wishes to find her birth parents as she wants to start her own family with her hunky hubbie (Tyler Johnson in typically good form). Very conveniently, her chum is a journalist and manages to find out with 99% certainty, with a DNA match, that her father is Tom Mason (played by the always excellent thespian Jason Brooks, who bears an uncanny resemblance to the late, great Christopher Reeve of Superman fame).
Mason turns out to be a local developer who has acquired a considerable fortune and, when confronted by Candace, he denies all knowledge of her. This meeting then triggers off a series of very unfortunate events for her chums and needless to say, mayhem of a murderous nature swiftly ensues.
Paul Ruddy obviously did his homework when it came to casting the part of Tom Mason's psychotic wife Jeannette. Sarah Aldrich is a 'tour de force' as the 'femme fatale' and she delivers a powerful and entirely convincing performance throughout the film. Indeed, the acting skills of all the cast adds only adds to the enjoyment derived by the viewing public.
Special mention should be made of the elderly gentleman whose acting skills were cruelly curtailed thanks to a large pillow being forced upon his face whilst trying to enjoy a well earned sleep...it is hoped that he will get a chance to display his acting credentials in future similar blockbuster movies.
Ultimately, this thoroughly enjoyable, gripping and tear jerking classic, acts as a warning to young ladies of all ages not to become acquainted with adopted daughters whose birth fathers are wedded to psychotic wives and to elderly gentlemen in care homes to beware strangers wearing hoodies and wielding large pillows in the dead of night
Highly recommended!
Strangely interesting - and nice to see stars of the 90's still working
mja5820 June 2021
The storyline seems a little far fetched, but DNA matching is an actual event and incidents as described in the movie DO HAPPEN (but not the violence and melodrama.
Nice to see.....
1. Jason Brooks of Baywatch, etc. As a father to adult children, and still looking pretty good.
2. Tyler Johnson taking on the atypical role of husband to the heroine.
3. A fairly satisfying ending, although rather unexpected.
There was more violence than I am comfortable with, but the movie is worth a look.
7/10.
Nice to see.....
1. Jason Brooks of Baywatch, etc. As a father to adult children, and still looking pretty good.
2. Tyler Johnson taking on the atypical role of husband to the heroine.
3. A fairly satisfying ending, although rather unexpected.
There was more violence than I am comfortable with, but the movie is worth a look.
7/10.
Sufficiently entertaining, yet unmistakably Lifetime
I_Ailurophile1 July 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I've somehow found myself watching a few Lifetime movies at this point, and still 'Adopted in danger' managed to surprise me. It's brashly direct and unsubtle to the point of being awkward at the most tense and suspenseful moments, and horrifically cheesy at the most sentimental moments.
I can't decide if this is great or terrible.
Hard cuts between scenes don't compare to the even more severe cutaways at points where a broadcast would go to commercial break. It was quite jarring to watch a couple scenes play out seemingly out order: two characters have a discussion about the coming weekend on the same day a third pursues an idea, but it's only after scenes depicting that weekend that the third supporting character places a call discussing her pursuit "today." This is followed in short order by a scene where deeply unconvincing editing shifts between concurrent goings-on at an office, or is used in the same scene in a way as to convey the passage of time - when it's only mere seconds that could have possibly passed in the narrative.
So glaring is Wendy Elford-Argent's editing that I can't imagine it wasn't a conscious decision. The same absolutely goes for the script: the dialogue is terribly ham-fisted, and only grows more so as the film progresses toward its conclusion. None of this is really unexpected, of course; such blatant pageantry is what Lifetime is known for. But the sheer degree to which all artfulness and nuance has been withheld from 'Adopted in danger' is kind of impressive.
I do genuinely like the wardrobe and costume design. I think the actors assembled here are just fine, performing well in the roles they're given. Admittedly I'm a bit biased, having previously enjoyed Allison Paige's performances elsewhere. It's hardly the cast's fault that the screenplay, direction, and editing is so desperately plain, so straightforward. They work with what they are given, questionable as it is, and do their best.
But we're not done yet, because there are a few other aspects of 'Adopted in danger' that stand out like 5-alarm fire during a blackout. First is the trailer. I don't know who cut it, or approved it for dissemination, but I question their work in film and TV. Even in an industry where trailers are infamous for showing too much, this one conveys almost the entirety of the plot, from start to finish, leaving out only a few garnishing details. It's so bizarrely revealing that I wondered if it was even worth watching the full movie.
And then there's the early discussion of "family history" web sites, the basis for the plot. Protagonist Candace (Paige) is able to have a law enforcement contact dredge up records based on her DNA results, and her friend Allie gives a passing line about how law enforcement has access to the database of all DNA submissions. This is an accurate reflection of the very real and dangerous privacy concerns that abound with all such companies, affecting not just those who submit samples, but anyone they are related to. While this is only the bare bones underpinnings of the film's narrative, it's flummoxing how this alarming reality is passed over so casually.
Less dire, yet even more gross, is the final scene, the denouement. It's bad enough that we are informed of the lack of consequences imposed upon an antagonistic figure in the story, and worse still that they are seemingly absorbed (in absentia) into the wholesome family gathering that concludes the picture. But the occasion for this scene is the ultimate grotesque aberration, a foul and dubiously regressive staple of modern culture, as the characters are gathered for an expecting couple's "gender reveal" party. Ew.
When all is said and done, despite the most obvious faults and the transparently unsophisticated nature of the production, I do enjoy this. It's a wild ride, not because of the unremarkable twists and turns in the narrative, but merely because of the mind-numbing simple-mindedness of the feature. It's going to have very limited actual appeal for general audiences, and only viewers open to the "let's go for it!" directness of B-movies are like to find it at all palatable. 'Adopted in danger' is a rough experience, but entertaining enough for those willing to engage with it honestly.
I can't decide if this is great or terrible.
Hard cuts between scenes don't compare to the even more severe cutaways at points where a broadcast would go to commercial break. It was quite jarring to watch a couple scenes play out seemingly out order: two characters have a discussion about the coming weekend on the same day a third pursues an idea, but it's only after scenes depicting that weekend that the third supporting character places a call discussing her pursuit "today." This is followed in short order by a scene where deeply unconvincing editing shifts between concurrent goings-on at an office, or is used in the same scene in a way as to convey the passage of time - when it's only mere seconds that could have possibly passed in the narrative.
So glaring is Wendy Elford-Argent's editing that I can't imagine it wasn't a conscious decision. The same absolutely goes for the script: the dialogue is terribly ham-fisted, and only grows more so as the film progresses toward its conclusion. None of this is really unexpected, of course; such blatant pageantry is what Lifetime is known for. But the sheer degree to which all artfulness and nuance has been withheld from 'Adopted in danger' is kind of impressive.
I do genuinely like the wardrobe and costume design. I think the actors assembled here are just fine, performing well in the roles they're given. Admittedly I'm a bit biased, having previously enjoyed Allison Paige's performances elsewhere. It's hardly the cast's fault that the screenplay, direction, and editing is so desperately plain, so straightforward. They work with what they are given, questionable as it is, and do their best.
But we're not done yet, because there are a few other aspects of 'Adopted in danger' that stand out like 5-alarm fire during a blackout. First is the trailer. I don't know who cut it, or approved it for dissemination, but I question their work in film and TV. Even in an industry where trailers are infamous for showing too much, this one conveys almost the entirety of the plot, from start to finish, leaving out only a few garnishing details. It's so bizarrely revealing that I wondered if it was even worth watching the full movie.
And then there's the early discussion of "family history" web sites, the basis for the plot. Protagonist Candace (Paige) is able to have a law enforcement contact dredge up records based on her DNA results, and her friend Allie gives a passing line about how law enforcement has access to the database of all DNA submissions. This is an accurate reflection of the very real and dangerous privacy concerns that abound with all such companies, affecting not just those who submit samples, but anyone they are related to. While this is only the bare bones underpinnings of the film's narrative, it's flummoxing how this alarming reality is passed over so casually.
Less dire, yet even more gross, is the final scene, the denouement. It's bad enough that we are informed of the lack of consequences imposed upon an antagonistic figure in the story, and worse still that they are seemingly absorbed (in absentia) into the wholesome family gathering that concludes the picture. But the occasion for this scene is the ultimate grotesque aberration, a foul and dubiously regressive staple of modern culture, as the characters are gathered for an expecting couple's "gender reveal" party. Ew.
When all is said and done, despite the most obvious faults and the transparently unsophisticated nature of the production, I do enjoy this. It's a wild ride, not because of the unremarkable twists and turns in the narrative, but merely because of the mind-numbing simple-mindedness of the feature. It's going to have very limited actual appeal for general audiences, and only viewers open to the "let's go for it!" directness of B-movies are like to find it at all palatable. 'Adopted in danger' is a rough experience, but entertaining enough for those willing to engage with it honestly.
Tried to watch this movie three times. Three! Couldn't finish it.
CranberriAppl27 November 2021
Warning: Spoilers
It was terrible and on the third try, I still didn't make it through. I gave up and read a recap. Life is too short. The early scenes are so goofy that I wasn't sure what the movie was supposed to be. They kept flashing to a woman screaming for help, but then cut to the protag and either her friends or her fiance laughing and joking about everything. At first I thought they were trying to ease us into the danger, but even after an hour, the same kind of thing is occurring. There are a handful of Lifetime flicks that have interjected some levity or dark humor pretty well, but this is not one of them.
I found a recap that was fairly scene-for-scene, so I know what happened and I'm fine with not finishing the movie.
I found a recap that was fairly scene-for-scene, so I know what happened and I'm fine with not finishing the movie.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
