Stranger at the Door

This was an outstanding TV film on "Lifetime" and had lots of action and suspense. This family had a great home and were running into financial problems and all of a sudden a long lost son appears at their doorstep, Andrew Kraulis,(Jamie Fisher), who gains the love and support of this family and is adored by his mom, Linda Purl,(Katherine Norris). The plot gets quite involved and there is plenty of action through out the entire film. If you want to see a great film with great acting, some romance, and the suspense of not knowing how the film with end, watch and enjoy this one! The ending is quite interesting and I bet you will never guess what happens.

A STRANGER AT THE DOOR (TV movie 2004) 3.7 out of 10 stars Time to Read:1:33

BASIC PLOT: Kathleen Norris's (Linda Purl) son, whom she gave up for adoption when she was just sixteen, has returned to her life. Only it's not just her life he's returned to, she has a husband now, Greg (Perry King) and a stepdaughter, Tara (Meredith Henderson). Her "son" says his name is Jamie Fisher (Andrew Kraulis), and he seems like everything Kathleen could hope for. But there's something that's just not right about his story, and it seems Tara is the only one who notices. Can she convince her parents he's not who he says he is in time to save them all?

WHAT WORKS: *Linda Purl & Perry King have good couple energy. They seem comfortable in each other's personal space, and have a genuine kindness between the two. It adds to the believability of the story (it's about the only thing that does).

WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *WHY IS TARA NORRIS SO SUSPICIOUS OF JAMIE FISHER? Right off the bat, Tara is suspicious for NO REASON! People need motivations, this has none! Teenagers tend to be wrapped up in their own lives, not concerned because it took someone several tries to get the nerve to knock on the door.

*WHY IS IT PEOPLE FREAK OUT ABOUT SHARING COMPUTERS WITHIN A FAMILY?

It always seems on these melodramas that people freak out whenever anyone uses their computer, even to check email, and that seems ridiculous. Why not catch him going through a checkbook, or a medicine cabinet to prove he's not trustworthy? That would be more suspicious.

*IF YOU'RE THIS INVESTED IN YOUR "NEW SON'S" LIFE, WOULDN'T YOU LIKE TO GO SEE HIS COLLEGE CAMPUS?

You've let a total stranger move into your home because he's your "long lost son", and because he's in college, wouldn't you at least like to see where he's going, what he's doing with his days? Wouldn't he be eager to show you?

*THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE OVERKILL In so many of these melodramas, they use too much overkill, when a near miss accomplishes the same thing. You can't have people be this good, and then slaughter them without negative consequences to the audience. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, comas/hospitalizations accomplish the same thing (person is out of the way, and evil is revealed) without ANY negative feelings in the audience. The willingness to kill is equal to actual killing. You don't need to slaughter good/innocent people when there's no need to (a great example is (Es-tu mon fils? (2018) similar themes, better movie).

*CHARACTERS ARE ONE DIMENSIONAL All of the characters have no depth, there's nothing to grab ahold of, so there's no motivation to care. The "evil" characters are comically evil (and not in a good way), and so the whole second half of the movie is an exercise in ridiculousness.

*PACING IS OFF There's too much of the movie (half) where we're waiting around for an insurance check, there's no suspense building - nothing. Just sitting around waiting.

*MILLION DOLLAR TRANSACTIONS, TO ACCOUNTS THE BANK HAS NEVER SEEN, WOULD BE HELD FOR INVESTIGATION My bank withholds funds if I haven't bought from eBay for awhile. It's a precaution to make sure it's a legitimate transaction, and I'm glad it's there. So if banks flag a transaction that's for $100, what do you think they'd do for a million, especially since it's being sent to an out of country bank?

TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *This is not terrible, but it is pretty flat. There's no depth to the characters, overkill when it's not needed, and in general, lacking. If you're looking for similar themes, with much better acting, writing etc, try (Es-tu mon fils? (2018) similar story, but much better movie.

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

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

The accomplice hamming it up really got on my nerves, but everyone else played their roles believably. Liz was honestly the worst part of the movie, and a couple of times her presence nearly made me turn the movie off. She seemed like a person that Mitch got involved with, but couldn't ditch for whatever reason....until the time was right, as you'll see in the movie.

The movie is full of holes. Even for a 2004 movie, there still seems to be too little interest in confirming his identity. Also kind of interesting how in 2022, Lifetime movies are still not confirming identities with the technology available. Felt really bad for the father since he was just as onboard with welcoming "Jamie" as his wife was. I didn't realize Lifetime movies have been using that particular method of death for so long. It's very popular in their more recent movies. I also don't remember a scene where the two criminals stated how they found out about the family and the earlier adoption. Not to mention that the friend sees Kathleen and "Jamie" at the bank, and senses something is off. Yet the bank manager accepts the shadiest reason for withdrawing a million dollars and transferring it to an international bank, and decides to fast track it instead of sticking to protocol. He should be fired. Wouldn't part of his job be to sense red flags in transactions just like this?

The ending was a bit corny given that technically Kathleen wasn't Real! Jamie's mother anymore and his adoptive mother seemed to love him. But I get the movie tried to show happily ever after.

It made for decent background noise in the kitchen.

Every few months -not more frequently than that- a quite good Lifetime movie turns up. This is one of them. Especially surprising is that the movie is directed by Lifetime's most frequent director, Douglas Jackson, usually an uninspired, unimaginative, pedestrian director. Perhaps this movie shows that Jackson is capable of decent work when he is given a screenplay much better than standard dull Lifetime fare and actors superior to Lifetime's potted amateurs. This movie is relatively well written, the plot moves along nicely and the performers are quite good, up to the standards of the consistently reliable Linda Purl. With the exception of Lifetime's ubiquitous and wooden Sophie Gendron, the actors here are professional and create interesting characters. In spite of the derivative nature of the plot and the unavoidable Lifetime tropes, I suspect that you will be pleasantly surprised by this movie.

I like this Movie. It's a great thriller I give it an 8 out of 10