zap644
Joined Sep 2005
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews8
zap644's rating
I can't believe anyone thought this movie was any good. It follows 2 women, only one of whom generated any empathy with the audience, and even that was a stretch and only temporary as the movie unfolds. Life's hard - we knew that, but that's no excuse for what happens.
The whole thing was senseless, completely lacking in any material that was thought-provoking and a total waste of time.
There was an attempt at character development, but it was very shallow, especially considering events which occur later on which are not in keeping with what little character development did occur.
The ending, in contrast to what some other reviewers claimed, was not a shock other than that it was put together so poorly.
I suppose if you generally like movies aired on Lifetime, this one might be for you, but as for me it only reinforces the reasons why I generally don't bother with them.
The whole thing was senseless, completely lacking in any material that was thought-provoking and a total waste of time.
There was an attempt at character development, but it was very shallow, especially considering events which occur later on which are not in keeping with what little character development did occur.
The ending, in contrast to what some other reviewers claimed, was not a shock other than that it was put together so poorly.
I suppose if you generally like movies aired on Lifetime, this one might be for you, but as for me it only reinforces the reasons why I generally don't bother with them.
too bad it's 14 minutes long.
It's Darren - err, I mean Dick York at age 19, 17 years before he played Darren.
He's a geek trying to figure out how to make it with the popular kids. The keys to popularity are being a good listener and being helpful.
Amazingly enough, he looks almost exactly like he did in Bewitched. Who'd a thunk he'd end up marrying Elizabeth Montgomery?
Did they really show this crap to kids in school back in the late '40s?
I'm sorry, but there's not much to say - it's only 14 minutes long. It is an interesting insight into how people thought in 1947, I guess.
It's Darren - err, I mean Dick York at age 19, 17 years before he played Darren.
He's a geek trying to figure out how to make it with the popular kids. The keys to popularity are being a good listener and being helpful.
Amazingly enough, he looks almost exactly like he did in Bewitched. Who'd a thunk he'd end up marrying Elizabeth Montgomery?
Did they really show this crap to kids in school back in the late '40s?
I'm sorry, but there's not much to say - it's only 14 minutes long. It is an interesting insight into how people thought in 1947, I guess.
Really, it wasn't that bad, especially if you enjoy the vampire genre (no, I'm not a "goth") and can tolerate some imperfections in acting and dialogue. I can't believe some people actually criticized the fact that it wasn't realistic enough in places - duh - it's a friggin' vampire movie.
It did have enough redeeming qualities to make it worthwhile, including the scenes on horseback. The story was original enough and while Madsden may have seemed a bit "bored" and at least one other actor seemed only slightly better than Bruce Campbell, I enjoyed it.
I've seen so many other movies that were worse, I can't imagine those who claim this is the worst movie they've ever seen.
Perhaps it is because I watched this without any prejudices. The ONLY name I recognized in connection with this movie was Michael Madsden - and I didn't even notice he was in the cast until I saw him in the film. I haven't seen the other movies by this director that were mentioned by others.
I can only ask WHY? If the people who criticized it and compared it to his other films they also thought sucked, why did they bother with this one?
It did have enough redeeming qualities to make it worthwhile, including the scenes on horseback. The story was original enough and while Madsden may have seemed a bit "bored" and at least one other actor seemed only slightly better than Bruce Campbell, I enjoyed it.
I've seen so many other movies that were worse, I can't imagine those who claim this is the worst movie they've ever seen.
Perhaps it is because I watched this without any prejudices. The ONLY name I recognized in connection with this movie was Michael Madsden - and I didn't even notice he was in the cast until I saw him in the film. I haven't seen the other movies by this director that were mentioned by others.
I can only ask WHY? If the people who criticized it and compared it to his other films they also thought sucked, why did they bother with this one?