vnssyndrome89 Reviews

#Cybersleuths: The Idaho Murders (2024)

THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT CYBER SLEUTHS! THEY ARE PONTIFICATORS!

[1/10 · 25 April 2024]

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 TV Movie)

Riddled with plot holes, unlikable characters, & lots of deus ex machinas...

[2/10 · 17 April 2024]

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...

[4/10 · 12 April 2024]

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 TV Movie)

Basic made-for-tv melodrama...

[4/10 · 11 April 2024]

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 TV Movie)

Villain more sympathetic than protagonists...

[5/10 · 22 March 2024]

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 (VI) (2021)

A strange short film about loss....

[5/10 · 25 January 2024]

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...

[6/10 · 25 January 2024]

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....

[6/10 · 25 January 2024]

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...

[6/10 · 24 January 2024]

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 TV Movie)

A Respectful, Fictionalized Account, of a Terrible Tragedy

[5/10 · 17 January 2024]

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 TV Movie)

An enjoyable time waster and a fun made-for-tv melodrama

[5/10 · 17 January 2024]

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 TV Movie)

Decent TV Melodrama... Until the End

[5/10 · 8 January 2024]

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.

Blood Vessel (2019)

If you like clichés you've already seen a million times...

[4/10 · 29 December 2023]

...then this is the movie for you!

3.7 out of 10 stars

This movie has everything you've already seen before, and that's not a good thing. You won't be wowed, because this writer/director (nm1125745Justin Dix) wastes a brilliant take, on an old idea. Instead of taking this premise, and doing something new and inventive with it, he instead reuses every other vampire/ghost ship/Nazi trope, you've already seen. There's bits of tt0103874Dracula, but of course no one in it is as good as the great nm0000198Gary Oldman. There's bits of tt0288477Ghost Ship (another waste IMHO), but of course, no one in it, is as good as the great nm0000321Gabriel Byrne. It also steals from tt0080603Death ship, but without the greatness of nm0001421George Kennedy. I could go on, but I think you get the point. It's a missed opportunity, with decent actors, and a fantastic set. If you're like me, and you love atmospherics, then you still might find something to enjoy here, but it couldn't even carry me all the way to the end.

Overall, I'd suggest you watch a myriad of other things (including the movies listed above), before you watch this.

Lost Women of Highway 20 (2023)

THIS IS THE MOST DISJOINTED, BADLY PACED DOCUMENTARY, I'VE EVER SEEN...

[3/10 · 22 December 2023]

LOST WOMEN OF HIGHWAY 20 (Documentary) 3 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:20min

BASIC PLOT: This documentary explorers (badly) a series of murders of women between 1978 and the early nineties. Everyone knew who was doing it, but no one would stop him, and innocent women died as a result.

WHAT WORKS: *THE CASE IS A GOOD STORY FOR A DOCUMENTARY It's just too bad that another group of filmmakers didn't get to this story first.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *THIS NEEDED AN OUTLINE BEFORE IT WAS EVER FILMED This documentary is so confusing, I couldn't tell what was happening from one minute to the next. It jumps from place to place, back and forth in time, with no foreshadowing, or worse, bad foreshadowing, and in the end, I imagine a lot of people changing the channel. I watch A LOT of documentaries, 1000's by now, and I understand what a well laid out documentary should look like. It's not this.

*THE WHOLE FIRST EPISODE, THE FILMMAKERS INTIMATE JOHN ACKROYD IS A GOOD GUY This is a betrayal of the audience. There's this thing called foreshadowing, this way the audience has some semblance of what's going on. Not here! They do the opposite, with statements taken out of context, making the bad guy, into the good guy! Unbelievable! Again, WTH?

*THE FILMMAKERS DON'T GIVE US ENOUGH INFORMATION There aren't enough suspects to make the type of unveiling they are going for, work. Instead, they jump from year to year, going backwards and forward in time, jumping from victim to victim, with no consistency or cohesion.

*THE WEIRD LITTLE VOICEOVER COMMENTARY ABOUT THE FOREST WATCHING THE CRIMES, IS JUST FREAKING WEIRD! Really!? What the hell?!

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *I can't recommend this documentary, and it's too bad, because these victims deserved better than this DISJOINTED mess. If you're looking for an interesting, non-exploitative, true crime documentary, I recommend instead The Killing Season (2016), an excellent true crime documentary about the LISKs, from filmmakers Joshua Zeman and Rachel Mills. It is engaging, well paced , and informative. If you're looking for another HBO doc, try instead the four part documentary, Last Call: When a Serial Killer Stalked Queer New York (2023). It's a very graphic, compelling and well done documentary by Anthony Caronna and Howard Gertler. Another gripping, true crime documentary is The Eleven (2017). It's a six part documentary, prompted by a confession letter to a journalist, from a psychotic murderer, Edward Harold Bell. The journalist and a retired detective investigate the case.

CLOSING NOTES: *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 Family's Secret (2010)

You should give this a pass...

[3/10 · 13 December 2023]

MY FAMILY'S SECRET (TV movie 2010) 3 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 4min *Warning: Contains a Suicide Attempt (see below)

Not one of Christine Conradt's successes...

BASIC PLOT: Jason Darcie (Dylan Neal) should be enjoying the best time of his life. He's newly married to Lara (Nicholle Tom), a wife he desperately loves, but his past is ever present in his mind. The stress and horrors of his childhood have put a strain on Jason, and the pain has become too much for him. He's tried to commit suicide, and his note said he couldn't live with the secrets of his past any longer. Thankfully his wife Lara, found him in time to save his life. But he still needs long term, in patient therapy, and that costs money they just don't have. Lara decides her only option is to seek out Jason's brother, Grady (Philip Riccio), a man she barely knows, for help. He still lives in the Darcie ancestral home, and Lara wonders if she can convince him to mortgage it, to save his brother.

While staying at the Darcie estate, Lara is uncomfortable with Grady's strange behavior. He seems to change on a dime, and she can't figure out what's wrong with him. But she does convince him to mortgage the house, so Jason can get the help he needs. While she is staying with Grady, Lara discovers several things about the boys' past. Apparently, they had a little sister, Kara Lynn (Gracie Orr), who died under mysterious circumstances. Lara also uncovers their father, Paul Darcie (Peter MacNeill), was more than just abusive, he was a monster.

Can Lara discover the secrets of the Darcie family's past, in time to save their future?

WHAT WORKS: *DYLAN NEAL GIVES THE ONLY BELIEVABLE PERFORMANCE IN THE WHOLE MOVIE Dylan Neal is a good actor. You can stick him anywhere, and he'll be fine. It's no different here, he gives his typical, quality performance, and it's as good as it can be, with a script this bad. He must have really needed the money, or the script looked a lot better on paper.

* Cinthia Burke IS A GUILTY PLEASURE OF MINE No one but true Lifetime Movie fanatics would even know who she is, but she always played the quintessential, ancillary bad girl, in Lifetime movies from this era. Here she plays another side character, Candy Wickson, and as always, there's just something likable about her.

*THIS HAS A COOL MOVIE POSTER That's so rare these days, I feel the need to comment on it. I wish I knew who designed it, so I could give credit.

*THE TRAILER IS W-A-A-A-Y BETTER THAN THE MOVIE If the movie, was half as good as the trailer.... But, alas, it's not.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *THIS MOVIE IS LIKE WATCHING A BAD COUGH SYRUP COMMERCIAL I kept thinking, over and over, this is like a bad TV commercial. The acting, the actors articulation, the framing of the shots, everything is just like a TV commercial.

*NICHOLLE TOM IS BAD But then Nicholle Tom is always bad, and this is no different. Her portrayal of Lara Darcie is just awful. How she continuously worked on Lifetime is a mystery to me.

*THE CHARACTERS ARE STIFF AND NOT BELIEVABLE These characters are so wooden, and one dimensional, it's hard to watch. It's just bad, and I mean bad.

*THE CINEMATOGRAPHY AND DIRECTING IS DISTRACTING Everything is either too close, or oddly placed , and there are lots of shots that are so dark, you can't see the actor's face. This is all down to director, Curtis Crawford, and cinematographer, James Ransom.

*FOR A THRILLER, THERE'S NO SUSPENSE Maybe it's because there's no real character development, but there's no tension, or suspense in this movie. None.

*THE DIALOG IS BAD I used to be a fan of Christine Conradt (for the most part), but this is not up to par. A matter of fact, I wouldn't recommend any of her work after 2016, AND even though this is older, I would definitely NOT recommend this either. It's plodding, boring, and there's no tension whatsoever. There's not enough character development to make me give a damn about anyone in it, and it's almost unwatchable, even for a time waster.

*JANET-LAINE GREEN CAN'T SAVE AUNT JUNE Janet-Laine Green is a fine actress, but even she can't save this movie from it's terrible script. She plays June Shaeffer, the Darcie boys aunt. She knows their father, Paul Darcie (Peter MacNeill), was disturbed, and she believes he killed her sister. But even with all this insight, she still taunts an unbalanced Grady, when he comes her house. NO ONE WOULD DO THAT!

*THIS IS NOT HOW DISSOCIATIVE IDENTITY DISORDER WORKS I know everybody who's seen the movie, Identity (2003), thinks that personalities can kill each other off, but reality is much less dramatic. With DID, the personalities all serve a purpose in the sufferer's life. They might argue, but they wouldn't be able to murder one another, it would go against why they were created in the first place. Also, it is ludicrous Lara (Nicholle Tom) would "figure out" Grady (Philip Riccio)has DID (a man she barely knows), when his best friend, Candy (Cinthia Burke) and his boss, don't know.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *I cannot in good conscience, recommend this to anyone, even to fans of made-for-tv movies, and melodramas. It's just a fail, and that's too bad, because the premise is interesting, but the execution is terrible. Try another Christine Conradt film instead, like The Bride He Bought Online (2015) or Missing at 17 (2013), they're much better.

CLOSING NOTES: *I don't believe in trigger warnings, but I do believe in giving people a heads up, when there's something potentially harmful or hurtful to certain people. In this case, there is a suicide attempt, and the audience does witness this, so be aware it's there, if this might be a problem for you. If you, or someone you know, is feeling suicidal, you are not alone!

Dial 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline or call 911. To chat: 988lifeline . O r g

*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.

Killer Single Dad (2018 TV Movie)

Above Average Made-For-TV Melodrama...

[5/10 · 18 November 2023]

Killer Single Dad (TV Movie 2018) 5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:50min

BASIC PLOT: After the tragic loss of his wife and two children, David Miller (Cameron Jebo) is moving heaven and earth, to have a family again. He may have lost his family, but he did donate sperm while he was in college, and that means there are lots of children out there, just waiting for their daddy to take them home. David has a plan, and step one is to create an alternate identity, Garrett Penderson. His next step is to find a nanny, who won't ask too many questions. He locates an older woman, Olivia (Jane Carr), who has some immigration problems. She seems like the perfect fit, but her inquisitive nature may be a problem for David down the line. He's located three of his "children", and has already succeeded in retrieving the first two. His next target is Connor, the unborn baby of Jennifer (Kaitlyn Black) and Matt Monroe (Robert Parks-Valletta). They are having martial problems, and the wedge between them is an open door for David. He's able to insinuate himself into their lives, and is now just biding his time, waiting for Connor to be born. Will Matt be able to convince Jennifer "Garrett" has ulterior motives, in time to save their son?

WHAT WORKS: *THE USE OF VISUAL METAPHORS TO ILLUSTRATE GARRETT'S PSYCHOSIS His children appear and disappear, the yard is full of flowers, then dead, etc.

*UNFORTUNATELY MATT'S BAD BEHAVIOR IS BELIEVABLE In today's world, where lots of "men" are just a bunch of spoiled children in disguise, Matt's bad behavior is a real scenario. When he meets Garrett for the first time, his inclination is not to thank him for saving the life of his wife, and unborn child. Instead, he reels at Garrett about being questioned by the police. The world revolves around him, not his family, and this unfortunate behavior, is a problem many women have to deal with.

*THE BABIES ARE AGE APPROPRIATE So often in TV and movies, you have what are supposed to be newborns, and they are really six months old. Not here! All the babies are age appropriate, and it adds to the believability.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *GARRETT SAYS "I'M WIDOWED" The correct grammar would be to say, "I'm a widower."

*BADLY SHOT There are lots of awkward shots, oddly chosen angles, weird lighting choices, and NONE of them are flattering to the actors. It's unfortunate, because this is an above average melodrama, well written by Ken Sanders and Daniel West. It deserved better. The cinematographer nm0786002Joseph M. Setele, and the director, Robert Malenfant, need to go back to school.

*THE LIGHTING IS OFF IN SEVERAL SCENES I see this problem a lot in made-for-tv movies. I don't know if it's a cost issue, or what, but in nighttime scenes, the lighting is w-a-a-a-y off, and looks like it's shot on someone's phone. Maybe they couldn't afford more lighting.

*THE FINAL BABY IS SOMEONE OF COLOR The newborn they used for Jennifer and Matt's baby, is someone of color. They are both white.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *I would recommend this movie to fans of made-for-tv movies, fans of melodramas, and those who like stories about crazy neighbors and baby stealers. It's not for those who like deep, intricate plots, and elaborate character development. If you're looking for either, look elsewhere.

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 Double Life (2016 TV Movie)

This SHOULD have been much better...

[4/10 · 18 November 2023]

His Double Life (TV Movie 2016) 3.7 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 3 min

BASIC PLOT: A tragic accident stole Scarlett's (Cristine Prosperi) father, and the carefree happiness of her teenage years. She was still in high school when his brakes failed, one fateful evening. Now Scarlett's at Yale, and returning home for the first time since her mother's remarriage. Linda (Emmanuelle Vaugier), her mother, and Greg (Brian Krause), her father's business partner, became close after she left for college. Scarlett cares about her mother's happiness, but believes the pair rushed into things. Now, she's coming home for the first time since the marriage, and has mixed feelings about her return. Even though her mother's contentedness is important to her, there was always something about Greg she didn't trust. That hasn't changed, now that she's home, or rather at Greg's luxurious estate.

Scarlett notices Greg's odd comings and goings, at strange hours of the day and night. His business is preparing for a huge software launch, but that wouldn't account for his sneaking out at three in the morning. Scarlett decides to do some investigating on her own. She gets Greg's recent destinations from his car GPS, and she follows him to some strange woman's house. The news the next day, says the woman was found murdered, and is believed to be a Russian spy. Now, Scarlett is beginning to wonder if Greg is not only hiding something, but also dangerous. One discovery leads to another, and after finding a false wall in the garage, Scarlett learns "Greg" is a false name. She also discovers a flashdrive, with a code hidden on it. Can Scarlett uncover Greg's secret intentions in time to save her family, and her country?

WHAT WORKS: *THE ACTING IS DECENT Brian Krause, Emmanuelle Vaugierand Cristine Prosperi all do a decent job with what they have to work with. Unfortunately, Jeffrey Schenck and Peter Sullivan, the writers, didn't give them much.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *WHY IS SCARLETT SUSPICIOUS OF HER NEW STEPDAD? It doesn't make any sense! He works in computers, it's eight days untill a big launch, I'd expect he'd be busy, and working late. So, why is Scarlett suspicious enough to go through his GPS? She keeps telling everyone she's not twelve, but then she acts like it, when her mother gets remarried.

*WHY DOES HER FRIEND CARE IS SHE SNOOPS? I don't get why Scarlett went snooping to begin with, but women tend to trust other women's intuition. I don't think her friend would try to dissuade her, maybe she'd be indifferent, maybe she'd encourage her, but I doubt she'd actively say, "I don't trust your judgment". As the movie goes on, she becomes more and more defensive, why? That just makes Darcy (Kati Salowsky) a terrible friend, and an unlikable character. No one wants to watch crappy, uninteresting friends, who don't help their "bestie", when she's in need.

*SHOULDN'T DARCY CARE IF SCARLETT'S UNCOVERED A SPY RING? I know kids these days don't know about much, (except their TikTok feeds), but shouldn't Darcy care about Scarlett's discoveries? The press has released the possiblity of a spy ring, discovered by the FBI, and this fits the bill. Don't they have a duty to their country, to report it?

*SCARLETT'S DAD ISN'T WEARING A SEATBELT He's driving down the road, not wearing a seatbelt, before he crashes. All modern cars have an alarm, that dings incessantly untill you put the seatbelt on, there's no alarm heard.

*HOW DOES SCARLETT GET INTO GREG'S PHONE?

How does Scarlett get around the code or the biometrics on Greg's phone? Scarlett downloads a tracker on Greg's phone, how does she get into his phone to do this, and how does his high tech security, not catch it? He works in computers, on "sensitive" data, he'd catch a tracker on his phone.

*IF GREG IS AN INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY, HE'D FEEL THE TAIL Scarlett is tailing Greg too close, and with only one car. Anyone trained in counter-espionage tactics, would pick that up quickly.

*THE DIALOG AND DELIVERY IS LACKLUSTER AND PEDESTRIAN This reminds me of a high school play, and it would be good for a high school drama production. But this is not high school, this is national television, and Peter Sullivan, the writer and director, should have known better.

*SCARLETT BREAKS INTO A CRIME SCENE, AND ONCE AGAIN, ACCESSES A LOCKED PHONE Scarlett being able to go in through a window, at the location of a recent murder, is laughable. The fact that the police left a vital piece of evidence behind, like a phone, is also laughable. These are all ridiculous plot devices, and completely disdainful to the audience. However, having Scarlett be able to open a phone, belonging to a potential spy, by just swiping it, is INSULTING TO THE VIEWERS INTELLIGENCE! It also takes it down a full star, for the writer's (Jeffrey Schenck and Peter Sullivan) impudence.

*WHY IS SCARLETT EATING TOP RAMEN? No one eats Top Ramen if they don't have to, and people living in multi-million dollar houses, wouldn't even have it in the pantry. Also, she's a health nut, running everyday, that's not what you would eat if you were health conscience.

*HOW DOES GREG GET AWAY FROM HIS FAMILY TO GO BACK AND HANDLE BILLY? Greg is recognized, and called by another name, by a man named Billy. Greg and his family were leaving a restaurant, and going to get ice cream, as Billy and his date were going in. How does Greg get away from his family, and their ice cream plans, in time to go back and deal with Billy, by the time Billy and his date are leaving the restaurant (dinner usually takes about an hour)?

*SCARLETT FINDS BLOOD, LEFTOVER FROM BILLY'S ATTACK, IN GREG'S GARAGE It's been at least 12-16 hours, but the blood is still wet and fresh. Also, if I was Scarlett, and this suspicious, I wouldn't go stick my fingers in it, I'd collect it with a paper towel, and put it in a baggie. Doesn't she watch CSI: Crime Scene Investigation (2000)?

*WHY DOES NO ONE CALL THE POLICE?

Both Scarlett and Darcy have crucial information relating to the security of the United States, and NEITHER OF THEM CAN BE BOTHERED TO CALL THE FREAKING POLICE OR FBI?!?! WHY, THE HELL NOT?? Why doesn't Scarlett tell the police when they come to the house to tell her about Darcy?

*PHONE TRACKERS DON'T HAVE A BLINKING LIGHT UNDER THE CELL PHONE CASE Who does this writer (Peter Sullivan) think we are, octogenarians or luddites? Kids change, or mod their cell cases all the freaking time! Does it make sense she wouldn't ever take the case off of her phone, and put a new one on? How is a phone tracker hidden, when it has a big, blinking light? C'mon!

*WOULD A SPY KEEP HIS MULTIPLE PASSPORTS AND DOCUMENTS IN A FIREBOX, A TEENAGE GIRL COULD BREAK INTO WITH ONE HIT OF A HAMMER? I think not.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *It's hard to recommend a movie that insults the audience. I hate to bring this up, again, but it seems like these male writers (I'm talking to you Peter Sullivan), don't respect female driven melodramas. When they write them, they do the bare minimum, leaving plot holes big enough for the whole movie to fall into. That's the case here. He seems to think it's more important for no one in the movie to have a hair out of place, (making it less authentic) than to have believable plot devices. It's sad, because this movie HAD potential. It has good actors, and a decent plot, but it's ruined by unbelievability, and the dry delivery of dialog. If you're a fan of made-for-tv movies, there are certainly worse ones out there, but there are better ones too. If you're a fan of Emmanuelle Vaugier, Brian Krause, or Cristine Prosperi, or a fan of Scooby Doo, Where Are You! (1969), and you have an hour and a half to waste, then you could do worse. Understand, that's not a ringing endorsement, and you might want to just try Scooby Doo, Where Are You! (1969) instead.

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.

3 JFK Homicide (2016)

Interesting testimony...

[6/10 · 11 November 2023]

This is an interesting accounting, from three eyewitnesses, who were close to President Kennedy when he was assassinated. What's interesting is, you haven't heard from these people before. There's James Tague, who was close enough to be wounded by shrapnel, and saw and heard things happening in the president's vehicle. His testimony to the Warren Commission, and his injuries, rewrote the Commission's findings. They eventually came up with the "magic bullet theory," because it was the only thing that could match his evidence. The second eyewitness is Beverly Oliver. She was portrayed in the movie, JFK, as the showgirl, who refused to testify. What you don't know about her testimony is, she was close enough to the president to see his grievous injuries, and she had a video camera. It was confiscated, and never returned, by the FBI. She knew Ruby, Ferrie, and had met Oswald. Quite frankly, it's a wonder she's still alive. The third witness was a Parkland doctor, Robert McClelland, who treated President Kennedy after he'd been shot. Several of the things he witnessed, do not jive with the official story. You'll also hear new information about the train worker, Lee Bowers, who died under mysteries circumstances. And about a deaf witness, who actually saw the shooter, but who was ignored by authorities, because of his handicap.

The information presented is informative. The only problem with this documentary is there are PowerPoint slides running, while the witnesses are talking. I had to repeatedly pause and read the slides, so I didn't miss what the witnesses were saying. It was a disjointed way to put things together. I'm not saying it's a deal breaker, just keep the remote handy.

If you are interested in the truth about the JFK assassination, give this a watch. It's eye opening to be sure.

Hidden Intentions (2018 TV Movie)

An Above Average Made-For-TV Melodrama...

[5/10 · 26 October 2023]

Hidden Intentions (TV Movie 2018) 5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:56 min

BASIC PLOT: A car accident has taken Sophie (Paige Searcy) and Noah's (Lofton Shaw) mother, and David's (Chris McKenna) beloved wife. They are trying to recover as a family, when an unexpected visitor appears on their doorstep. It's a woman, claiming to be Jordyn (Ashlynn Yennie), the estranged sister, of David's recently deceased wife. None of the family has ever met Jordyn, they don't even know why she was alienated from her sister. But that doesn't stop David from inviting her to stay with the family. Jordyn reminds him of his wife, and his grief is affecting his judgment. Sophie is not so trusting. She immediately suspects something is not right with Jordyn, and begins investigating, with her boyfriend, Luke (Garrett Westton). But Jordyn is not going to be thwarted so easily, and she'll remove anything or anyone, who gets in her way.

WHAT WORKS: *MEN ARE STUPID WHEN IT COMES TO SEX This movie accurately portrays how otherwise smart men, turn off their brain, and put themselves in stupid and dangerous situations, when sex is thrown at them. We all wish it wasn't so, but unfortunately, it happens so often, it's become a truism.

*SOPHIE'S REACTIONS TO HER DAD'S STUPIDITY ARE PRICELESS When David (Chris McKenna) tries to tell Sophie (Paige Searcy) he believes Jordyn's (Ashlynn Yennie) lies about Luke (Garrett Westton), Sophie's reactions to his stupidity are hilarious! Well written by Adam Rockoff, and well acted by Paige Searcy. (Adam Rockoff is NOT a writer I would normally recommend. He has written two decent melodramas, this and A Neighbor's Deception (2017) - one of my all time favorites, the rest off his TV movies are pure drek!)

*GARRETT WESTTON DOES A GREAT JOB AS THE DUMB JOCK He's even in on the joke, because he says to Sophie, "I'll just stand here and look pretty."

*DECENT COVERART I rarely say that these days, but this has very good cover art. I love the storage shed in the background, excellent!

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *EVEN IF YOU WERE ESTRANGED FROM YOUR SISTER, YOU'D STILL HAVE PHOTOS Most people have photos from their own childhood, and your siblings are often in them. The family would have seen these photos, and recognized this wasn't Jordyn.

*WHAT IS JORDYN'S MOTIVATION? Is she just crazy? Does she want a family? Does she want a man to take care of her (she has a job, so that doesn't make sense)? What's her deal? This is a minor plot hole, because maybe she's just crazy, but it is an irritating one. They try to wrap it up at the end, but it's not really explained. Jordyn tells Sophie, she didn't have a family, and always wanted one, but that's not a reason to go on a killing spree.

*TRAILER GIVES AWAY TOO MUCH It's the whole freaking movie condensed! If you haven't seen the movie, for pity's sake, DON'T WATCH THE TRAILER

*WOMEN DON'T USUALLY STAB As a means of killing, women don't usually stab. This is just a statistical abnormality, not anything huge, just an observation.

*SOPHIE'S A BIT OF BRAT FOR BEING 18 Even for someone who's mother just died, Sophie (Paige Searcy) acts a bit immature. Her fit throwing is more like a twelve year old, than an eighteen year old.

*THE EAGLE HAS LANDED is not a term teenagers would use. It shows the age of the writer, Adam Rockoff, not the age of the characters.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *IF you like and UNDERSTAND melodrama as an art form, you'll like this. It is low budget, and their are a few plot holes, but it's a fun, silly time waster, for when you need to turn off your brain. If you like deep character development, and intricate plotlines, look for your entertainment elsewhere.

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.

Midsomer Murders: The Electric Vendetta (2001) Season 4, Episode 3

Gaius Quintus says, "Barnaby shouldn't be so judgmental..."

[5/10 · 23 October 2023]

I love Midsomer Murders, but Barnaby needs sensitivity training.... 6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:30 min

BASIC PLOT: Midsomer Parver is awash in crop circles and corpses. Someone is littering the summer wheat with cadavers. They have odd punctures in their spines, and partially shaved heads. A local man, Lloyd Kirby (Kenneth Colley) is convinced these are signs of extraterrestrial visitation. Can Barnaby and Troy figure out who the culprit is, before more bodies fall from the sky?

WHAT WORKS:

*THE ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE Everybody in this episode does a great job, even the ancillary characters are well portrayed.

*THE CASTING IS GREAT Everyone here is just as they should be, from Sir Harry (John Woodvine), to Lloyd (Kenneth Colley), to the goer, Sally Boulter (Amanda Mealing), EVERYONE is perfectly cast. Even the older and younger versions of Sir Christian Aubrey (Alec McCowen), and Peter Rhodes (Peter Penry-Jones), look like each other (they use the real life son of Peter Penry-Jones to play his younger self). Well done, Joyce Nettles!

*IT'S A GREAT STORY The plots and sub plots work together, to weave a cohesive and engaging story. If it weren't for Barnaby's judgmental attitude, it would be one of my favorites. (The same is true about the episode, Death in Disguise (1998). Barnaby's downright disrespectful to the New Agers in that episode, and what's worse, he openly says anyone who's different, should be looked down on, and shunned. That is not just mildly prejudice, that's offensive! In the good old USA, we appreciate, and even celebrate our differences, especially when they lean towards the eccentric. To quote Neil Simon, "Never underestimate the stimulation of eccentricity.")

WHAT DOESN'T WORK:

*THE SECOND BODY IS NEVER FULLY EXPLAINED So, there is no spoiler here when I give my opinion. Barnaby intimates the second body was electrocuted, when trying to steal electricity from the national grid, to melt down stolen loot. Sally Boulter (Amanda Mealing), reinforces this in her conversation with Sir Harry, telling him he was "cooked inside like a steak and kidney pie." (Gross!) This implies Dave Ripert (Nigel Harrison) was with the local crook when he was electrocuted, and put him in the crop circle to cover the accident. Dave had the stolen goods in question, it was his defunct business they were using to melt the stuff down, therefore it was probably Dave who put the guy in the crop circle, after he accidently electrocuted himself. It is a bit confusing.

*COPS WOULDN'T GET AWAY WITH BREAKING INTO A KNIGHT'S HOUSE, especially when his wife is dying in a hospice. Barnaby waits until Sir Christian Aubrey (Alec McCowen), is at the hospice with his dying wife, Lady Isabel (Ursula Howells). He then takes Troy by the hand, and breaks in. When he's caught, he wrongfully says, nothing will happen. But if the "local heavyweight," as Troy calls him, wanted to make a stink, I think there'd be repercussions. Surely, Sir Christian's solicitor would have something to say about it, and if there were legal consequences for Sir Christian, regarding his lethal security system, Barnaby's unlawful actions, would mitigate them.

*HAVING BARNABY BE SOOOOO JUDGEMENTAL DOESN'T WORK Barnaby's attitudes about Lloyd Kirby are just plain ugly. He basically says Lloyd should be an outcast, because he has different ideas about the world. Why? Because we should all be the same? Maybe because I'm an American, I find this offensive. In the United States, we value the weirdos, they are tolerated, and even encouraged! (KEEP AUSTIN/PORTLAND WEIRD) We like to see ourselves as individuals, unique from everyone else. But Barnaby seems to think Lloyd's uniqueness is a bad thing. Having Barnaby's ideas and beliefs, be aligned with the reprobates, and the killers of the episode, DOESN'T WORK! Barnaby's judgmental attitudes and ideas, are the same as the murderer, and the town philanderer. Wow! I prefer my protagonists to be more likable (and usually Barnaby is), but in this episode, he needs a lesson from Sir Christian Aubrey (Alec McCowen), and Lady Isabel (Ursula Howells), about how to live and let live.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:

*I would definitely recommend this episode. As I said, it would be one of my favorites, if not for Barnaby being so judgemental (it takes it down a whole 2 stars for me). But it is still quality entertainment, and that's something you rarely see today.

CLOSING NOTES: *Anyone know the song that's playing as Sally Boulter and Dave Rippert are loading up their stolen loot? Something like 'All Around the World...'

*I have no connection to this 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, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.

Embrace of the Vampire (2013 Video)

Mindless drek....

[3/10 · 23 October 2023]

Embrace of the Vampire (Video 2013) 3 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:14 min

BASIC PLOT: Charlotte Hawthorn (Sharon Hinnendael) has just received a fencing scholarship to a prestigious university. She's an orphan, and she's been living in an all girls boarding school for some time. Moving to a coed university is a big change for Charlotte. She's suddenly not herself. She's having frightening visions, or are they dreams? Charlotte keeps waking up in strange places, having no idea how she got there. But after a random meeting at her job, with a woman named Daciana, Charlotte may finally get the answers she needs.

Charlotte has seen Daciana (Keegan Connor Tracy) around town, and has always felt a strange pull coming from her. Daciana professes to have the answers to questions, Charlotte didn't even know she needed to ask. She begs Charlotte to come see her as soon as her shift is over. Danger surrounds Charlotte, and without Daciana's help, she may not survive.

Will Charlotte accept Daciana's help, or will the darkness swallow her for good?

WHAT WORKS: *BEAUTIFUL ATMOSPHERIC The setting is fantastic and creepy at the same time. It's about the only thing that works.

*THE LANDSCAPE SHOTS ARE GREAT! Shots of the area are filmed beautifully. There's a shot of Charlotte (Sharon Hinnendael) in the window, overlooking the mountains, that's beautiful.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *LOTS OF CONFUSING/DISTRACTING SHOT CHOICES I know everybody wants to be Roman Polanski, and shoot like he did in Rosemary's Baby (1968), but just filming with something in the way, doesn't accomplish the Polanski effect. It's usually just distracting and annoying.

*THERE'S ZERO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT They don't give any background on anybody (at least not any that makes sense), so it's just a melange of disjointed scenes, and images.

*YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THE CHARACTERS Without character development, I didn't care if a tornado blew threw, and wiped them all out. I should care about Charlotte and Daciana, but I don't. It's pathetic!

*THE CUT VERSION IS UNWATCHABLE I saw the cut version on Lifetime, and the sex scenes were barely there. I kept thinking they were going for something like Cat People (1942). Everytime Charlotte got in touch with her sexuality, a monster would emerge. But none of that played out, much like the rest of the movie. It was a bunch of haphazard ideas and images thrown together, and shot in random order.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *I cannot recommend this movie to anyone, except maybe film students, who need a reference of what NOT to do.

CLOSING NOTES: *This is a straight-to-video movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. Straight-to-video movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.

*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.

Killer Under the Bed (2018)

Voodoo Baby Doll is Heading Under a Bed Near You...

[8/10 · 14 October 2023]

KILLER UNDER THE BED (TV movie) 2018 6.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:30

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FUNNY (and it's hilarious!)

BASIC PLOT: Kilee Yeager (Brec Bassinger) has been having a hard couple of years. Her dad, who was the only parent who was really interested in her, died in a car accident. Now, her mother, Sarah (Kristy Swanson) has moved her to a new school, just so her sister Chrissy (Madison Lawlor) can join a lacrosse team. She's bullied at home, she's bullied at school, and her mother is, at best, indifferent to her. But things are turning around for Kilee. She's just "found" a new friend, hanging around her storage shed. His name is Voodoo Baby Doll, and he just might be the answer to all Kilee's problems. He's supposed to work like a voodoo doll, you pin a personal item of your intended victim, to the doll. So far, it's working great, but will Voodoo Baby Doll continue doing Kilee's bidding? Or is trouble just around the corner?

WHAT WORKS: *FAMILY DYSFUNCTION WRITTEN WELL I'm always so glad to see when writers like, Bryan Dick and Ken Sanders, take the time to portray family issues well. This family has many problems, brought forward, by the father's passing. Kilee (Brec Bassinger) is what's called the Identified Patient, or IP. She acts out, to direct attention to the family's dysfunction. When Kilee says to the devil doll, "you're finally something I can count on," you know you've got some real family problems. The mother does favor her sister, (her father probably favored her), and now the Dad is gone, and she has no one in her corner. Parents should never play favorites, or if they do, they shouldn't allow their children to know it. It has long term consequences on self-esteem, self loathing, and overall feelings of worth, in the child who is not as valued. It's a real world scenario, written and acted well by the all participants.

*THIS IS A COMEDY TAKE ON "DEVIL'S DIARY" If you like this, you'll probably like the made-for-tv movie, "Devil's Diary (2007)". It's basically the same story, only Devil's Diary (2007) is much more violent, and not funny.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *DR. RYDER AND DR. YEAGER FIGHT OVER DENTAL AMALGAMS Dr. Yeager (Kristy Swanson) says to Dr. Ryder (Kristin Carey), "You're ordering amalgams?" Just seconds before, we heard Dr. Ryder says she was ordering amalgam removal (removing metal fillings, for white resin composites). It's a confusing exchange, especially if you don't know what a dental amalgam is. (Side note: I was born in '73, and I have NO METAL in my mouth. Also, composites ARE covered by insurance, mine always were. This is kind of a moot point these days, they should have made the issue 'unnecessary crowns', or something like that.)

*KILEE WOULD HAVE BELTED HER SISTER BY NOW The horror genre always makes "the victims," terrible people. This is a plot device, so you don't care when they get filleted. But, it becomes hard to watch, as KILEE continues to take abuse from her sister, and mother. I know this is a melodrama (good vs evil stereotyping), but C'MON, she'd be putting Nair in her sister's shampoo bottle, or something, by now.

*WHY DOES CHRISSY CARE IF SHE HAS THE DOLL? As a plot device, this is stupid. Chrissy (Madison Lawlor) doesn't care about her sister, Kilee (Brec Bassinger). So, why would she care about her having the doll? I know this is a plot device, included so Kilee will realize the doll's power is real, but she already realizes this. So, why does Chrissy care? It doesn't make any sense.

*WHY DOESN'T KILEE RECORD TINA THREATENING HER? I'm so sick of writers using this as a plot device, in the age of cell phones. Tina says to Kilee, "No matter what I do to you, it will always be my word, against yours." NO IT WON'T! BECAUSE I HAVE A CELL PHONE THAT RECORDS B*TCH! C'mon Bryan Dick and Ken Sanders, everybody has a cell phone! Even Voodoo Baby Doll knows that!

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *If you like low budget, comedy horror, you'll definitely like this. It's a silly black comedy, reminiscent of old Full Moon Features. If you like that kind of movie, you'll this. If you like low budget, revenge flicks, you might like this. If you're looking for real horror, look elsewhere.

CLOSING NOTES: *This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.

*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.

Secrets in Suburbia (2017 TV Movie)

Lots of Melodramatic Glamour...

[5/10 · 14 October 2023]

Secrets in Suburbia (TV Movie 2017) 4.6 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:50

*WARNING: ANIMAL DEATH AS PLOT DEVICE, TWO SUICIDES SHOWN IN GRAPHIC DETAIL (SEE CLOSING NOTES)

BASIC PLOT:

Gloria (Brianna Brown) is not a woman to be trifled with, as her husband Phil (Joe Williamson), and her three "best friends", Scarlet, Monica and Kim, will soon come to understand. Kim (Linn Bjornland) and Scarlet (Tara Conner) have both been sleeping with Phil, and Monica (Onira Tares) has been conspiring with him to steal Gloria's money. But you know what they say ....hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

WHAT WORKS:

*GORGEOUS, QUALITY FILM MAKING It's a beautifully shot movie by Damián Romay (director) and Juan Hernández (cinematographer). You just don't see these kind of quality visuals anymore, and it's a pleasure to watch.

*THE FORESHADOWING IS J-U-S-T RIGHT The foreshadowing about who Phil (Joe Williamson) is having the affair with is NOT telegraphed, which is a welcome change from most made-for-tv movies.

*GOOD TRAILER, GOOD COVER ART

WHAT DOESN'T WORK:

*NARCISSISTIC SOCIOPATHS DON'T KILL THEMSELVES If the intimation is, Scarlet (Tara Conner) kills herself because her oxys are gone, give me a break! People with that kind of money would call up a concierge doctor, and get well. Or they'd check themselves into the finest private rehab money can buy, but they DON'T KILL THEMSELVES!

*IT'S A BIT SLOW The pacing is a little bit off, it feels a little slow at times.

*HURTING/KILLING ANIMALS SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS A PLOT DEVICE - full stop. A dog is killed as a plot device, be warned.

*MOST WOMEN KNOW WHAT IT MEANS WHEN THEIR HUSBAND TURNS DOWN SEX It means an affair, and women know it. Gloria (Brianna Brown) would know it too.

*ANTIFREEZE POISONING SHOWS UP IN AN AUTOPSY Ethylene glycol causes acidosis, optic nerve damage, nervous system depression, damage to the kidneys, resulting in stones and crystals, and finally shutting down renal activity altogether. Anyone young, without an obvious cause of death, would have an autopsy. The coroner would find the above markers, which would lead to chemical testing. In other words, YOU WOULD GET CAUGHT!

*WHY DOES PHIL NEED TO KILL GLORIA IF HE'S FOUND A WAY TO EMBEZZLE HER MONEY? If Phil (Joe Williamson) and Monica (Onira Tares) have found a way to embezzle Gloria's money, why do they need to kill her? Also, it's a bit problematic they don't resolve Gloria getting her money back.

*NEITHER PHIL, NOR MONICA HAVE ACCESS TO GLORIA'S ACCOUNTS and that means, they wouldn't be able to embezzle, especially ten million. Banks keep track of large transactions, and they would have alerted Gloria to suspicious activity.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:

*This is a fairly decent made-for-tv movie. It is beautifully shot, with lots of great visuals. The pacing is a bit slow, and there are quite a few plot holes, but overall, it's a decent time waster.

CLOSING NOTES:

*I don't believe in trigger warnings, but as someone who has had many suicides in my life, I think it is appropriate to warn others, if they are depicted in movies or TV shows. Some visuals can set you off, and this movie has two graphic suicides, and an unneeded animal death (as a plot device). The animal death is unnecessary, and should have been eliminated. If these things are a trigger for you, please skip this movie. And as always, if you need help: 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline Hours: Available 24 hours. Languages: English, Spanish.

*This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.

*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.

Write to Kill (1991 Video)

A '90's Straight-To-Video, Fun Time Waster...

[5/10 · 13 October 2023]

Write to Kill (Video 1991) 4.5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 1:32

BASIC PLOT:

Clark Sanford (Scott Valentine) is more than surprised when his older brother, Jamie (Chris Mulkey), shows up at his apartment. He wasn't expecting to see Jamie for another two years. Jamie's been in prison, and he's being pretty cryptic about how he got out early. He assures Clark he didn't escape, but that's all he'll say, except that he has to complete a job. Clark sees himself as an old-fashioned writer, so he's naturally curious about Jamie's situation. Soon, he'll know more about it than he wants to, when Jamie returns home, shot, and dying in Clark's arms. Clark will stop at nothing to uncover who killed his brother, how he got out of prison early, and who's behind the scenes, pulling the strings. Before he knows it, he's on the run with a beautiful woman, Belle (Joan Severance), with danger at every turn. Can he discover why his brother was killed, in time to save himself from a murder rap?

WHAT WORKS:

*CLARK AND BELLE HAVE GOOD CHEMISTRY Scott Valentine and Joan Severance have the right amount of intimate heat, for two people thrust into a situation, beyond their control. There's a scene where they're lying on the couch talking, and it's very authentic, especially for a straight-to-video movie.

WHAT DOESN'T WORK:

*CLARK LEAVING THE GUN BEHIND DOESN'T WORK The one major plot hole is a BIG ONE! Clark goes to avenge his brother, hoping to kill Mark Gaston (Ray Wise) his brother's murderer (there's no spoilers here, this happens in the first ten minutes). But Instead, he chickens out, AND LEAVES THE GUN BEHIND!? IN THE KILLER'S HOUSE?! Clark knows he's a bad guy, why does he not try to retrieve the gun?! Of course, this is the plot device (plot hole) for Clark to get framed for murder, but c'mon! Miguel Tejada-Flores (writer) should be ashamed for leaving a plot hole this big!

*THE WAY CLARK MEETS BELLE DOESN'T WORK Clark (Scott Valentine) meets Belle (Joan Severance), running down the road, after escaping the killer's house. That's a pretty big coincidence, but hey, I believe in fate, so I guess I can let it slide.

*NOT ENOUGH SEX SCENES We only get one sex scene between the two of them. It's hot, but if you've got a topless Joan Severance, and a shirtless Scott Valentine, why not show more??

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION:

*If (and that's a big IF), you like 80's and 90's straight-to-video thrillers, or made-for-tv movies, you might like this. It's nothing to get excited about, it's a time waster, it knows it, and it's ok with it. It's not trying to be anything other than it is - a fun, silly way to reminiscence about a time we all wish we could go back to. If you're looking for a gritty or an involving, elaborate script, look elsewhere.

CLOSING NOTES:

*This is a straight-to-video movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. Straight-to-video movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.

*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.

Murder in Paradise (1990 TV Movie)

Hawaii, Serial Killers, Irreverent Cops, What else do you need?

[5/10 · 13 October 2023]

Murder in Paradise (TV Movie 1990) 5 out of 10 stars Time to Read: 2:10

An honest review from neither a fanboy or a hater...

BASIC PLOT: Charlie Raski (Kevin KilnerKevin Kilner]) is hiding. He's hiding from his job, from the death of his wife, from his alcohol problem, but mostly from his guilt. Charlie's NYPD, and a few years ago, while hunting a serial killer, his wife was targeted. The killer decided playing with the lead detective, and his life, was better than the average hunt - more of a challenge. Charlie did everything right, he put his wife in protective custody, he was more than careful. He thought he took every precaution, but it wasn't enough. His wife was murdered, by the killer Charlie was pursuing. He hasn't been able to forgive himself, even though he eventually gunned down the serial killer. The outcome brought him no peace. He hightailed it to Hawaii, crawled inside a bottle, and has been slowly killing himself ever since. A barstool in paradise is where he's been, until the nightmare started again. People are dying on the island, and the killer is using the same M. O. as the one who killed Charlie's wife. The police don't know if they should ask for Charlie's help, or make him a suspect. Charlie's decided to end the nightmare for good, even if it kills him. Can he stop the next "Murder In Paradise"?

WHAT WORKS: *KEVIN KILNER DOES A GREAT JOB PORTRAYING AN A-HOLE Kevin Kilner does an adequate job as Charlie Raski, a grief stricken burn-out, hiding out in Hawaii. Charlie is also hiding out in jerk mode, drinking away his grief. I found myself empathizing with Charlie, and talking to the screen, so it can't be a complete failure. Two of the hardest things to do as an actor are to authentically portray grief and intoxication. Kevin Kilner manages to pull off both. Is it the best performance ever? Hell no! This is a straight-to-video movie people! STOP expecting Oscars!

*THE ENDING IS GREAT I'm talking about the realistic ending between Charlie Raski (Kevin Kilner) and Diane Mahona (Maggie Han). I'm glad the filmmakers didn't try to tack on some happy, candy ass ending. The sincere, realistic one is much better

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *THE SERIAL KILLERS AREN'T SCARY It's unfortunate, because with just a little work, this movie could have been elevated to a true thriller, reminiscent of the movie, Resurrection (1999). Resurrection (1999) worked so well, because the serial killer was SCARY and DISTURBING. In this movie, it's a guy who puts some paint on people's faces, before he kills them. There's nothing frightening about him.

*THE SCRIPT KINDA MEANDERS This script needed some minor rewrites. Barbara Carrera's character, Emma Danton, is fine, but the way we get there, doesn't quite work. First she hates Charlie, then she calls him, and jumps his bones, at a scenic overlook. I get she's supposed to be a bit crazy, but her character needed to have someone at the reigns. As it is, she's all over the place.

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *If (and that's a big IF), you like 80's and 90's made-for-tv movies, or straight-to-video movies, AND you like light thrillers, you'll probably like this. It's a middle of the road, time waster. It's not trying to be anything else. So, if you like those kinds of movies, give this a try. If not, give it a pass (and don't write long, pointless reviews about how you hate this type of movie, but continue to watch and rate them anyway).

CLOSING NOTES: *This is a straight-to-video movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. Straight-to-video movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.

*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This review was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.