Change Your Image
vnssyndrome89
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
The Love of Her Life (2008)
A banal series of plotholes, pacing problems and deus ex machinas...
THE LOVE OF HER LIFE/A WOMAN'S RAGE (TV movie) 2008
2.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3:36 min
BASIC PLOT:
Allison Hagan (Cynthia Preston) has a hard time letting go of things. She had a hard time letting go of her father, when he ran out on her, and her mother, and she's having a hard time letting go of her ex, Brian Hagan (Cameron Bancroft), who left her 10 months ago.
Brian has already moved on with someone new, and is engaged to be married. His new love is named Kathryn Brown (Brandy Ledford), she's a widow, with one teenaged son, Scott (Alex House). Kathryn and Brian seem to be living their best life as a couple, but Allison is convinced he was cheating on her the whole time they were together.
After many failed attempts to reconcile with Brian, Allison decides it's time for some payback. She can't let Kathryn steal the love of her life, and she can't let Brian wreck anymore women, because that's all he seems to know how to do.
Allison has a plan, and she'll eliminate anyone or anything that gets in her way. Watch out for a woman's rage...
WHAT WORKS:
*CYNTHIA PRESTON DOES HER USUAL GOOD JOB WITH WHAT SHE'S GIVEN
Unfortunately, even a decent actress like Cynthia Preston can't save this terrible script from it's plotholes, pacing problems, and deus ex machinas.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*VOICE OVER IS A LAZY WRITER'S CRUTCH and this is the worst type of voice over - boring drivel.
*THERE'S NO CHEMISTRY BETWEEN CAMERON BANCROFT & EITHER OF THE WOMEN
Cameron Bancroft's performance is very rote, and unlike him. I know he can act in a melodrama, because he did a fine job in A Murderer Upstairs (2017). Maybe he's was just having an off week.
*KATHRYN IS NOT UPSET WHEN BRIAN DIES This is not a problem with the actress Brandy Ledford, but with the script. I've seen people be more upset when their dog died. Kathryn is completely fine, and comforts "Jordan", like she expects a sister to be more upset than a fiancée. It's not believable AT ALL. A swing and a miss from Mac Hampton & Christine Conradt.
*THERE ARE PACING PROBLEMS There's only 30 minutes left to go, not much has happened, and I'm starting to get bored. There's no action, not even suspenseful build up, there's just... nothing happening.
*OH BROTHER... HERE COMES THE DEUS EX MACHINAS Police have had these things in their cars since the '50's, they are called R-A-D-I-O-S. They use them to call and check information (DUH!). So, when Scott's car "breaks down", and the police pull up and think he's stealing his own car, they would run his license plate, and his driver's license. Realizing the car belongs to him, and after verifying the car wouldn't start, they would have NO REASON to take him in. It could be considered harassment, or even wrongful arrest, ESPECIALLY since there is an adult family member there, waiting to take him home. Also, police are like everyone else, they HATE PAPERWORK! So there is NO WAY they are going to cause themselves a TON of trouble, for some kid with a valid excuse as to why he's missed his curfew by MINUTES. It's asinine to the extreme, it's insulting to the audience, it's a deus ex machina, and lazy work from Mac Hampton & Christine Conradt. They should both be ashamed of themselves for producing this kind of drek (and for ruining Ken Sanders' fine story).
*THE MAIN PROTAGONIST IS A HATEFUL B*TCH
You should never root for the villainess in this type of melodrama, but you do, because Kathryn (the protagonist) is so unlikeable. She doesn't shed one tear for her fiancée, she's a clingy, smothering mother to her son, and she blows the littlest things out of proportion. When the viewer is hoping the protagonist (Kathryn) will get fired from her job, and then be killed, you've had an EPIC FAIL on your sorry attempt at a movie.
*CELL PHONES HAVEN'T SAID "OUT OF SERVICE AREA" SINCE THE '90'S
But these writers, Mac Hampton & Christine Conradt, seem to love using deus ex machinas, even though they could've just used their brains, and actually come up with a plausible explanation instead.
*ALLISON DOESN'T WEAR GLOVES WHEN HANDLING JORDAN'S BODY Her fingerprints and DNA would be all over it.
*THE ENDING MAKES NO SENSE! Probation Officer Kingman (Tyrone Benskin), who's been a hard ass to Scott the entire movie, suddenly turns into a snuggly kitten! Every mistake - forgiven! And let's not forget the suffocatingly clingy mother, who now suddenly understands her son, and fights for him. Why did these people change? Scott hasn't. Oh yeah, so we can have a saccharine, cloyingly sweet ending, THAT'S NOT BELIEVABLE. How could I forget?
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This is a boring, irritating waste of a few hours. It's not enjoyable IN ANY WAY! I can't recommend this, even to fans of made-for-tv melodramas. What I will do is recommend, A Mother's Nightmare (2012). It's a similar story (corruption of teenage son), but it's well acted and written, which makes for a much more enjoyable viewing experience.
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.
My Mother's Secret (2012)
Above average made-for-tv thriller...
MY MOTHER'S SECRET (TV movie 2012)
6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:37 mins
BASIC PLOT:
Lauren Coulson (Nicole de Boer) has just discovered she's having a baby with her husband Dennis (Yannick Bisson). She can't wait to tell her mother, Amanda (Deborah Grover), but her mother's reaction is less than overjoyed. Amanda's response comes from the weight of harboring a crushing secret. Lauren is not her biological child, she was adopted as a baby. Lauren could not be more shocked and devastated. Why would her mother keep this from her, and for so long?
Lauren is determined to uncover her biological parent's identities, before her baby arrives. Dennis knows a private investigator used through his legal work, and Lauren makes use of his talents right away. She learns the name of her birth mother, and where she still resides, but this information comes with a warning. He cautions her about contact with her biological family, and warns her, some truths come with consequences. But Lauren won't shy away, just because the truth might be painful. She's determined to find her parents, no matter the ramifications.
Her mother, Evelyn Wells (Barbara Niven) first refuses to see her, but when she finally agrees to meet Lauren, she presents more questions than answers. Evelyn is a shell of a woman, who is completely dependent on her brother, Jonas Wells (Rob Stewart), who's made it clear he wants the Coulsons to leave.
The secret they seem determined to keep from Lauren, is her father, Garrett Fowler (Michael Riley), is in prison for killing her grandfather, (Evelyn and Jonas' father).
Lauren is shocked by the news, but remains resolute. She will continue seeking answers to her questions. No one will stop her from uncovering the truth. When she finally meets her father in prison, he swears he is innocent, and Lauren thinks she is being followed.
What are the secrets here, and can she reveal them in time to save herself, and her unborn child?
WHAT WORKS:
*ROB STEWART WORKS AS THE HARD ASS BROTHER Rob Stewart is one of the most unappreciated, underused actors of his generation. He does an excellent job here as Jonas Wells,
*DEAN HOGOPIAN PLAYS DAN CONNOR, THE ALCOHOLIC MENTAL DEFECTIVE ATTORNEY, AND HE IS HILARIOUS When Lauren tells him ((Dean Hagopian) he had a client that got convicted, and received life in prison, his response is, "If I only had a dollar for every time that's happened..." Classic!
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*Dennis Coulson (Yannick Bisson) tells his wife, "We gotta go," then a few minutes later, he leaves without her, as if that was the plan all along. WTF? Are they supposed to go somewhere together, and she changed her mind? If that's the case, they should discuss it (honey I don't feel like going, or something like that), not just have him turn, & leave without her, after saying, "We gotta go."
*"GO TO YOUR BIG CASE" SPEECH FALLS FLAT The speech where Lauren (Nicole de Boer) talks to her husband, Dennis (Yannick Bisson) about going home, and taking the big fraud case he's always dreamt of, is weird and disjointed, also waaaaay to saccharine. It throws you out of the good melodramatic thriller, and reminds you that you're just watching a TV movie.
*POLICE REPORTS ARE PUBLIC RECORDS When Lauren goes to get a copy of the police report for fraud, filled against her grandfather by Bill (the owner of the B&B she staying in), they say "it's not allowed" for her to see it. That's BS, anyone can pay, and get a copy of the initial report (sometimes supplementals are confidential, but NOT the primary report).
*WHY WOULD LAUREN SUDDENLY BELIEVE THE SHERIFF? She's married to a lawyer, shouldn't she ask the question, why is the sheriff so involved in this case? Why does he want me out of town? Instead, she behaves like a lap dog, and obediently believes him. (Bad plot design by John Serge).
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I would recommend this to fans of made-for-tv thrillers and melodramas. It has a stellar cast, and their acting makes it a cut above the rest. Definitely recommend to Rob Stewart fans.
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 (this was made for only $650,000, much lower than most), 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.
Amish Stud: The Eli Weaver Story (2023)
Beautiful piece of filmmaking...
AMISH STUD: THE ELI WEAVER STORY
6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2min
BASIC PLOT:
Eli Weaver (Luke Macfarlane) is a narcissistic Amish man, who thinks the world owes him a good time. He doesn't abide by Amish law, and often uses vehicles, cell phones, and other forbidden items. He also fancies himself a ladies man, cheating on his wife Barbara (Miranda MacDougall) and even using and online dating site, where his handle is "The Amish Stud".
Eventually, he grows tired of his wife and children, and begins soliciting murder from his many girlfriends. Only one is amenable, a
taxi driver named, Barb Raber (Kirsten Vangsness). Eli wants her to kill his whole family, but Barb only agrees to murder his wife.
Detective Bruce London (Brent Stait) and Detective Michael Maxwell (Mark Krysko) are assigned to Barbara Weaver's case. Can they uncover the dark underbelly of the Amish community in time to get justice for Barbara's sister (Clare Filipow), and children (Ryder Miller, Lilliana Rose Nekrash)?
WHAT WORKS:
*BEAUTIFUL CINEMATOGRAPHY AND DIRECTION This movie uses the lovely Amish countryside as a backdrop, and it does it well. All the shots are well framed, and set the mood. Excellent job by Stacey N. Harding (director) and Jimmy Wu (cinematographer).
*LOVELY COVER ART
That's a rarity for TV movies these days, and deserves a mention. I wish I could give credit to the artist, but it's impossible to find.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*PACING IS A BIT SLOW AROUND THE HOUR MARK
It's not a huge mistake, but a minor hitch.
*BARB ASKS FOR A LAWYER, BUT THE DETECTIVES QUESTION HER ANYWAY This is a clear violation of her constitutional rights. Anything she did say, would be thrown out, since they did not get her a lawyer when she requested one.
*ELI TESTIFIES "BARB SHOT MY WIFE." This would be objected to by Barb's lawyer. Eli had left the house by the time his wife was shot. He could testify to the planning of the murder, to his leaving the door open for Barb, but not to the actual shooting. He had no direct knowledge, and therefore it would just be his supposition.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I would definitely recommend this film to fans of made-for-tv movies, movies based on true events, and fans of Luke Macfarlane and Kirsten Vangsness. It's a great time waster, and a beautiful piece of filmmaking.
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.
Evidence of Truth (2016)
Middle of the road made-for-tv thriller...
A Wife's Suspicion/Evidence of Truth (TV movie 2015)
5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:45 min
BASIC PLOT:
Forensic investigator, Renee Murphy, Andrea Roth, has been working on a spate of serial homicides, where the killer likes to bind his victims, and take a piece of their hair as a trophy. As time goes on, she begins to suspect those around her, instead of just some random stranger. Could it be her new husband, Jack Murphy (Woody Jeffreys)? She's discovered he has a dark past he's told her nothing about. She's also seen him with another woman, deepening her distrust.
Being a good cop, she doesn't limit her suspicions to just one person. Her ex, Detective Kyle Ferguson (Sebastian Spence), is also a suspect. He's told her he'd do ANYTHING to get her back, but just how far would he go? She believes Kyle is a fine man, and a good father, but his wife was the killer's first victim. Is that just a coincidence?
Maybe it's fellow Officer, Jade Winters (Hilary Jardine), who Renee caught snooping around her house. She also glimpsed Jade looking at her with disdain, almost hatred . What was that look, and what was Jade hoping to find, when she was looking through their things?
She even has to consider her least likely suspect, fellow CSI technician, Tim Watson (Luke Camilleri). He seems harmless enough on the surface, but he does have an obsession with Jade... Could that fixation spill over, and create an undeniable anger, which drives him to kill?
Renee must use all her instincts and skills to uncover the killer, hunting from the shadows, while under suspicion herself.
WHAT WORKS:
*ANDREA ROTH IS ALWAYS FUN TO WATCH, SO IS SEBASTIAN SPENCE
Andrea Roth & Sebastian Spence are fun to watch, no matter the roles they are playing. They can only work within the bounds of the script though, and it's pretty lean.
*THE KILLER IS A MYSTERY TILL THE END I am very good at figuring out mysteries. It takes talent to stump me, but this did. That's why I'm giving it such a high rating. The killer could equally be Jack Murphy, the disgraced husband, Kyle Ferguson, the jilted ex, Morgan Knox, the jealous co-worker, Tim Watson, the obsessed lab assistant, or even one of the ancillary characters from the drug rehab. Their motives are all equally weighted, and so are their odd behaviors. It makes for a tough decision, and therefore a better mystery.
*LUCIA WALTERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN NAMED DETECTIVE PAM CHERFILS like on the movie, A Murderer Upstairs (2017). They are basically the same character, and it's one she portrays well.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*RENEE & JACK DON'T SEEM TO LIKE EACH OTHER Renee (Andrea Roth) and Jack (Woody Jeffreys) don't seem to like each other very much, even though they're supposed to be married. The exception is one scene at the beginning of the movie, but that's it. The whole rest of the movie they seem to, at best, tolerate each other. She supposedly left a good guy like Kyle (Sebastian Spence), whom she appears to like more, for Jack. But she never appears close to Jack, or even to like him very much. It's bizarre.
*WHAT MAKES HER SUSPICIOUS OF HER HUSBAND JACK, AS A CRIMINAL? Because she suspects him of having an affair? If she was going to run his prints, she'd have done it BEFORE they were married, not after. And just because you suspect your husband of having an affair, doesn't mean you'd suspect him of being an arch criminal.
*DELIVERY FROM EVERYONE IS PRETTY STIFF That's unusual from Andrea Roth, she normally carries these TV movies.
*SERIAL MURDER IS RARE thank God for that, but the police in any town where there was a "stranger killing," would remember the crime scene, whether they worked it or not. Especially, if one of the victims was a cop AND a cop's wife.
*SHE'S CSI, BUT WITH NO PROTECTIVE GEAR I don't watch CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (2000), so I don't know if they do this on that show or not, but on most American police procedurals, they don't wear protective gear while at crime scenes. This movie is no different. Andrea Roth has her Sherlock Holmes magnifying glass, looking for trace evidence on the body, while her own hair is touching the body! C'mon! It doesn't take away from her loveliness to see her in protective gear! It just makes the movie MORE believable. This is the one area the British always succeed in their TV filmmaking. Their crime scenes look real, and we should follow their lead.
*SAME B-ROLL IN FRONT OF POLICE STATION We see the same two cops walking to their cars over and over...
*I KNOW THIS IS LOW BUDGET, BUT...
Couldn't we have put some make-up on these victims, to make them look dead? It's clear these girls are alive and healthy, and there's no excuse for that.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*There are lots better TV movies out there, but there are also worse ones too. This is pretty middle of the road. If you're a fan of Sebastian Spence or Andrea Roth, then definitely give it a try. If you just need to shut your brain off, and veg, you could do much worse.
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 Lover's Revenge (2005)
A Missed Opportunity...
A LOVER'S REVENGE (TV Movie 2005)
3 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2 min
BASIC PLOT:
Dr. Liz Manners (Alexandra Paul) is a successful radio psychiatrist, who gives advice to her call in audience. Unfortunately for Liz, one of her listeners is Sarah Jane (Sophie Gendron), the battered wife of shipping tycoon, Kyle Lundstrom (William R. Moses). Liz tells Sarah she should escape Kyle's violent grasp, before he kills her. Dr. Manners offers the help of the domestic violence shelter she partners with, and tells Sarah she has a place to go when she's ready to leave. In an unfortunate happenstance, Kyle comes home early, and catches his wife on the phone with Dr. Manners. To evade Kyle's fury, Sarah Jane flees into the night, hoping to escape. But her luck has run out, and as she's running, she's hit by a car, and killed. Kyle blames Dr. Manners for the problems in his marriage, and for his wife's untimely death. He is determined to ruin Dr. Manners' life, like she ruined his. He plans to take her job, her husband (Gary Hudson), and even her life. Will she be able to stop his murderous rampage before everything in her life is destroyed?
WHAT WORKS:
*ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE FOR A MADE-FOR-TV MELODRAMA
Alexandra Paul, Gary Hudson and William R. Moses all do a fine job with the material they are given. They do the script justice, too bad it let's them down with clichés, plotholes, and deus ex machinas.
*LIZ MANNERS TELLS HER HUSBAND ROB, SHE CAN FORGIVE EVERYTHING BUT LYING This is the only believable part of the script, when a wife tells her husband, she can look past the cheating, the stealing, the failures, and everything else because she loves him, but she can't look past his lies. That's a true statement, and if men would learn that fundamental truth about women, there'd be a lot more successful relationships.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WHEN MEN MISBEHAVE, IT'S NO ONE'S FAULT BUT THEIR OWN You used to see this trope a lot in the 50's & 60's. When men would have affairs, or embezzle from their wives, it would be because the wife wasn't paying enough attention to them (subtext-giving them enough sex), in effect shifting blame from the man to the woman. "If the woman had been a better wife, he wouldn't have run off and left you with five children, cheated on you, stolen all your money, and left with his secretary," etc. I saw this exact trope on an episode of "Dragnet", called The Big Revolt (1953). But this is NOT 1953, this is 2005, and women writers, like Christine Conradt, should know better, than to offer up this sexist clap-trap. It's offensive to blame anyone's actions, except on the person who committed them. Enabling does not correct bad behavior, and as a psychiatrist/therapist, our main character, Dr. Liz Manners, would know that. (The original story was written by a man, Nelson Williams, so I'm not sure who I am more mad at, Christine Conradt for helping to write such a sexist script, or at Lifetime for buying it.)
*ARE WE SUPPOSED TO EMPATHIZE WITH ROB MANNERS? Rob Manners (Gary Hudson) is a tool... a fit throwing, whoremongering, spoiled man-child. Are we supposed to forget all that, because when he's gets caught, he says he's sorry (which he quickly takes back, and stomps off in the midst of another toddler fit)? He steals from his wife, he robs their savings, he cheats, he lies, he fit throws, he takes out loans against their property-without telling her, he begrudges his wife when his investor wants to give money to her domestic violence shelter, he's the most sorry human being on the planet. And we, as viewers, are supposed to believe Liz Manners (Alexandra Paul), a doctor of psychiatry, a practicing couple's therapist, wouldn't know what type of man he is? We're supposed to believe she can see through everyone's problems but her own? Oh please! Give me a break!
*LIGHTING IS TERRIBLE THROUGHOUT This has to be down to the cinematographer (Bert Tougas), because normally, Douglas Jackson's directing is spot on.
*I'M SO SICK OF SEEING PEOPLE GIVING THEIR GUNS AWAY IN MOVIES & ON TV SHOWS This is a reoccuring theme, and it is a sorry one. A character pulls a gun on another character, and sticks it so close to their face and hands, that the other person easily bats it away, and takes it. It's stupid, it's lazy writing, and in this scenario, in real life, an experienced prostitute, who is committed enough to pulling a gun on someone, wouldn't be stupid enough to get so close to the person she's intimidating, he could easily disarm her. It's bad and lazy writing from Christine Conradt & Nelson Williams.
*SLEAZY REPORTER SAYS, "IT DOESN'T MATTER WHERE I GOT THE TAPE"
A tape of Dr. Manners surfaces anonymously, and makes her look bad. The sleazy reporter says it doesn't matter where he got it, or how it was obtained. But his editor WOULD care, and would require knowing if the tape was faked, or gotten illegally (if the tape was obtained through felonious means). He would require another source confirming its contents, without that he would NOT print it. Dr. Manners could sue, and would win, because the tape was obtained by committing a crime, or was a forgery, the paper has no way of knowing either way. No judge would rule that slandering someone is for the public good, and so no editor would risk the lawsuit that would follow. There's no way to verify it's provenance, Dr. Manners would say, "no comment", and that would be that. Please can we stay on planet Earth with these scripts?!
*I'M SO SICK OF THE "POLICE ARE IDIOTS" EXCUSE, BEING USED BY SCRIPT WRITERS First of all, the police are convinced Liz Manners killed her husband because the man who is framing her didn't use his real name. WTH?! Did they expect him to? Second, everyone knows that the first two things done when a spouse is shot, and the other spouse is suspect: the police check the weapon for prints, and check the suspected spouse's hands and clothing for GSR-gun shot residue. (Don't give me that the audience doesn't know about GSR, I saw it the other day on Columbo (1971), which aired in the 70's, and this movie came out in the middle of the CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (2000) frenzy, which began in 2000). In this movie, they do check for prints, but they DON'T check for GSR, which would have gone a long way to clearing Dr. Manners of her husband's murder. After they found she had no GSR, they would ask her to take a polygraph, which she would pass, and they would move on to other suspects. C'mon writers, this is Scriptwriting 101 kind of stuff.
*NO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SHELTER WOULD HAVE THEIR INFO FOUND SO EASILY
It's another deus ex machina, that is insulting to the viewer.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I cannot, in good conscience, recommend this movie. While the underlying treatment had potential, there are too many errors to make this enjoyable, even for a melodrama. Setting aside this premise (radio talk show host targeted for some reason) has been done to death, both in movies, and on TV shows, all the details are flawed. There are plotholes big enough to swallow the whole script (inept police), there's character problems that don't work (Liz & Rob's whole relationship), sleazy reporters who have editors who don't care about lawsuits, etc. It's too bad, because there are fine melodramatic performances from the three principal actors, Alexandra Paul, Gary Hudson and William R. Moses. But their performances cannot carry a script so flawed it literally crushes itself under the weight of it's own clichés and deus ex machinas.
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.
Prosecuting Casey Anthony (2013)
A Telling Look at Prosecutorial Confirmation Bias...
PROSECUTING CASEY ANTHONY (2013 TV movie)
6.6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2 min
BASIC PLOT:
An engaging recreation of the flawed prosecution of Casey Anthony, seen from the point of view of the prosecutors, Jeff Ashton (Rob Lowe) and Linda Drane Burdick (Elizabeth Mitchell). This film was based on their book, "Imperfect Justice: Prosecuting Casey Anthony".
This film, and the real trial, are perfect examples of confirmation bias. The police and prosecutors had a preconceived belief about Anthony's guilt. Therefore, they did not look for any other explanations. This is a dangerous precedent (this does NOT imply Anthony's innocence, it just states that ALL possibilities be looked at equally, not just the ones we "feel" should be true). Police & prosecutors should have investigated ALL possible causes of Caylee's death (George Anthony's guilt, a stranger abduction, an accidental death, etc), not just the ones that engendered the most feeling, and were easiest to win. This film shows the prosecutors stepping into their own traps, falling victim to their own egos, and showcasing the worst case of public confirmation bias in a prosection to date.
WHAT WORKS:
*THE SCORE IS GREAT The score gives the feeling of unease and trepidation, exactly what it should be for this type of movie. A successful outing from Richard Marvin.
*EXCELLENT PERFORMANCES BY ROB LOWE & ELIZABETH MITCHELL
Rob Lowe & Elizabeth Mitchell do an excellent job at portraying well meaning arrogance. The overall underlying theme running through the film is "we can't lose", and "we can't be wrong", two of the underlying problems with the real case.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK (Normally, I would add things that are flawed with the movie, but there aren't many, so these are more observations):
*NO ONE LIKES SMUG, ARROGANT, JUDGEMENTAL PEOPLE, WHO THINK THEY ARE SUPERIOR TO EVERYONE ELSE. Trial attorney 101: It's NEVER ok to appear arrogant in front of your jury! It's ok to be well versed, well educated, better than the defense or prosecutor (depending on what side your on), even well dressed, but NEVER appear self-righteous. I guess Jeff Ashton missed that class at law school, or in the school of life, because he constantly shows his disdain for the defense, and their arguments. Rob Lowe doesn't give enough of the arrogance the real Jeff Ashton had. Maybe he's too nice a guy in real life to portray that type of jackass?
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I definitely recommend this film, and not just to Rob Lowe fans. It's a successful and entertaining depiction of the flawed prosecution of Casey Anthony. Recommended to those who are fans of courtroom dramas, made-for-tv movies, Elizabeth Mitchell and Rob Lowe.
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.
His Perfect Obsession (2018)
A good melodramatic time waster...
HIS PERFECT OBSESSION (TV movie 2018)
6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:15 min
BASIC PLOT:
Bart McGregor (Brendan Murray) goes a little crazy sometimes, but we all go a little mad sometimes, don't we? With Bart, it's usually because Allison Jones (Arianne Zucker) is around. He hasn't been able to stop thinking about her since the third grade. He knows EVERYTHING about her, from her favorite band, to the shampoo she uses. Bart's mother Cecilia (Deborah Grover), warns him, nothing good ever comes from his obsession with Allison. She tells him he's going down a dangerous path again, but Bart is sure, this time will be different. This time, Allison will see him in a different light, and if he can just get her alone, he can convince her to love him.
Allison is oblivious to the depth of Bart's obsessions, and the dangers encompassing her, and her daughter Abigail (Ali Skovbye). She's always thought Bart was a little odd, but she never considered he might be dangerous. Will she uncover Bart's dark and hidden obsessions, before they both become entangled in his web of complete control?
WHAT WORKS:
*BART MCGREGOR IS A FANTASTIC CHARACTER! The crazy little ticks he has (like holding his cell phone with a handkerchief) are pulled off with skill, giving the character a realistic feel. Excellent portrayal by Brendan Murray.
*ALI SKOVBYE DOES A FINE JOB PORTRAYING A BLIND PERSON
I'm sure it wasn't easy for Ali Skovbye keeping up the illusion of being blind, but there wasn't a time I thought she was a sighted person. Good job on her part.
*ALL THE ANCILLARY CHARACTERS DO A FINE JOB From Wyatt (Tomas Chovanec), the jerk husband, to Ben (Scott Gibson), the barkeep and his son Shane (Mikael Conde), and especially Bart's mother Cecilia (played to perfection by Deborah Grover, who always does a fine job) ALL execute their parts in a believable, entertaining way. Kudos to the entire cast.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*IT'S PRETTY RUDE FOR ALLISON NOT TO INTRODUCE BART TO LANCE It's rude & awkward for everyone NOT to be introduced when you're all standing in a hallway together. As the host, Allison should introduce the two men. When she doesn't, it implies Bart is just the help, and not a human being. It's pretty ugly behavior on Allison's part, and makes the protagonist unlikable (a cardinal sin in melodramatic screen writing).
*WHY DOES ALLISON FREAK OUT WHEN BART GIVES HER THE CONCERT TICKETS? We never get Allison's side of the backstory between her and Bart. We get Bart's & his mother's side, and even Ben, the bartender's side, but we (the viewer) don't know if Allison was aware of his obsession, or not. The implication is, Allison didn't know. Otherwise why would her aunt use Bart as an accountant, and why would Allison keep using him, now that her aunt is dead? So, if she didn't know, why does she
freak out when an "old friend" gives her concert tickets? One second, Allison & Bart are sitting at the dining room table, joking about old times, then he gives her the tickets. Her reaction is like he flashed her, not did something nice for her. It's confusing, and makes no sense to the viewer.
*IT'S STUPID WHEN PEOPLE FREAK OUT WHEN SOMEONE TELLS THEM THEY SAW THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA FEED
Allison is freaked out that Bart has looked at her social media feeds, but isn't that what they are for? I hear this a lot, both IRL, and on TV. People are not stalkers for looking at your social media feeds. They are public, and meant to be looked at.
*MALE WRITERS NEED INPUT FROM WOMEN WHEN WRITING FEMALE CHARACTERS I've said this before, and I'll say it again, I can tell this is written by a man, BEFORE I looked. Why? Because women DO NOT go downstairs in the middle of the night, when they KNOW someone is in their house. That's something a MAN would do. Women call for help - the police, a neighbor, whoever, but THEY CALL FOR HELP! Correct motivations are important when writing screenplays, and I hope Alexandre Carrière (the writer/director) gets the message before he writes another one. In this, he writes that neither woman calls for help, instead, both go downstairs to confront the attacker, even when one of them is blind. Are you kidding me?! NO WOMAN WOULD DO THAT! And since this is written for a woman's channel (Lifetime), all the women watching, are throwing things at the screen, when this scene comes on. It throws the female viewer out, and taints an otherwise good movie.
*WHEN BEN IS HURT, ALLISON DOESN'T MAKE SURE HE'S OK
She's instead comforts her daughter, but if someone just risked their life for you, and was injured in the process, most women would instinctively comfort the injured party (after making sure her daughter was alright, which she is). It's hardwired into women to behave that way, and both women would go to him. Again, it throws the female viewer out, and if the screenwriter had a woman consultant, he'd know that.
*BLIND KIDS HAVE THEIR OWN SCHOOL So why is Abigail in school with Shane? It doesn't make any sense, and the last scene should have been shot ANYWHERE else, bit a high school.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*If you enjoy made-for-tv melodramas, then definitely give this a chance. It has a few problems, but for the most part, it's an enjoyable 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.
Mommy Be Mine (2018)
This movie needs a sequel...
MOMMY BE MINE (TV Movie 2018)
6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:45
This movie needs a sequel...
BASIC PLOT:
Cara Dawson (Sierra Pond) has just arrived in town, and has set her sites on finding a new family, especially one with a mom she can bond with. After a chance meeting, at her new high school, Cara is sure she's found what she's looking for with the Hughes family. She's determined to make Summer Hughes (Ava Locklear) her new best friend, and Lianne Hughes (Arianne Zucker), her new mom. She has a few obstacles to overcome though. Summer's current best friend, Tori (Megan McGown) for one. She thinks there's something wrong with Cara, and she maybe right. Jason (Cameron Gellman), Summer's boyfriend, also thinks Cara's behavior is odd, and after a few days, Summer is starting to agree. Cara has no boundaries, and can't take no for and answer. Things are also starting to go wrong in Summer's life, since Cara's arrival. Can Summer unravel Cara's true motives in time to save those she loves?
WHAT WORKS:
*SUMMER AND LIANNE'S RELATIONSHIP IS ALL TOO REAL Lianne (Arianne Zucker) has to work too much since her husband's death, and this has caused a rift between her and her daughter. Because of the distance between them, she doesn't know what's going on in her daughter's life, and is quick to accuse her of drug use, based on Cara's baseless insinuations (instead of just asking her, in a concerned manner). Unfortunately, this is a believable trope, lived out everyday in many a household. Parents don't talk to their children, they talk down to them, or at them, with less than stellar results.
*EXCELLENT CINEMATOGRAPHY AND DIRECTING Almost all of the shots are well framed, and lighted. This is a rarity in made-for-tv movies, and Sean Olson (director) and Stuart Brereton (cinematographer) deserve a nod for a job well done.
*GREAT COVER ART That is also a rarity in made-for-tv movies, and I wish I could give credit to the artist, but alas, I couldn't find who designed it.
*TRAILER IS EXCELLENT If you like melodramas, this trailer will make you want to pop some corn, and watch the whole movie.
*THE ENDING IS GREAT, AND PROVES IT NEEDS A SEQUEL Melodramas that are in on the joke are more entertaining, and the ending of this movie, proves it's in on it's own ridiculousness. It doesn't take itself too seriously, it's preposterous hokum, it knows it, and it invites you along for a diverting ride. Enjoy!
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*TORI IS OVER THE TOP MEAN AND JEALOUS TOWARDS CARA AND JASON I know this is a melodrama, and that means motives and actions are exaggerated, BUT, Tori's (Megan McGown) over the top hated and abuse of Cara (Sierra Pond) makes it hard to believe Summer (Ava Locklear) would have Tori for a friend. Tori's behavior towards Cara, is as bad as Cara's (the villainess), and that doesn't work. Short Version: Good girls don't tend to be friends with mean girls, especially vicious mean girls.
*TEENAGERS WHO ARE ALMOST ADULTS DON'T EXCHANGE BFF JEWELRY If they were in junior high, fine, but seniors in high school? No.
*JASON WOULD TELL SUMMER CARA CAME ON TO HIM Jason (Cameron Gellman) would not hide the fact that Cara (Sierra Pond) came on to him, especially since Cara came on to him in a bizarre way. Jason and Summer have been together for two years, he'd tell her if something happened.
*AVA LOCKLEAR NEEDS MORE WORK BEFORE SHE GETS MORE WORK I know this is (Ava Locklear)'s first big role, and I know this is a melodrama, BUT she still needs an acting coach. Her lines seem like she read them off a cue card, and very stiffly read at that, not natural in any way.
*YOU CAN TELL THIS IS WRITTEN BY A MAN Men in general need to get a clue, and realize they are being punished for the sins of their peers. Why are women so willing to believe bad things about men, even good men? Because good men have acted shamefully, or covered for other men's bad behavior. Jason should not stay mad at Summer for believing the worst about him, when even his fellow football player believed the same (that he was cheating), AND Summer gives him a heartfelt apology, which he doesn't accept. EVERY WOMAN HAS A STORY, where she, or someone close to her, was treated shamefully by a man. This is why women are so willing to believe the worst. If a woman wrote this script, she would have Jason fighting for Summer, and trying to discover who framed him, so he could win her back. And that my friends, would be a better story.
*TORI HAS CARA'S CONTACT INFO IN HER PHONE Why? They HATE each other. Also, Tori pulls up her contact info, but there's only a phone number, but then she copies Cara's address into a search engine. How? There was no address, just a phone number, which doesn't make sense anyway, seeing as how THEY HATE EACH OTHER!
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*If you are a fan of the absurd melodramas, then give this a whirl. It's ridiculous, it knows it, it's not trying to be anything other than it is - a fun, diverting hour and a half, time waster. If you need to shut your brain off for a bit, and your a fan of made-for-tv movies, then pop that corn 🍿, kick off your shoes, and enjoy the silly ride.
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.
Maid of Honor (2006)
Linda Purl is the only thing worth watching...
MAID OF HONOR (2006 TV movie)
2.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:30min
BASIC PLOT:
Laci Collins (Linda Purl) has given up everything to take care of her brother-in-law, Richard Wynn (Linden Ashby), after the tragic death of her sister. She sold her house, moved in, and became maid, and caregiver to her niece Mollie (Dani Kind), and nephew Danny (Steven McPhail). After a year and half of this arrangement, Richard has decided to marry Nicole (Shannon Sturges), a woman from work. She's younger, they've only met her a couple of times, but he's ready to push Laci out the door, and force Nicole on his children as their new "Mom". Unbeknownst to everyone, Laci is secretly in love with Richard, and will do whatever it takes to keep him, including exposing Nicole's dark past. Will she succeed? Or will we find out how all consuming her passion for Richard really is?
WHAT WORKS:
*LINDA PURL IS THE ONLY THING WORKING IN THIS MOVIE She knows her way around a melodrama, no matter what role she's playing. Too bad there's nothing here to work with.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*INCREDIBLY SELFISH PROTAGONIST
After having his sister-in-law move in, sell everything she owns, so she can become his maid, and the caretaker of his children, he kicks her out for some woman at work he suddenly wants to marry (it smells like he might have been interested in this woman while his wife was still alive). It's less than two years after his wife's death, and he expects his children to just accept his girlfriend, a woman they barely know, and have only met a few times. He wants to move her into their house, and they're supposed to call her mom, no matter their feelings. These reckless, selfish decisions do NOT make a sympathetic protagonist. He doesn't even discuss with Laci her moving out, or where she's supposed to go, but in front of her he talks about making her room his fiancee's office. WOW! WHAT AN A-HOLE! So, once again, I sympathize more with the "villainess" than I do with the "family man" (who seems to have little regard for his family). EPIC FAIL.
*THIS MOVIE IS TOO HARD ON MEN
Men can be selfish, vain and weak, but this is ridiculous! Richard Wynn (Linden Ashby) is oblivious to everyone around him, only cares about his wants and needs, and is blind to everything and everyone else. He is so self consumed, he's ready to bring a woman who lied about felony drug possession charges, around his children! It's insulting, and not believable. It's written by men (nn0006438 & Ken Sanders) for women, and that's never a good thing. Women don't want weak men, even if it's what we often have to put up with. Show us the best of what we want, not the lowest of what we have deal with on a daily basis. (Side note: I think their choice of name for this character (Richard) was an inside joke - we all know what the nickname for Richard it's - D*ck.)
*AFTER TWO YEARS, THE TEENAGE DAUGHTER WOULDN'T SUDDENLY BECOME SUSPICIOUS BECAUSE HER AUNT WAS LOOKING AT A RING STRANGELY
Give me a break, either these people are the stupidest walking the earth, or the most perceptive, but you can't have it both ways.
*ALL THE CHARACTERS ARE ONE DIMENSIONAL All of the characters are so flat, you don't care what happens to any of them. I know this is a melodrama, but that doesn't excuse bad writing, and selfish protagonists. The only one who does a decent job is Linda Purl, and she can't carry the whole movie.
*THE PACING IS OFF
The first act of violence doesn't come till the 1:23 mark, that means there's only 36 min left, and all you've done with the time so far is make the antagonist sympathetic. So, when she finally does commit violence, you understand and empathize with her reasons. EPIC FAIL.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*Unless you're just a fan of Linda Purl, I'd give this a pass. There's no one sympathetic enough for you to care about, not one plotline that's believable, just a bunch of selfish people concerned with themselves, who you rather see die in a house fire than be happy at the end. HARD 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.
Jack the Ripper - The Case Reopened (2019)
Rehashed nonsense...
JACK THE RIPPER: THE CASE REOPENED (TV doc 2019) 2.7 out of 10 stars
These types of documentaries NEVER focus on the psychology of the suspect, but just tries to wow us with the latest gadgets. There's nothing new here, no exciting revelations, it's not even entertaining. They put a bunch of THEIR suppositions into a computer, and then are SURPRISED when it agrees with them. It also uses modern computers to recreate, in graphic detail, the wounds (why?) and then talk about them as being savage, for thirty minutes. Are you kidding me? We ALL know Jack the Ripper was savage! Then, they come up with the same suspect (tacked on like an afterthought in the last 2 mins of the show) everyone else has ALREADY come up with. WHAT IS THE POINT IN THIS PROGRAM?
What no one takes into account is this man (Jack the Ripper) was no raving lunatic (as their "prime suspect" was). He was able to con street wise women, who KNEW there was a vicious killer around, into taking them back to a dark alley, or to their bed set , where he could do God knows what to them. I don't know many street wise prostitutes, who would take a rambling, disgusting man, who was hearing voices telling him to eat out of the gutter, back to their home. THEY WOULD EXPECT SOMEONE LIKE THAT TO BE THE KILLER! We all want to think savage killers can be identified by outrageous or odd behavior. This gives us a false sense of security, that we would never be conned by the monster in the darkness. It was the same then as now, worse then, because they did not have as good a grasp of the criminal mind, as we do now.
This documentary is newer, and should know better. It's the worst kind of whoring (and I'm talking about the filmmakers, and participants now) who make a graphic, disgusting documentary off of the butchered backs of women, who have already been exploited enough.
PS I am not against violence, violent subject matter, or any other such nonsense. I am against wasting people's time, by rehashing old information, adding a bunch of violent imagery, and calling it "new". There are waaaaaaaay better Jack the Ripper docs out there, and I recommend you go watch one of those. Try The Secret Identity of Jack the Ripper (1988) it's much better, even though it's from 1988. It has profiler John Douglas, as well as many other professionals, and even though I think they reach the wrong conclusion (because they're not using all murders from the area at the time -only the conical 5), it is still educational & entertaining.
Stranger at the Door (2004)
Not terrible, not great...
A STRANGER AT THE DOOR (TV movie 2004)
3.7 out of 10 stars Time to Read:1:33
BASIC PLOT:
Kathleen Norris's (Linda Purl) son, whom she gave up for adoption when she was just sixteen, has returned to her life. Only it's not just her life he's returned to, she has a husband now, Greg (Perry King) and a stepdaughter, Tara (Meredith Henderson). Her "son" says his name is Jamie Fisher (Andrew Kraulis), and he seems like everything Kathleen could hope for. But there's something that's just not right about his story, and it seems Tara is the only one who notices. Can she convince her parents he's not who he says he is in time to save them all?
WHAT WORKS:
*Linda Purl & Perry King have good couple energy. They seem comfortable in each other's personal space, and have a genuine kindness between the two. It adds to the believability of the story (it's about the only thing that does).
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WHY IS TARA NORRIS SO SUSPICIOUS OF JAMIE FISHER? Right off the bat, Tara is suspicious for NO REASON! People need motivations, this has none! Teenagers tend to be wrapped up in their own lives, not concerned because it took someone several tries to get the nerve to knock on the door.
*WHY IS IT PEOPLE FREAK OUT ABOUT SHARING COMPUTERS WITHIN A FAMILY?
It always seems on these melodramas that people freak out whenever anyone uses their computer, even to check email, and that seems ridiculous. Why not catch him going through a checkbook, or a medicine cabinet to prove he's not trustworthy? That would be more suspicious.
*IF YOU'RE THIS INVESTED IN YOUR "NEW SON'S" LIFE, WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO GO SEE HIS COLLEGE CAMPUS?
You've let a total stranger move into your home because he's your "long lost son", and because he's in college, wouldn't you at least like to see where he's going, what he's doing with his days? Wouldn't he be eager to show you?
*THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE OVERKILL
In so many of these melodramas, they use too much overkill, when a near miss accomplishes the same thing. You can't have people be this good, and then slaughter them without negative consequences to the audience. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, comas/hospitalizations accomplish the same thing (person is out of the way, and evil is revealed) without ANY negative feelings in the audience. The willingness to kill is equal to actual killing. You don't need to slaughter good/innocent people when there's no need to (a great example is (The Wrong Son (2018) similar themes, better movie).
*CHARACTERS ARE ONE DIMENSIONAL
All of the characters have no depth, there's nothing to grab ahold of, so there's no motivation to care. The "evil" characters are comically evil (and not in a good way), and so the whole second half of the movie is an exercise in ridiculousness.
*PACING IS OFF
There's too much of the movie (half) where we're waiting around for an insurance check, there's no suspense building - nothing. Just sitting around waiting.
*MILLION DOLLAR TRANSACTIONS, TO ACCOUNTS THE BANK HAS NEVER SEEN, WOULD BE HELD FOR INVESTIGATION My bank withholds funds if I haven't bought from eBay for awhile. It's a precaution to make sure it's a legitimate transaction, and I'm glad it's there. So if banks flag a transaction that's for $100, what do you think they'd do for a million, especially since it's being sent to an out of country bank?
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This is not terrible, but it is pretty flat. There's no depth to the characters, overkill when it's not needed, and in general, lacking. If you're looking for similar themes, with much better acting, writing etc, try (The Wrong Son (2018) similar story, but much better movie.
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.
One Small Indiscretion (2017)
Has some problems...
ONE SMALL INDISCRETION (TV Movie 2017)
4 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:37min
BASIC PLOT:
Elle Fawcett (Tiera Skovbye) witnessed a terrible tragedy as a preteen - the murder/suicide of her parents. Her father had been having an affair, but Elle knows it was never his fault. It was that temptress who coerced him into it, that's who's to blame. Knowledge of the affair started her mother drinking, and eventually the end came, with her mother killing her father, and then herself. Elle witnessed the immediate aftermath, and she has her mother's hate filled journals, and they lay the blame at the feet of Caroline Winters (Ashley Scott), homewrecker.
It's time Caroline knew what it felt like to have her family, and life destroyed, and Elle is going to make sure it happens... She's going to enjoy watching Caroline's family crumble, she may even frame Caroline for murder before she's done...
WHAT WORKS:
*FOR ONCE, THE SPY CAMERAS ARE HIDDEN WELL However, if Logan fenced on a regulate basis, the one in his fencing helmet might be found, but he wouldn't see it otherwise.
*FOR THIS TYPE OF MOVIE, THE ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE Most of the time, in made-for-tv movies, there are many lines, or scenes that don't ring true. I rarely had that thought in this movie (just a few lines), all of the actors do a fine job for the type of script they are dealing with.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WHO'S GOING TO PUT PHOTOS ON THEIR MANTLE WHEN THEY LOOK MISERABLE IN THEM? And who would want to remember a time when their marriage problems got so bad, they had an affair? That just seems asinine.
*THE NEIGHBOR IS TOO SUSPICIOUS WITHOUT CAUSE We (the viewers) don't find out why Hannah (Gaëlle Pouliquen), the neighbor, is so suspicious of Elle, until AFTER her bizarre behavior. This throws the viewer out, because we don't understand why she is fixated on her neighbor's tenant. Apparently, her ex husband cheated on her with their nanny. But we don't discover this until much later, and so her fixation on Elle comes off as bizarre, and her behavior, (snooping through Elle's things, thinking about breaking into Elle's apt) is unacceptable in any real world scenario. This could have been fixed with a few lines of dialogue.
*THE TYPE OF FLIRTING ELLE DOES WITH SAM (the husband Cru Ennis) IS BIZARRE & JUVENILE I'm not sure most grown men would be flattered by this, more likely they would find it uncomfortable & awkward.
*HOW WOULD ELLE KNOW WHAT TYPE OF FLASH DRIVE CAROLINE USED? Elle steals Caroline's flashdrive, which has a work presentation on it. It's a very distinctive red and black flash drive, and Elle knew exactly what model & color so she could switch them. How? It's too small for her cameras to see, and since Caroline would usually have it with her, when would Elle have seen it up close?
*THE BOSS OVERREACTING ABOUT A BROKEN FLASHDRIVE IS RIDICULOUS AND RUINS THE WHOLE MOVIE! First of all, Caroline would have back up print outs of her layouts, to hand out in the meeting. The lack of a power point presentation wouldn't be a big deal. Second, she had the files on her computer, so the delay of five minutes wouldn't matter. Third, the new boss's behavior towards the young associate at the expense of Caroline, is grounds for a law suit. No company would put up with that type of repeated discrimination, especially since Caroline had performed admirably under her old boss. This whole plot line is convoluted, stupid, and ruins the movie. It's also unacceptable, since there are ways to fix it (The writers nn2622305 David DeCrane Dave Hickey should know about this type of plothole & avoid it). I know this is a melodrama, but having plotlines that don't work in real world scenarios, kick the viewer out of the movie, and make me want to throw things at the TV.
*IF ELLE SHOT SAM, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY POWDER BURNS ON CAROLINE'S HANDS. The police would instantly know that Caroline didn't do it, and Elle's frame would fall apart.
*TIERRA SKOVBYE NEEDS TO LEARN HOW TO HANDLE A GUN I thought the same thing in A Murderer Upstairs (2017) . She's constantly tilting it down, where it would shoot the floor.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This is not a terrible melodrama, but it's not the best either. If you're looking for a few hours to veg, and turn your brain off, you could do much worse. If you enjoy watching Tiera Skovbye act like a crazy person, or you're a fan of Ashley Scott, give this a watch.
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 Honeymoon (2012)
Must watch if you're a fan of Harvey Keitel or Billy Miller
Fatal Honeymoon (TV movie 2012)
6 out of 10 stars
BASIC PLOT:
Christina "Tina" Thomas (Amber Clayton) has fallen for the wrong man. David Gabriel "Gabe" Watson (Billy Miller) is an arrogant, manipulative man child, everyone can see it EXCEPT Tina. Her father, Tommy Thomas (Harvey Keitel) tries desperately to warn her about Gabe, but to no avail. After much turmoil, Gabe & Tina get married. Gabe believes Tina has changed a sizable life insurance policy over to him, when they head to Australia to scuba dive on their honeymoon.
After many protestations by Tina about her lack of skill at scuba diving, and her unease at doing such a skilled dive while still a novice, Gabe at best doesn't listen to Tina, and at worst bullies her into doing something she's not comfortable with. Either way, her distress goes unheard and unheeded by her new husband. Tina dies due to Gabe's negligence. What's unknown is whether it was intentional, or not. Her father believes it was intentional, and fights for justice for his slain daughter.
WHAT WORKS:
*BILLY MILLER (RIP) PLAYS HIS ROLE TO PERFECTION. Billy Miller fully captures a sociopath, trapped in his glory days, plotting & scheming his way out of a murder charge.
*FOR A MADE-FOR-TV MOVIE, THIS GETS A LOT RIGHT They even found a matching wedding dress, to the one the real Tina wore. Someone took the time to get the details right, and it adds to the overall believability of the movie.
*HARVEY KEITEL DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB AS "TOMMY THOMAS" I know we would all expect him to do a good job, but he doesn't just phone in his role. Grieving is the hardest things for an actor to get right, and the scene where "Tommy" (Harvey Keitel) gets the news his daughter is dead, brought tears to my eyes.
*BEAUTIFULLY DEMONSTRATES HOW SMART WOMEN CAN BE LED ASTRAY BY CONNIVING MEN This movie could be a cautionary tale for women, who think they can change men for the better, or that they'll one day grow up.
*CINEMATOGRAPHY & DIRECTING IS TOP NOTCH Movies should be a series of descriptive stills, that unfold the story. You should be able to break down any shot into a still photo, and understand what's happening, without audio. This movie accomplishes this, and more. There are also some captivating shots of Australia. Kudos to Nadia Tass (director) & David Parker (cinematographer).
*BRILLIANTLY SHOWS HOW A SOCIOPATH THINKS Gabe (Billy Miller) sees Tina (Amber Clayton) as property, therefore, her leaving him is not an option. Instead, when she tries, he feels the need to punish her, and reward himself. This movie shows these steps, and we (the omnipotent viewer) see Tina hurtling towards disaster.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*WHERE ARE THE SOUTHERN ACCENTS? The only person who even attempts one (maybe because he's the only one who could pull it off) is Harvey Keitel.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I would definitely recommend "Fatal Honeymoon" to fans of movies based on true events. This movie goes out of it's way to get the details right. Even if you're not interested in the real case (I had never heard about it the first time I watched this movie), the movie is still sincere and impactful. The script (written by Mac Gudgeon & Teena Booth) adds a layer of veracity, not seen in most made-for-tv films. The performances are compelling and sincere, making this a heartfelt retelling of actual events.
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.
#Cybersleuths: The Idaho Murders (2024)
THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT CYBER SLEUTHS! THEY ARE PONTIFICATORS!
These people have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with honest, hard-working armchair detectives. The people featured on this show fall into two categories - people doing this for money (Jenna Cannella), and people doing this to feel important (Olivia). They don't data mine, they don't spend hours raising money for DNA testing, the don't do location sifting, they don't spend hours looking into gruesome police files, hoping to find a connection that the over burdened police missed. Instead, THEY DO NOTHING, but talk about the case of the moment, spending hours rehashing, or worse, spewing baseless theories, about what little nonsense they carry in their heads. THEY ARE CLICK BAIT! Olivia actually had the gall to say that TikTok was better than the real news, because we have no attention span anymore, and people can get everything they need to know about the case from her 30 second video, instead of having to listen to the news, because that could take a whole 2 minutes. OMG, and she actually thinks this a good thing? Congress needs to ban TikTok right now then, not because it's owned by the Chinese, but because it's warping our children's minds. I'm more offended at Paramount +, giving these idiots a platform to spew their misinformation, AND for calling them Cyber SLEUTHS, when they clearly ARE NOT! Interviewing (exploiting) the broken hearted parents of a murder victim, does not make you a detective, neither does vomiting the same tired conspiracy theories to your echo chamber, over and over again. I can see now why the police and judges are irritated with these people.
And about the other comments, saying we shouldn't give this a low rating because we don't like the people, and about how this is a documentary, and we should review it for that, not for the content, WTF? It's bad as a documentary too, not well put together, a lackluster, uninteresting melange of jumbled ideas, with people who are are so shallow, and have so little self esteem, their worth is based on how many followers they have (which this stupid "documentary" actually puts on the screen for all to see, as if this gives them credibility because they have lots of followers). The worst half of these people, are the ones who are clearly doing it for the money (Jenna Cannella), not even trying to hide the fact she's exploiting her followers, by constantly showing off her designer clothes, and sunglasses to her pitiful group of supporters. The sadder part is the "good" half of these people (Olivia), the broken, lonely people who feel important for the first time in their lives because of likes and followers. This "documentary" should have been titled, "So, It Comes to This... And should have been labeled as how social media is a failed sociological experiment. It is damaging our youth in more ways than one (self esteem, time management, disassociation from others, no creativity, no music, no love stories, no life, except a screen, etc). This "documentary" has no redeeming qualities, and Paramount + should be ashamed of itself.
The Perfect Roommate (2011)
Riddled with plot holes, unlikable characters, & lots of deus ex machinas...
THE PERFECT ROOMMATE (TV movie)
1.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read:3min
BASIC PLOT:
Normally, I'd write a succinct outline of the plot. But there never was a plot to write about. Basically, a waitress let's another waitress move in with her, then suddenly becomes suspicious of her (for no reason), and somehow suspects she's up to no good (with no reason). It's just a bunch of one dimensional, wooden characters, taking actions with no motivations, without any explanations, right up to the end. It's a disjointed, convoluted mess that should have been stopped while it was still words on a page.
WHAT WORKS:
*CINTHIA BURKE IS A LIFETIME MOVIE GUILTY PLEASURE Cinthia Burke is a guilty pleasure of mine. She always plays the bad girls in Lifetime movies from this era, and even though these roles are cheesy, she manages to make it work. She's about the only thing in this movie that does work.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*I KNOW THIS IS A MELODRAMA, BUT THE CHARACTERS ARE TOO ONE DIMENSIONAL I know in melodramas, characters aren't supposed to have much depth, but this movie takes that too far. Everybody is very wooden, and the little character development there is, doesn't tell us enough to make us care. Even the background people seem like cardboard cutouts. Christine Conradt should have tweaked the script, and given the actors more to work with.
*WHY WOULD ASHLEY AND MATT BE SUSPICIOUS OF CARRIE BECAUSE OF SOMETHING HER EX HUSBAND DID? Women get conned by men all the time, why would Ashley be suspicious of Carrie because Carrie's ex-husband killed his mistress? If anything, that would make most women MORE sympathetic to her. Matt is supposed to be a good guy, well most good guys are sympathetic to women who get used and abused. His suspicions are NOT BELIEVABLE! He insists Carrie should have told Ashley BEFORE she moved in, again, I ask WHY? Why should she be required to share something so humiliating before becoming someone's roommate? This whole plot line RUINS the movie, and cancels my suspension of disbelief.
*THINGS GET MORE UNBELIEVABLE WHEN MATT'S BROTHER BECOMES SUSPICIOUS...
Are you freaking kidding me? Matt's brother, Ethan, decides to play Nancy Drew about Carrie, again, I ask WHY? Carrie has not given these people any reason to be suspicious of her, so why are they? If hooking up with a lousy, deceitful man makes you untrustworthy, then I guess half the women in the world are not too be trusted.
*ASHLEY SAYS CARRIE KNEW ABOUT MARTY'S AFFAIRS and this makes her suspicious because Carrie testified at Marty's (Carrie's ex) trial that she didn't know about them. But what Carrie actually said was she knew about his FIRST affair, and then didn't want to know about the subsequent ones. So again, poor writing, and LOTS of deus ex machina from Christine Conradt.
*THERE'S LOTS OF CLOSEUP WEIRD SHOTS This may be because it's from 2010, and maybe wasn't widescreen (& they are stretching it to make it work on today's TVs). Sometimes when they stretch things, you get a strange effect. But even if that's the case, a lot of the shots are still awkward.
*WHY WOULD ASHLEY CARE THAT CARRIE IS SLEEPING WITH RICHARD? Ashley says it's a betrayal that her roommate slept with her dad. Again, I ask WHY? Why do writers continually forget that characters NEED motivations to make them believable. Ashley HAS to have a REASON why she is mad, that two people she cares about are no longer lonely. But instead she throws a tantrum like she's 12. Protagonists need to be LIKABLE (especially in melodramas)! But in this movie, the only person that's sympathetic is Richard (William R. Moses, Ashley's dad.
*IF ASHLEY IS SO SUSPICIOUS OF CARRIE, WHY DOESN'T SHE ASK CARRIE TO MOVE OUT?
If you are so suspicious of someone, you're interviewing people from their past, and throwing fits about them sleeping with your dad, why would you still be living with them, when it would be so easy to just ask them to leave? You can't have it both ways, either they suspect her (even though there's nothing to suspect her of), and should ask her to leave, or they don't suspect her, and she stays, you see how confusing this convoluted script is?
*WHEN ASHLEY'S CAR BREAKS DOWN, SHE KEEPS CALLING HER DAD FOR HOURS, EVEN THOUGH SHE CAN'T GET AHOLD OF HIM. WHY DOESN'T SHE CALL HER BOYFRIEND, MATT?
This is yet another giant plot hole that MAKES NO SENSE! She's going to stand at a gas station, all night, when she could just call her boyfriend instead? REALLY?
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I would NOT recommend this movie, even to fans of melodramas. The characters are wooden, their motivations are not believable, and even at the half way point, we don't know why the antagonists are doing what they are doing. If you're looking for a decent made-for-tv melodrama from Christine Conradt, try The Bride He Bought Online (2015). It's actually enjoyable.
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.
Nightmare Tenant (2018)
Script needed some tweaking...
NIGHTMARE TENANT (TV movie)
4.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:21min
BASIC PLOT:
Nikki Stone (Virginia Tucker) thought she had it all. She sacrificed all the fun of high school life, so she could maintain perfect grades, and become valedictorian. Pleasing her demanding father is all that matters to her, and to do that, she has to get into Vanderton College. She thinks her entry is assured, until she learns she's been passed over by a legacy. Lacey Allen (Heather Hopkins) got into Vanderton instead of Nikki, even though her grades weren't as good. But she was a legacy, all the women in Lacey's family had gone to Vanderton, including her mother, Dr. Carol Allen (Lauralee Bell). When Nikki sees the look of disappointment on her father's face, she cannot bear the weight of it. Something in her snaps, and she's determined to make someone pay. She's decided it's going to be those who robbed her of her dream of going to Vanderton. The Allens took everything from Nikki, and now she's going to take everything from them.
WHAT WORKS:
*THE ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE For a made-for-tv melodrama, the acting is better than most. Both Virginia Tucker & Lauralee Bell do a fine job. It's the script that needed tweaking.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*CREDIT CARD COMPANIES WOULD FLAG THE TYPE OF PURCHASES MADE ON CAROL'S CREDIT CARD Especially since it's a new card, but they would anyway. If Carol didn't normally make big purchases, or lots of electronic purchases, they would flag it. Not too mention, anyone but a business buying five IPads at once, would definitely send up a red flag. They would freeze the card & contact Carol. Melissa/Nikki's shopping spree is just not believable.
*YOUR IDENTITY IS STOLEN WITHIN 24 HOURS OF YOUR NEW TENANT MOVING IN Wouldn't that be a clue to most people? After all, Carol is a doctor, so she's supposed to have brains, but we're supposed to believe she doesn't see it, because she misses her daughter, and needs company?
*ALL OF THE ORDERED STUFF SHOWS UP AT THE HOSPITAL When she says no, I didn't order this, they would return it. They wouldn't pressure her into signing for things she didn't order. Also, Carol says, "How embarrassing!" Why is having your identity stolen embarrassing? It's nothing you did, so why?
*WHY WOULD CAROL BELIEVE MELISSA ABOUT TOM? Melissa/Nikki says Tom (Jon Briddell) sexually assaulted her. Tom & Carol have been together a long time. She would believe him, not some random girl she's know less than a week. Most people would connect all these bad things, with the one new common denominator - their new tenant. Someone forges your signature on a medical chart at work, someone steals your identity, someone frames your long term boyfriend, and Melissa/Nikki is present at all these terrible occurrences. Any normal person would put two and two together.
*A HOSPITAL COULDN'T BAN YOU FROM SEEING YOUR BOYFRIEND WITHOUT CAUSE The police could, if Carol was a suspect, but she's not, so that's just ludicrous. And the plotholes just keep on coming...
*THERE'S NO NEED FOR GINGER TO MEET SUCH A GRUESOME END. I didn't know why these types of movies have such bloodlust. Ginger (Karlisha Hurley) is Lacey's long time best friend, who's also barely 18. There's no need for her to meet with this type of violence. It would have been better if she'd been tied up in the closet, and terrorized. It's just as effective, and is more believable.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*If giant plotholes don't bother you, then this could be some mind numbing fun. But if you're the type of person that needs things to be somewhat believable, I'd give this one a pass. To those that don't understand melodrama as an art form - If you're the type of person that needs intricate character development, and deep storylines, STOP watching & rating made-for-tv 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.
Unwanted Guest (2016)
Basic made-for-tv melodrama...
UNWANTED GUEST (TV Movie)
3.7 out of 10 stars Time to Read:
*WARNING: ANIMAL CRUELTY AS A PLOT DEVICE (see below)
BASIC PLOT:
Christine's (Valentina Novakovic) a college student who's about to return home for winter break. She's decided to take her new friend Amy (Kate Mansi) home with her. Amy's parents are in Europe, and she has no one to spend the time off with. But as soon as they arrive home, and Amy meets Christine's stepfather, Charles (Ted King), things take a dark turn. Amy has decided she must have Charles, and she's not going room let anything stand in her way. Can Christine, and her mother, Anna ([link=nm0514719)Beth Littleford[/link]) uncover Amy's sinister motives in time to save themselves?
WHAT WORKS:
*IT'S A FAIRLY FUN RIDE, IF YOU DON'T THINK TOO HARD There's lots of plot holes, and blind corners, but it's not supposed to be a deep, complex story. If you go into it with that attitude, you'll enjoy it a whole lot more.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*USING ANIMAL CRUELTY & DEATH AS A PLOT DEVICE IS NEVER JUSTIFIED There are many other ways to show a person is violent/mentally disturbed/evil. Showing us a precious little hamster, and then having us watch while it's put down the garbage disposal lowers my rating 1.5 stars. It's time to let writers know this is unacceptable!
*AMY'S TRANSFORMATION WITHOUT HER GLASSES IS A BIT LIKE WONDER WOMAN... Totally unbelievable
*CHARLES IS A BIT OF A LETCH
He's staring, very obviously, at Amy's legs, not half an hour after meeting her. I get there are problems in his marriage, but leering at young girls does not make him very sympathetic.
*THIS MOVIE MUST HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY A MAN There are lots of misogynistic overtones here, like Anna (Beth Littleford is not a good wife because she doesn't wait on Charles (Ted King hand and foot. And because she doesn't, this gives Charles permission to cheat on her, while she's injured, in the same house! C'mon! Also, why is it Anna's responsibility alone to get the spark back in their marriage, and how is "making breakfast" a euphemism for something sexual?
*CHRISTINE'S DIALOG IS NOT BELIEVABLE
These girls are supposed to be 21, but Christine chatters on like she's in junior high. Her dialog is ridiculously banal.
*WHEN DOES AMY HAVE TIME TO CUT THE BREAK LINES ON KEN'S VET? The implication is that Amy messes with Ken's car so he won't tell Charles the police are looking for her. When would she have time? Did she do it in her cocktail dress?
*MODERN GAS RANGES HAVE SAFETY FEATURES Amy wouldn't be able to just flip a switch, and stick Christine's head in the oven. The oven would light automatically, it wouldn't spew gas.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This is a very basic melodrama. If you like & understand the art form, then you might like this. If you like complex, intricate plots and characters, then look elsewhere. I'd recommend this to fans of Ted King & Kate Mansi
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.
Thicker Than Water (2019)
Villain more sympathetic than protagonists...
THICKER THAN WATER/THE TWISTED SON (TV movie 2019)
5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3min
WARNING: Animal violence (see below)
BASIC PLOT:
The Decker family is still reeling from the death of their beloved only son Zach (Jason Smiley). Paige Decker (Andrea Roth) is suffering the most, and her inability to reengage with life has begun to create financial hardships for the family. Her husband, Nathan (Tygh Runyan) decides a compromise is the best solution, and offers up the idea of a boarder, until Paige feels she can return to work. At first, she is reluctant, but ultimately decides it's a better solution than having to face the world again.
A young college student named Brandon Wilcox (Eric Osborne) is the only person who answers their ad. Because they have a teenage daughter, Addie (Katie Douglas), they only wanted to take on female boarders, but due to Brandon's dire situation,
and the fact he's taking the same classes in college as Zach was, they agree he can stay for a few weeks, until he can find more suitable lodgings. At first, his companionship gave Paige great comfort. She started coming out of her shell with her family, and even considered going back to work. But Nathan and Addie are jealous of Brandon, and want him to leave, no matter the consequences to Paige. Addie is particularly judgemental of Brandon. She is determined to rid the family of him, and with her best friend Kara (Kayla Henry), she embarks on a sleuthing campaign, designed to get him out of the house for good. They discover Brandon's past only goes back seven years. Who was he before? Addie's constant beratement of Brandon has added tension in the house, and Brandon's behavior has changed. Is Addie right, is Brandon really dangerous? Can she uncover his true motives in time to save her family?
WHAT WORKS:
*THIS MOVIE PORTRAYS GRIEF WELL For those that haven't experienced grief first hand, Paige's (Andrea Roth) behavior might seem selfish, but that's not the case. Grief can be paralyzing, to the point of catatonia. She is doing her best, and her family should cut her some slack. However, not wanting to take on a border, or do whatever it takes to help the family financially is selfish of Paige. But again, grief can be isolating, and her feelings are not wrong. People treat you differently when you've suffered a loss, and it becomes more and more difficult to face anyone. Those who don't understand, expect you to "just get over it", or tell you, "your loved one wouldn't want you to feel that way". After a time, your grief becomes unacceptable to others, and so it's easier to just isolate yourself from them, as Paige does in this movie. This is a believable storyline, and Andrea Roth portrays grief well.
*THERE ARE SOME BEAUTIFUL SHOTS IN THIS FILM There's some lovely filmmaking going on here. There are some hauntingly beautiful shots when Brandon removes obstacles. Also, the grey filter that's used as a visual metaphor is very effective. It's like what actually happens when someone is grieving. All of the bright colors just go out of the world, and you're left with shades of grey.
*THE SELFISHNESS OF THE FAMILY AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MOTHER is a believable trope that many women have to deal with every day. No one in the family cares about Paige's feelings. All they care about is their needs not being met, due to her grief. Nathan is more concerned with finances, and his lack of sex, than Paige's feelings. Addie, their daughter, cares about no one but herself. I know she's a teenager, but c'mon! Nathan's enabling of her bratty behavior is disgusting, but it's worse when he doesn't extend the same considerations to his wife. Women are seen do'ers in many families - what can you do for me, not what can we do for each other. This is a believable plotline, although making the family this unsympathetic, creates apathy in the viewer, and that's not a good thing.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*NATHAN & ADDIE BEING UPSET WITH BRANDON ABOUT THE PUZZLE DOESN'T WORK
Paige & Brandon finish a puzzle that she had been working on with her dead son Zach. It was a mother & son activity, that was special to them. Along comes Brandon, and helps her conquer her grief by finishing the puzzle. This causes the rest of the family to attack him! WHY? Attacking Brandon makes no sense! He had no way of knowing the puzzle activity was special, he did nothing wrong, SO WHY ATTACK HIM?! If they'd had grief counseling, they would understand, some times it's easier to share with strangers. And if finishing a symbolic puzzle helps Paige with her grief, her family should be pleased. Up until this point, Nathan was happy with Brandon helping Paige through her grief, so why suddenly would this change? This is where the movie begins to fall apart (at the midpoint). Decent people wouldn't attack a stranger for something he had no way of knowing, especially since he had participated in family activities before. Addie, the daughter, behaves in an atrocious manner to this stranger, from the beginning, BEFORE he does anything to give her cause. She's a selfish, self-absorbed brat, who doesn't seem to CARE about anybody's feelings but her own. If you want me to sympathize with this family, then make them act like human beings, not solipsistic toads. I should never sympathize with the villain more than with the protagonist, but that's exactly what happens here.
*IF SOMEONE IS TRYING TO LIGHT YOUR DAUGHTER ON FIRE, YOU KEEP HITTING THEM UNTIL THEY STOP MOVING I have this complaint about lots of movies, they portray woman as useless in a crisis. In actuality, most women would defend their children to the death. No one would use one little hit, and then stop and wait to see what happens.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*This movie has some problems, mainly the unlikeability of the husband and daughter. When the protagonists are more unsympathetic than the villain, the movie is bound to have problems. But, if that doesn't bother you, and you're in the mood for a low budget melodrama, you could do much worse. Andrea Roth's acting is above average for this type of made-for-tv faire, and makes the movie watchable. This is a very average TV movie.
ANIMAL VIOLENCE: I didn't believe in trigger warnings, but I also don't believe in using animal violence, or deaths as a plot device. There are easier ways to show the depravity of the character. In this movie, Brandon, burns up Earth worms with a lighter. Unnecessary, and unwarranted.
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.
Blue (2021)
A strange short film about loss....
This is a hard review to write, mainly because the film is only 3 minutes long. I believe the filmmaker was trying to comment about loss, and learning to put your feet back on the ground. The film does not specify if the loss was from death, or a breakup. It doesn't really matter after all, the pain has to be dealt with either way. I think this film was too short, and could have used a bit of storyboarding. With more images, we could have gotten more of a sense of what the woman lost, and what she's going through. It's a waste of Mark Hapka, who is a fine actor. The music is nice, it's "Pockets of Light - Excerpt" by Lubomyr Melnyk. If you're looking for a better short film about pain, I'd recommend instead, another called, "Blue", also from 2021, by Theodore Pappas aka Fyodor. It's available on Vimeo, and it's a beautiful piece of filmmaking.
*I am not associated with the production of either film. I am just an honest viewer, who tries to write straightforward reviews.
The Vestige (2011)
A Strange, Ethereal Journey...
This is an odd little bit of art, starring Mark Hapka. A man is having dreams (or are they visions?), of strange beings who call to him, without saying a word. He is drawn to these unearthly creatures, without knowing why. His thoughts are consumed by them, and his life becomes his desire to see them again, just one more time. A chance encounter with a violent man, brings him into contact with them again. Only this time, he can hear their message, and it's live, live your life.
This is beautifully shot, and has a strange jarring effect, but at the same time, manages to leave the viewer with a tranquil feeling. This could be about grief, and being stuck in loss, to the point of inertia. The interpretation is up to the viewer, and if you have a few minutes, and enjoy ambiguous, beautiful art films, I'd recommend this short film. It's available on Vimeo.
Relationship Deli: Returned (2020)
Not quite as good as the first, but....
A refreshing piece of entertainment nonetheless. If you haven't seen Relationship Deli (2018), I heartily recommend you watch that first (it's available on YouTube), before you watch this . This is the "sequel". Basically, in Relationship Deli (2018), a woman goes to a deli that serves relationships, and custom orders a less than stellar companion. In this sequel, the woman is unhappy with her purchase, and calls the return line to get her account credited. Of course, the credits aren't much better than the relationship itself. Both are funny and clever. Kaitlyn Black is a standout talent, in today's world of mediocrity. She's a fine comedian and actress. If you enjoyed the Relationship Deli (2018) series, I also recommend another short film by Kaitlyn Black, called Last Call (2018). Both are quality entertainment.
The Demon in the Dark (2016)
An Extremely Well Done Short...
This is a fun, little time waster, that should be expanded into something bigger. I am not alone with that suggestion, almost every comment on YouTube shares that opinion. This short is a fun quality little romp about villains and heros, and a package that needs delivering. It has some familiar faces, quality actors, that give it a big production feel. The jokes land, the CGI works, and the overall finished product is equal to a big budget picture. If you're a fan of the Batman universe, then definitely give this a spin. Even if you're not, it's still an enjoyable ride. The next time you have 17 minutes, give this a watch...
Doomsday Mom (2021)
A Respectful, Fictionalized Account, of a Terrible Tragedy
DOOMSDAY MOM (TV Movie 2021)
5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:20
BASIC PLOT:
Based on a true story, this is the dramatization of the brutal murders of 4 innocent people, Tylee Ryan (Astrid Trueman), JJ Vallow (Aias Dalman), Charles Vallow (nm6003252Don McLeod) and Tammy Daybell (Jennifer-Juniper Angeli), by three of the most selfish people on earth, Lori Vallow (Lauren Lee Smith), Alex Cox (Joshua Hinkson) and Chad Daybell (Marc Blucas). Caught in a maniacal religious ferver, Chad Daybell convinced Lori Vallow her husband, and two children were taken over by demons, and were now zombies, walking the earth. She convinced her brother, Alex Cox, to kill them. Chad Daybell then killed his wife, so he and Lori could be together. They wed in Hawaii, two weeks after Tammy Daybell's death. Authorities were alerted, and justice prevailed, but at a great cost.
WHAT WORKS:
*VERY WELL CAST
This movie is very well acted, with very difficult material. It is a low budget, made-for-tv movie, but it is written well, and in a respectful way, by Stephen Tolkin.
*THE WAY THE DEATHS ARE PORTRAYED IS NOT EXPLOITATIVE
This movie handles the deaths, and the grief of the grandparents, Larry Woodcock (Patrick Duffy) and
Kay Woodcock (Linda Purl) in a non-exploitative way. If this way my family's story, I wouldn't be offended by this dramatization.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*SOME OF THE LIGHTING IS OFF I say this about lots of these Lifetime movies, but this one was especially bad. Almost all of the lighting of the faces in this movie is TERRIBLE! It's like everyone is always in shadow. I don't know what they were thinking.
*LAUREN LEE SMITH MISPRONOUNCES THE NAME OF A KEY MORMON FIGURE
Lauren Lee Smith mispronounces the name of the Angel Moroni, she pronounces it like macaroni, when it should have the hard I sound at the end, not the ee sound. As a lifelong Mormon, Lori Vallow would know how to pronounce such an influential figure in the Mormon Church.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I would recommend this movie to those who like fictionalized stories, that are based on true crime. It is fairly well done, considering it's budget, and handled in a respectful way. It is, for the most part, true to the facts of the story. I would recommend it.
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 Roommate (2016)
An enjoyable time waster and a fun made-for-tv melodrama
The Wrong Roommate (TV Movie 2016)
5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:55 min
BASIC PLOT:
Laurie Valentine (Jessica Morris) has finally found the strength to free herself from her oppressive, overbearing ex-fiance, Mark Dupree (William McNamara). Catching him in their bed with another woman was the final straw, and she is starting her life over. Her best friend, Janice Dahl (Dominique Swain), encouraged her to start teaching, and now they both work at the same college. She's also looking forward to working with her friend and mentor, Floyd (Eric Roberts), who's head of her department. She's not quite back on her feet yet, so while her sister is away for the summer, she's staying at her place, with her seventeen year old niece, Ricki (Brianna Joy Chomer). Unbeknownst to Laurie, her sister was renting out her guesthouse to a handsome stranger, a man named Alan Cypher (Jason-Shane Scott). He's kind to Ricki, and he's nice to have around, especially since Mark keeps showing up at the house, trying to convince Laurie to come back to him. Other than Mark's inability to let go, things seem to be turning around for Laurie. She is enjoying teaching, and her students are achieving more than ever before. Her life is finally her own again, and her choices, and mistakes can be made without Mark's watchful eye. She's even enjoying her new found flirtation with Alan Cypher. But as her life turns around, Laurie's instincts tell her something is wrong. Can she discover what's causing this nagging feeling, in time to save herself?
WHAT WORKS:
*THE CASTING WAS EXCELLENT This movie is cast very well, and it elevates the script. Everyone does a fine job, and for a made-for-tv melodrama, it is above average.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*FLOYD RECOGNIZING AN OBSCURE ARTIST FROM 20 YEARS AGO IS A STRETCH Floyd (Eric Roberts), a colleague of Laurie's, tells "Alan" his art is a forgery, because he recognizes the work, it was done by a student of his, that died twenty years ago. That's the biggest deus ex machina, I've ever seen. Wouldn't it be better to have Floyd as a volunteer in the arts program at the local prison? He'd have seen the work more recently, and it would be a hell of a lot easier to believe.
*WHY DO MEN ALWAYS WRITE WOMEN AS WEAKER THAN THEY ARE? So After Janice hits Kurt in the head, and he drops the gun, she just runs over to Rikki, even as Laurie struggles with Kurt for the gun. He's having them dig they're own graves, but we're supposed to believe the women wouldn't beat this guy's a**? Why not hit him again, and again and again and again, until he stops moving! I don't even have to look, I already know this was written by a man, and written badly. You know why women always have so many defense wounds when attacked? Because for one, we value our lives as much as the next guy, and for two, women are NEVER as weak as men imagine them to be. Why don't male writers ever understand this, especially when they are writing for women? This is why one of my favorite made-for-tv movies is Fatal Flip (2015), (also starring Dominique Swain) the main character in that movie doesn't require a man to save her, she saves her man, and takes care of the psycho herself. (I just looked, this movie is written by a man, Matthew Jason Walsh)
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*If you are a fan of made-for-tv movies, and you like and understand the art form of melodrama, then you'll probably like this. It's pure silly entertainment, meant for turning your brain off, and eating some popcorn 🍿. So, if your a fan of this type of movie, pop that corn, kick your shoes off, and enjoy. If you hate made-for-tv melodramas, then please stop watching and rating them.
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 Assistant (2008)
Decent TV Melodrama... Until the End
THE PERFECT ASSISTANT (TV Movie 2008)
4 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:75 min
BASIC PLOT:
Rachel Partson (Josie Davis) loves her boss David Wescott (Chris Potter) just a little too much. She's been his executive assistant for three years, and now she's ready to be something else, his wife. The only trouble is, David's a recent widower, and not interested. Rachel's not going to let that stop her. She won't let anything, or anybody stand in the way of her "perfect" relationship. Can David realize the depth of Rachel's obsession, in time to save himself, and his daughter Isabelle (Veronique-Natale Szalankiewicz)?
WHAT WORKS:
*EXCELLENT MELODRAMA
This is exactly how a well laid out melodrama should work. Not a lot of character development, but lots of good vs evil action.
*REALISTIC PORTRAYAL OF EROTOMANIA
Rachel Partson (Josie Davis) has erotomania, and it's depicted well by both the actress, and the writers, Christine Conradt and Shawn Riopelle.
*MANIPULATIONS AREN'T TOO OVER THE TOP In a lot of these types of melodramas, the actions are so over the top, they are not believable. But here, for the most part, Rachel's actions are inline with someone who has a severe romantic fixation.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK:
*DAVID LEADS RACHEL ON
And then acts surprised when she reciprocates. I get they are "celebrating" landing a big business deal, BUT... You are sharing a fancy hotel room with your executive assistant, your daughter's in bed, and now you suggest drinking champagne with her. You go on and on about how she's been there for you, and how you don't know what you'd do without her, you're toasting champagne, and looking into her eyes, most people would take that as a come on.
*DAVID RELATES TO RACHEL, AS IF SHE'S UNATTRACTIVE In reality, Rachel (Josie Davis) is the most attractive woman in the whole movie. I don't say this to be unkind, but she's more attractive than Carol Wescott (Jennifer Marcil), David's late wife, and more attractive than Judith Manion (Rachel Hunter), his business partner. Josie Davis is a knockout, and not the type of woman most men would ignore. David's reactions to her are as if she's a plain jane 2, not a drop dead gorgeous 8, so that part of the story really doesn't work.
*WALLY, A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE, TRACKS HIS BOSS'S NANNY'S HOURS? That would be Rachel's job, as David's executive assistant, not Wally's (Jason Harper), one of David's business associates. THAT PLOTLINE MAKES NO SENSE! I expect better from Christine Conradt and Shawn Riopelle, the writers. Also, this plot device is a deus ex machina, because this is how Judith and Wally discover the nanny's immigration appointment was bogus (Rachel set up the fake appointment for the nanny, so the nanny would be busy, and she could go in her stead, with David and his daughter on a trip). From a simple appointment time mix-up, Wally and Judith "figure out" Rachel did all this behind the scenes. WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP! Wally, would not be handling anything to do with his boss's nanny, and even if he did, he would assume it was just a bureaucratic mix-up, NOT a grand conspiracy. Rachel hasn't given anyone a reason to suspect her thus far, so this whole story line is GARBAGE! Top executives don't sit around gossiping, or even thinking about nanny's and assistants. It throws the viewer out of their suspension of disbelief, and instead makes them throw things at the TV!
Thanks Christine Conradt and
Shawn Riopelle for RUINING what was a decent melodrama in the last twenty minutes!
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:
*I'd definitely recommend this to fans of Josie Davis. If you like watching her portray a villainess, then pop that corn, and turn off the logical side of your brain for an hour and a half. IF you like, and understand the art form of melodrama, then you'll probably like this. Keep in mind, the last twenty minutes SUCKS, and MAKES NO SENSE, but if that type of thing doesn't bother you, then watch away! It is low budget, so keep that in mind. If you're a person who likes deep character development, and believable actions from the players, I'd look elsewhere (I'd also stop watching TV movies).
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.