L'impensable vérité

I usually watch unheard of movies based on reviews here. Anything 4.8 and above is worth a watch in my opinion. I tried to stomach this movie until the end, but couldn't make it. It is extremely boring. The acting is not terrible but it's far from great. If you can hold your attention for more than 30 minutes, it might be worth a watch for you.

I came to see reviews bc the high rating on Prime is totally misleading. It's fine that it's a made for tv thing, but to make it seem comparable to blockbuster productions 10/10, THAT'S laughable.

Cliche story and production for soap opera daytime fans. If that's your jam, this is right there. Not bad to leave on while doing other things. Not going to blow anyone away with its production value. Low attention span content.

This film is way too predictable. It starts out with a pretty decent premise, but the viewer figures things out very early on. From then, it's just a question of how the plot will get to the inevitable ending. A psychological thriller/suspense film --which is what this trying to be--needs a lot more development and imagination to work.

The cast does give it a good shot, but needs more to work with. Ethan Embry and Paul Sorvino (In a small role) are particularly good. Lacey Chabert holds her own, too. Of course, she has several scenes requiring her to prance around in a bikini.

Overall, this film falls slightly short of a recommendation.

It's just bad. People will blame the actors but I'm guessing it's the director. The entire movie is an awkward and unnecessary appeal to the male gaze. I know it might seem like a stretch, but I get the feeling the director is a creep. All the female characters adhere to a strange, soft spoken and sultry prototype the entire film and its detrimental to their performance. It's blatant career suicide for all women involved. Poor Gretchen Weiners deserved better.

It has a very soap opera vibe. The plot is promising but it's poorly executed. The music doesn't fit the scene (think suspenseful music alongside stills of art supplies). If you want to watch a bad movie, which honestly sometimes that's what I'm looking for, this is a great pick. Want something to fall asleep to? This is it. Want something to passively watch as you clean house? This might be a good pick. Something to get drunk with friends and yell at while you take shots? It's an alright choice.

This movie annoyed me from beginning to end (how did I make it to the end? Good question. Now THERE'S a mystery).

Every relationship, every character, every conversation, every conflict, every scenario defied believability. It was clear from the get-go they were going to spring some sort of Hitchcockian fake out on us. I suppose that's why I stuck it out. I was curious to see if they could, some how, pull off a Hitchcock-meets-Shyamalan switcheroo in the end.

They could not.

Absolute garbage.

Ten minutes in I'm like, 'ask her one more time if she's taken her pills and I swear to whosoever, I'll punch the screen ... or take a drink.'

I'm no pharmacist but, are antipsychotics supposed to be eaten like PEZ candy? Cause that's how these idiots took them.

The brilliance of Shyamalan's "Sixth Sense" is that, when (after learning Bruce Willis was a dead person) we went back and reviewed all the previous interactions with him, we could see he wasn't really there. The viewers own expectations filled in the blanks. Beautifully executed psychological trick. In this movie, you find yourself coaching from the sidelines, 'If, later, you want me to believe she was only pretending to be a ghost, then don't put her in impossible supernatural situations now. It won't add up.'

Also. The characters were one dimensional and cliche. Misogynistic men and hysterical or devious women. I suppose in that way it was a bit Hitchcockian.

To the two actors who played "Mad Men" minor characters (Greg Harris and Mel, the smarmy soap opera dude who wanted to have a threesom with Don and Megan Draper) ... sorry things haven't gone so well for your careers.