vnssyndrome89
Joined Nov 2013
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.
Badges11
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings4.5K
vnssyndrome89's rating
Reviews236
vnssyndrome89's rating
My background is in psychology, and I am appalled at the other comments regarding "recovered memories". That's not what this movie, or the Shelly Long movie, "Fatal Trust" are referring to. "Recovered memories" usually refers to an unqualified, or disreputable therapist using hypnosis, or narco-analysis to plant false memories. That's not what this movie is about AT ALL! What this movie addresses is the real psychological phenomenon of memories resurfacing when you reach your 40's, or when you have children, and are strong enough to deal with the pain of your past. Unfortunately, sometimes our younger minds-our younger selves- still in development, can push painful events down, until we reach an age, or a level of emotional security, where we are able to deal with these types of traumas. These cases happen again and again, where people are unable to face what happened to them, and then they have children, or become more emotionally stable, and feel safe enough to relive the trauma, but by that time it's too late to prosecute their abuser. Some states are currently changing legislation to reflect this, and are switching to the British model (a much better system, called historical cases) so statues of limitations no longer apply, but instead require a higher standard for conviction.
"The Boy Next Door" 2008 (TV movie) Lots of missed opportunities...
SYNOPSIS
After the dissolution of her fifteen year marriage, mystery writer Sara Wylde (Dina Meyer) is feeling unsettled. She's also being pressured by her publisher to finish her latest book. Her personal problems have been getting in the way of her creative process, and she hopes a change of scenery will help. She's rented a cabin on a lake, and she's sure it will get her creative juices going again. But the murder of her young, handsome neighbor interrupts her process. Inept police, busybody neighbors, and no script direction are just a few of the things she has to deal with.
WHAT WORKS: *DINA MEYER'S ACTING IS DECENT Dina Meyer does a fine job with a terrible script. She never phones things in, and always gives a quality performance. It's too bad it couldn't help this movie, because this could have been an ok made-for-tv movie, if someone had plugged the plot holes.
*BOTH THE TRAILER AND COVER ART ARE AVERAGE I know this is low budget, and shot in just seven days... BUT I'm so sick of mediocrity, coming from GREED! It's one thing if there's a time crunch, and things have to be hurried, but it's something else if we all just aim for "good enough" to save money.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *I'M SO SICK OF INCOMPETENT JERK COPS AS A PLOT DEVICE Women staying alone in a new place tend to look outside, when they hear a noise. That's NOT SUSPICIOUS! Also, the cop can see Sara (Dina Meyer) lives in a house with a lot of windows (it overlooks a lake). They look in, and see her, so they know the opposite has to be true as well. THAT'S NOT SUSPICIOUS EITHER!
*COPS AREN'T STUPID Writers like Peter Layton, need to stop portraying cops as not having two brain cells to run together, it's not a believable plot device, just another plot hole.
*NO ONE IN THE SMALL TOWN WOULD BELIEVE SARAH KILLED MICHAEL Small towns are funny places. The people who live there would know the dark underbelly. The would have their own theories, and they wouldn't include a tiny woman, who'd only been in town a few days. They'd know the enemies of the most rich and powerful family in town, and they'd suspect them. They wouldn't suspect some small woman, of killing a huge young man, she'd only known in passing, for two days. THAT'S ASININE, and Peter Layton should know better. We, as viewers, are owed better.
*IN A SMALL TOWN, THEY'D IGNORE THE BUSYBODY The plot device of having the town busybody tell the police Sarah is suspicious, and having the police believe it is LUDICROUS! In a small town, people would know Marie (Sheelah Megill) was a nosy nextdoor neighbor, who liked to get people in trouble. THEY WOULD IGNORE HER!
*COPS WOULDN'T SUSPECT A WOMAN IN THIS CRIME Sara Wylde (Dina Meyer) is new to the area. She barely knows Michael (Christopher Russell), she has no motive, and no means to kill him. He's early 20's, and extremely well built. She's tiny, in her 40's, he'd swat her like a fly.
*COPS WOULDN'T SUSPECT A FAMOUS WRITER Even if they took Marie seriously, they would run a background check, see that Sarah has no priors, no connection to this crime or victim. It's stupid, to the point of being insulting, and Peter Layton should know better.
*RICH PEOPLE HAVE LAWYERS Cops know rich people have lawyers. Cops also know said lawyers can make their lives a living hell. This is why real cops tread lightly, until they have overwhelming evidence, when rich people are involved, and they would here as well.
*I'M SICK OF SEEING THE LAW DESTROYED FOR THE SAKE OF PLOT DEVICES It is irresponsible for writers to portray the law in an unrealistic way. People learn from TV. They shouldn't, but they do. Did you know the real NYPD SVU cops have hardly any training, and mimic what the see on Law and Order: SVU? THAT'S TRUE! So writers like Peter Layton should be more responsible when writing scripts. The cops gets a warrant for Sarah's house - full stop. WHAT?! WITH WHAT EVIDENCE?! The writer, Peter Layton, should be taught to do RESEARCH, instead of just writing whatever drivel comes into his pathetic head. Cops need this thing called P-R-O-B-A-B-L-E C-A-U-S-E to get a warrant. They have nothing on Sarah, except the word of a busybody neighbor, who's only complaint is, "Sarah didn't eat my muffins" waaaah! The judge would laugh them out of court, and Sarah could sue civilly, for invasion of privacy. Why could she sue? Police and prosecutors protections go away when they do things they know are wrong. A first year law student, or first week police cadet would know THIS IS WRONG.
*WHEN SARAH IS RUN OFF THE ROAD, AND HER HOUSE IS BROKEN INTO, THE COPS WOULD BE IN TROUBLE The cops refuse to believe her, they don't even take the threatening note left in her house, for prints. At this point, rich people with lawyers would call said lawyers, the lawyers would call the state police (and file a civil rights complaint with the justice department), and the state police would take over their inept investigation. END OF STORY
*THE DIRECTING AND CINEMATOGRAPHY ARE BAD This movie looks rushed, the shots are set up poorly, everything is either too close, or too far away. It's clunky, and Neill Fearnley (director) and Neil Cervin (cinematographer) should know better.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *I am a huge Dina Meyer fan, and I normally LOVE her made-for-tv movies, but not this time. The script has plot holes big enough for the whole movie to fall into, and it's unfortunate, because it could have been decent. If you're looking for a quality Dina Meyer made-for-tv movie, I'd recommend instead Evil Doctor (2018) or Lethal Seduction (2015) (see my reviews BLONDIEE10 'S REVIEWS & RANDOM STUFF and pictures).
WHAT WORKS: *DINA MEYER'S ACTING IS DECENT Dina Meyer does a fine job with a terrible script. She never phones things in, and always gives a quality performance. It's too bad it couldn't help this movie, because this could have been an ok made-for-tv movie, if someone had plugged the plot holes.
*BOTH THE TRAILER AND COVER ART ARE AVERAGE I know this is low budget, and shot in just seven days... BUT I'm so sick of mediocrity, coming from GREED! It's one thing if there's a time crunch, and things have to be hurried, but it's something else if we all just aim for "good enough" to save money.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *I'M SO SICK OF INCOMPETENT JERK COPS AS A PLOT DEVICE Women staying alone in a new place tend to look outside, when they hear a noise. That's NOT SUSPICIOUS! Also, the cop can see Sara (Dina Meyer) lives in a house with a lot of windows (it overlooks a lake). They look in, and see her, so they know the opposite has to be true as well. THAT'S NOT SUSPICIOUS EITHER!
*COPS AREN'T STUPID Writers like Peter Layton, need to stop portraying cops as not having two brain cells to run together, it's not a believable plot device, just another plot hole.
*NO ONE IN THE SMALL TOWN WOULD BELIEVE SARAH KILLED MICHAEL Small towns are funny places. The people who live there would know the dark underbelly. The would have their own theories, and they wouldn't include a tiny woman, who'd only been in town a few days. They'd know the enemies of the most rich and powerful family in town, and they'd suspect them. They wouldn't suspect some small woman, of killing a huge young man, she'd only known in passing, for two days. THAT'S ASININE, and Peter Layton should know better. We, as viewers, are owed better.
*IN A SMALL TOWN, THEY'D IGNORE THE BUSYBODY The plot device of having the town busybody tell the police Sarah is suspicious, and having the police believe it is LUDICROUS! In a small town, people would know Marie (Sheelah Megill) was a nosy nextdoor neighbor, who liked to get people in trouble. THEY WOULD IGNORE HER!
*COPS WOULDN'T SUSPECT A WOMAN IN THIS CRIME Sara Wylde (Dina Meyer) is new to the area. She barely knows Michael (Christopher Russell), she has no motive, and no means to kill him. He's early 20's, and extremely well built. She's tiny, in her 40's, he'd swat her like a fly.
*COPS WOULDN'T SUSPECT A FAMOUS WRITER Even if they took Marie seriously, they would run a background check, see that Sarah has no priors, no connection to this crime or victim. It's stupid, to the point of being insulting, and Peter Layton should know better.
*RICH PEOPLE HAVE LAWYERS Cops know rich people have lawyers. Cops also know said lawyers can make their lives a living hell. This is why real cops tread lightly, until they have overwhelming evidence, when rich people are involved, and they would here as well.
*I'M SICK OF SEEING THE LAW DESTROYED FOR THE SAKE OF PLOT DEVICES It is irresponsible for writers to portray the law in an unrealistic way. People learn from TV. They shouldn't, but they do. Did you know the real NYPD SVU cops have hardly any training, and mimic what the see on Law and Order: SVU? THAT'S TRUE! So writers like Peter Layton should be more responsible when writing scripts. The cops gets a warrant for Sarah's house - full stop. WHAT?! WITH WHAT EVIDENCE?! The writer, Peter Layton, should be taught to do RESEARCH, instead of just writing whatever drivel comes into his pathetic head. Cops need this thing called P-R-O-B-A-B-L-E C-A-U-S-E to get a warrant. They have nothing on Sarah, except the word of a busybody neighbor, who's only complaint is, "Sarah didn't eat my muffins" waaaah! The judge would laugh them out of court, and Sarah could sue civilly, for invasion of privacy. Why could she sue? Police and prosecutors protections go away when they do things they know are wrong. A first year law student, or first week police cadet would know THIS IS WRONG.
*WHEN SARAH IS RUN OFF THE ROAD, AND HER HOUSE IS BROKEN INTO, THE COPS WOULD BE IN TROUBLE The cops refuse to believe her, they don't even take the threatening note left in her house, for prints. At this point, rich people with lawyers would call said lawyers, the lawyers would call the state police (and file a civil rights complaint with the justice department), and the state police would take over their inept investigation. END OF STORY
*THE DIRECTING AND CINEMATOGRAPHY ARE BAD This movie looks rushed, the shots are set up poorly, everything is either too close, or too far away. It's clunky, and Neill Fearnley (director) and Neil Cervin (cinematographer) should know better.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *I am a huge Dina Meyer fan, and I normally LOVE her made-for-tv movies, but not this time. The script has plot holes big enough for the whole movie to fall into, and it's unfortunate, because it could have been decent. If you're looking for a quality Dina Meyer made-for-tv movie, I'd recommend instead Evil Doctor (2018) or Lethal Seduction (2015) (see my reviews BLONDIEE10 'S REVIEWS & RANDOM STUFF and pictures).
THE BRIDE HE BOUGHT ONLINE /FLIRTING WITH MADNESS
6 out of 10 stars Time to read: 3 min
A cautionary tale of chasing likes, peer pressure, and strangers on the internet
BASIC PLOT: Three girls, Avery (Anne Winters), Mandy (Lauren Gaw) and Kaylie (Annalisa Cochrane), all in their last year of high school, have created a "prank blog" that's slowly gathering followers. Up until now, the pranks haven't hurt anyone, but Kaylie wants to push the boundaries a little. She finds an overseas matchmaking service, and decides the men who want to "buy women" are trash, and deserve what they get. Mandy, who used to be unpopular, is willing to go along with Kaylie. She believes her current social status is about her friendship with Kaylie, instead of the radical changes she made to herself (like losing 50 lbs & becoming a fashionista), and so she is willing to overlook a lot of Kaylie's bad behavior. Avery is not. She is not blinded by followers, and is unwilling to be cruel to someone simply because they are lonely. Kaylie ignores Avery's protestations, creates a fake profile on the matchmaking site, and lures in a sad, and isolated computer programmer, John Bennett (Travis Hammer). He is convinced his new overseas love will be the answer to his ostracization, and begins making arrangements for "Diwata" to come and visit. Little does he know he's really speaking to Kaylie, as she bilks him out of money for trip expenses.
When he goes to pick up "Diwata" from the airport, what's really waiting for him is Kaylie and Mandy, filming him eagerly awaiting "Diwata's" arrival. Avery is there too, but she wasn't told why they were going to the airport. She's furious, and refuses to be friends with either of them anymore.
Meanwhile, John has discovered their trickery, and being a programmer, it doesn't take him long to track them down. He decides it's time for some payback. He has something nefarious planned for the girls, and their lives will never be the same.
WHAT WORKS: *DON'T BE CRUEL, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE EVERYTHING! Avery, Mandy and Kaylie live in upper middle class houses, go to good schools, and have promising futures. John lives in a sketchy house, in a crime ridden neighborhood, with a prostitute living across the street. He only has one friend, Quincy (T.J. Alvarado), a co-worker, and John considers himself an outcast. Avery understands and appreciates what they all have, but Kaylie doesn't get it, remaining an entitled brat until the very end. A well done morality tale, crafted in melodramatic form.
*WATCH OUT WHO YOU INTERACT WITH ON THE NET The girls have no sense of the danger they are in, and that's a realistic problem.
*DON'T VALUE YOURSELF BY HOW MANY FOLLOWERS AND RETWEETS YOU HAVE When Avery tries to make Kaylie understand that followers don't mean anything, she responds that they mean "everything". Another realistic problem with today's youth.
*DON'T GO ALONG WITH THE CROWD BECAUSE YOU'RE SCARED OF BEING AN OUTCAST Mandy knows what Kaylie is doing is wrong, but feels she can't express her feelings because Kaylie is the source of her popularity. She's doesn't realize (until it's too late) that if people value you for anything other than who you are, they aren't worth knowing. Another truism that is presented well by Christine Conradt (writer/director)
*ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE especially for a made-for-tv Lifetime movie.
*STORY IS WELL LAID OUT, AND ENGAGING Unlike most made-for-tv movies, the story is not telegraphed. It's twists and turns keep you guessing, and the characters don't feel one dimensional.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *AT THE BEGINNING, MANDY HAS HER PHONE OUT RECORDING A PRANK during a test at school, but phones are put away before a test is issued. There's no way the teacher would allow her to have her phone in her hands.
*THE PRANK SITE BEING A BLOG IS A STRETCH... It should have been a YouTube channel instead, but just changed the name into "ViewTube" or something. Blogs are for text, with videos for accompaniment, not the other way around.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: I would highly recommend this to fans of TV movies, and to teenagers. It never hurts to have a refresher course on the dangers around them. It's also a win for Christine Conradt. So often her screenplays are not up to par, but this is a shining example of what a Lifetime movie should be.
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 you 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.
A cautionary tale of chasing likes, peer pressure, and strangers on the internet
BASIC PLOT: Three girls, Avery (Anne Winters), Mandy (Lauren Gaw) and Kaylie (Annalisa Cochrane), all in their last year of high school, have created a "prank blog" that's slowly gathering followers. Up until now, the pranks haven't hurt anyone, but Kaylie wants to push the boundaries a little. She finds an overseas matchmaking service, and decides the men who want to "buy women" are trash, and deserve what they get. Mandy, who used to be unpopular, is willing to go along with Kaylie. She believes her current social status is about her friendship with Kaylie, instead of the radical changes she made to herself (like losing 50 lbs & becoming a fashionista), and so she is willing to overlook a lot of Kaylie's bad behavior. Avery is not. She is not blinded by followers, and is unwilling to be cruel to someone simply because they are lonely. Kaylie ignores Avery's protestations, creates a fake profile on the matchmaking site, and lures in a sad, and isolated computer programmer, John Bennett (Travis Hammer). He is convinced his new overseas love will be the answer to his ostracization, and begins making arrangements for "Diwata" to come and visit. Little does he know he's really speaking to Kaylie, as she bilks him out of money for trip expenses.
When he goes to pick up "Diwata" from the airport, what's really waiting for him is Kaylie and Mandy, filming him eagerly awaiting "Diwata's" arrival. Avery is there too, but she wasn't told why they were going to the airport. She's furious, and refuses to be friends with either of them anymore.
Meanwhile, John has discovered their trickery, and being a programmer, it doesn't take him long to track them down. He decides it's time for some payback. He has something nefarious planned for the girls, and their lives will never be the same.
WHAT WORKS: *DON'T BE CRUEL, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE EVERYTHING! Avery, Mandy and Kaylie live in upper middle class houses, go to good schools, and have promising futures. John lives in a sketchy house, in a crime ridden neighborhood, with a prostitute living across the street. He only has one friend, Quincy (T.J. Alvarado), a co-worker, and John considers himself an outcast. Avery understands and appreciates what they all have, but Kaylie doesn't get it, remaining an entitled brat until the very end. A well done morality tale, crafted in melodramatic form.
*WATCH OUT WHO YOU INTERACT WITH ON THE NET The girls have no sense of the danger they are in, and that's a realistic problem.
*DON'T VALUE YOURSELF BY HOW MANY FOLLOWERS AND RETWEETS YOU HAVE When Avery tries to make Kaylie understand that followers don't mean anything, she responds that they mean "everything". Another realistic problem with today's youth.
*DON'T GO ALONG WITH THE CROWD BECAUSE YOU'RE SCARED OF BEING AN OUTCAST Mandy knows what Kaylie is doing is wrong, but feels she can't express her feelings because Kaylie is the source of her popularity. She's doesn't realize (until it's too late) that if people value you for anything other than who you are, they aren't worth knowing. Another truism that is presented well by Christine Conradt (writer/director)
*ACTING IS ABOVE AVERAGE especially for a made-for-tv Lifetime movie.
*STORY IS WELL LAID OUT, AND ENGAGING Unlike most made-for-tv movies, the story is not telegraphed. It's twists and turns keep you guessing, and the characters don't feel one dimensional.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *AT THE BEGINNING, MANDY HAS HER PHONE OUT RECORDING A PRANK during a test at school, but phones are put away before a test is issued. There's no way the teacher would allow her to have her phone in her hands.
*THE PRANK SITE BEING A BLOG IS A STRETCH... It should have been a YouTube channel instead, but just changed the name into "ViewTube" or something. Blogs are for text, with videos for accompaniment, not the other way around.
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: I would highly recommend this to fans of TV movies, and to teenagers. It never hurts to have a refresher course on the dangers around them. It's also a win for Christine Conradt. So often her screenplays are not up to par, but this is a shining example of what a Lifetime movie should be.
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 you 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.
