For this LMN again brings you the damsel in distress, the terrible male character doing the bad deeds and once again we are asked to suffer a trite film with so-so acting, but for a few.
The damsel, in the name of Amanda Righetti, is not too good. It's all about her hair. When it is up, and she looks better that way and her age, she is happy. When her hair is down, not good on her, she's being dramatic. When it's all tossed about covering half of her face in strings down to her waist she is supposed to be disheveled.
I do believe she is too mature for the teen-age look. Why is it women and their hair become so important in films? Cut it short, my dear. You're supposed to be a classy lady and you look not so.
Her partner in crime, Christie Burson, also with flowing locks, doesn't do that much more for the film except to scream and stand by her friend. Has anyone heard of bobby pins? Why do they have to always have strands of hair hanging in their faces? So damned annoying and destroys my liking their work.
Catherine Hicks fares better and looks better and acts her age. I liked her. Harry Hamlin must be hard up for a job to take on this trite. He doesn't get much to do in this. Harry looks good though. And finally we come to the young man, William Estes, as the tormentor. His acting is a bit amateurish. You really don't believe him most of the time. Plus he looks as though he could be our leading lady's son.
I can't wait for the day when women look their age and act their age and this long straight hair look goes away. I am sick of seeing the same do, in all colors, real and phony, hanging straight down with some over each shoulder and some hanging down the back. It's like all the women look the same. There is really no difference. Except the acting. And there are some that can act and many that can not.
