The acting was pretty good in this Lifetime movie wannabee. Not much here that was new or fresh. It did not seem like the girls cared at all that their dad and stepmother were just brutally murdered-running around laughing and playing.
Okay but nothing special.
4 out of 10.
This was a theatrical release, not a production for Lifetime. [[See below.}} Many of the films they show were not made for the network, and this is one of them. I was checking the production company and do not think it's connected with Lifetime. Also, IMDb does not have (TV) following the year of release, which routinely appears if a film was made specifically for network TV.
I'm watching it now, and it doesn't "feel" like a made-for-TV movie, especially because they use that greenish cast that seems so popular with filmmakers in the 21st century. Most of today's cinematographers seem to hate vivid colors and decent lighting. At least some of the indoor scenes escape that hideous look.
EDIT: Hmmmm... IMDb has added "TV movie" to the description. I just revisited today, long after I made this post, and noticed the change. Does that mean terrible cinematography is spreading to TVMs?
~~MystMoonstruck~~
The acting was pretty good in this Lifetime movie wannabee. Not much here that was new or fresh. It did not seem like the girls cared at all that their dad and stepmother were just brutally murdered-running around laughing and playing.I absolutely agree, nothing was new or fresh. Just a predictable plot with some average actors not being even really being used to their potential. 4/10 is the rating I actually gave the movie here on IMDb. And I found the 2 daughters absolutely generic & unimportant; they were there to fill a space & nothing more, their mom was supposedly all concerned for their well-being but then showed nearly no connection to them at all. And like you said, the girls seem utterly unbothered by the fact that their father was just murdered.
Okay but nothing special.
4 out of 10.
This was a theatrical release, not a production for Lifetime. Many of the films they show were not made for the network, and this is one of them. I was checking the production company and do not think it's connected with Lifetime. Also, IMDb does not have (TV) following the year of release, which routinely appears if a film was made specifically for network TV.S/he DID say "Lifetime movie wannabe." Not that it was made for Lifetime, just that it had that feel to it. I watched it on HBO and the same exact thing popped into my head - "this looks like a crappy Lifetime movie" - even though it wasn't.
Most of today's cinematographers seem to hate vivid colors and decent lighting.I know, I absolutely despise that! Even when I'm outside in the pitch black night, I can still see details better than dark scenes in some movies. It seemed to be something used occasionally in the 80s and as time went on, it has gotten more & more common. Some movies it's even constant through the entire thing, and with super-fast editing as well, it makes me not even want to pay attention any longer. It only has a negative effect on me, so I don't really understand what the director is trying to achieve with crappy lighting like that.
Hmm Lifetime... that explains a lot. I like looking at Gina Gershon, so it wasn't a total loss.