ILLUSIONS is a typical psycho-thriller of the era, made without much in the way of sense, danger, or excitement. Heather Locklear - remember her? - stars as a woman recovering from a nervous breakdown who begins to suspect that her husband might have it in for her. Yes, that old chestnut again, complicated by the inclusion of her hot sister with whom her husband might just be having an affair. This is a TV movie so very cheesy indeed, with plenty of signposted moments and twists that are anything but surprising. Locklear is quite weak but the cast is bolstered by enjoyable stalwarts including Ned Beatty and Susannah York.
Add a Review
-
Leofwine_draca26 September 2018
-
jodygogo24 April 2020What, he's still alive, you say? Then I guess he's doing whatever it is that people do when their work is reduced to unwatchable garbage.
The painfully slooooow pace and the stilted dialogue, not to mention the deliciously horrid acting, give this movie a satisfyingly soporific sensibility. Forget warm milk, sleeping pills, or bedtime stories, let the quiet calm of this production gently lull you into a sweet slumber.
Everything seems like it's on a time lag. Line. Pause. Response. Pause. Line. Pause. Response. Pause. Repeat as needed (cos it sure seemed like that's what the director did).
Oh, you want examples? Ok, so you know how when you're watching a love scene and you sometimes feel that twinge of discomfort? Well, here it's not the perceived eroticism that makes you cringe, it's the laughable stillness that makes you feel embarrassed for the actors. Not only does the chick lay there like a dead fish, the guy does too! So it's like watching two dead fish just sort of laying on top of one another.
Then there's this one scene marked by the quiet tick-tick of a clock counting down to the moment we finally surrender to the ... but, wait!! Something's happening, yes!! There's been a shooting!! Is it real or imagined?? Yeah, who cares, cos then it goes right back to the same plodding pace.
I did give it one star each for Heather Locklear and Ned Beatty, and one star for providing me with my laugh of the day. -
ladymidath1 March 2024Although I enjoyed this movie, the actors were good and it had a solid creepy atmosphere, but it was painfully slow. I did not expect it to be action packed, and I don't mind if a film takes its time to tell its story, but this seemed to crawl at a snail's pace.
The last 30 minutes picked up the pace, but I found my mind wandering after a while.
The main character seemed to wander through the movie in a haze while her husband and his sister were doing their creepy thing.
I still enjoyed the movie and it had a couple of nice twists, but ones I could see coming. The actors were all very good and I did like the ending.
This is an easy going thriller that for me is a guilty pleasure. -
mdcapjr325 August 2000This film is like watching paint dry--NOTHING exciting happens. The better part of the film is spent watching Heather Locklear sleeping, having the same bizarre nightmare over and over again. Locklear, Carradine, Samms and Beatty never seem to leave the house, which gives the film an extremely stiff and claustraphobic feel.
Carradine doesn't look much different than he did in "Revenge of the Nerds"; I half-expected Booger to show up. Perhaps that's typecasting, but it caused me to have a real hard time believing his character could actually be married to someone like Locklear. Besides, the dialogue is so plastic and the acting is so wooden than you don't care about their relationship anyway.
Not only do I have trouble belieivng that this film was actually made, but it's even harder to believe that pay movie services still have the audacity to show it. Yes, it's really that bad. And the voiceover by Locklear's character does sound like it was recorded by someone else.
They recommend drinking warm milk or counting sheep if you can't get to sleep; I suggest watching this movie. It will knock you out from sheer boredom. I gave it a 1 out of 10; absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. -
Jaynrand22 June 2005I bought this video because I was working on a production of the play it is based on "I'll Be Back Before Midnight." The play and the screenplay for this movie are both by Peter Colley, who is also an associate producer of the film.
As has been noted, the director was working on an English-speaking production for the first time and was a Russian political refugee - who came to the US via Czechkoslavakia. Better for him if he had stayed there.
This is a terrible movie. The suspense of the screenplay doesn't hold a candle to the play. I can't believe that Colley made such a mess of what is basically a terrific comedy-thriller. Plot lines are muddled, characters are non-existent or inconsistent, and there is not a moment of REAL suspense in the whole movie.
The director must share some of the blame, too, of course. I imagine the editors had their work cut out for them when they were handed this mess. A narration (by Heather Locklear's character, but not done by Locklear) just confuses things more.
IF you are considering doing the play, don't judge it by this movie. This is one of the worst movies I have EVER seen. The acting, the lighting and camera-work, the costumes, the music, and physical production are all just terrible. Originally set in an old "haunted" farm house - the movie takes place in some Spanish-style castle.
The whole premise is muddled and there is no mystery or suspense. Even the "surprise" ending has only one mild shock-scare, and that one is here and gone before you know what has happened.
I would say that the illusion here is that anyone involved knew anything about making a movie - especially a thriller. -
tionna6 January 2000I saw "Illusions" last night at 3 AM and this movie was pure enjoyment for me! It was totally 80's-ish schlock, like a horror novel written for teenagers. However, I enjoyed the movie not because of the storyline, which was rather predictable, but more because of the actors and my nostalgia for horror movies from the 80's. I was surprised to learn that this TV movie was made in the 90's and not the 80's. Emma Samms was perfect as the evil sister-in-law, and it was nice to see Heather Locklear in a good role, since I'm used to seeing her on "Melrose Place."
This movie has everything -- schemes you can see from a mile away, people who turn out to be totally different from what they seem to be, hallucinations, dreams, ghost stories, a house in the country with an ever-so-helpful caretaker, murder plots, and so on. The strangest part of it was that a lot of the narration sounded like it was done by someone other than Heather Locklear. Anyway, I would recommend this movie as a nice getaway from reality. -
bababear1 November 2001Some actors who really ought to have known better make ILLUSIONS appear to be way better than it really is.
The plot- which borrows heavily from GASLIGHT and DIABOLIQUE and several far better films and even drags in a bell tower from VERTIGO- is a nasty brew of murder, greed, and incest. For whatever reason, some excellent actors throw themselves away on this movie, which looks so cheaply made you can't even say they did it for the money.
Heatler Locklear plays a young woman fresh from a mental institution who is married to Robert Carradine. She's the daughter of a wealthy family and he's an aspiring archaeologist. She gets out of the hospital and accompanies him on a dig, living in a huge rented house where Something Awful is supposed to have happened a couple of decades ago. Miss Locklear is an excellent actress when she has the right material and a strong director- here, she has neither.
Ned Beatty plays George, the hired hand. He's an alcoholic whose wife and son have deserted him. Beatty has worked with some of the finest directors in the business, most notably Lumet and Boorman. Ned, say it ain't so.
Susannah York has a tiny part as a doctor. Given nothing to do, she does it well.
There are many things unexplained in the movie, most notably:
-- Ms. Locklear's character provides voiceover narration in an attempt to bring some coherence to the story. But it's clearly not Ms. Locklear's voice.
-- In the house where most of the action takes place, there's a horseshoe over a door which is pointing down. I've always seen horseshoes pointed up, so as to hold in the luck. Is this a point plot that got lost, or was this just how it was nailed up?
-- Ms. Locklear does not provide the narration. Neither does she participate in the nude scenes. Good thinking.
-- In literally the last ten minutes a major character begins to curse like a sailor. Why? Was the movie so boring that people forgot the nudity that had gone onscreen an hour ago? Relax, boys, you got the R rating.
-- Did the actors have the least idea that this was going to turn out this way?
-- It's based on a stage play. The act structure is clearly intact, and you can almost see curtains open and close. Did the author ever think there was a reason this play was never the Toast of Broadway and maybe he should go in another direction?
-- The director, apparently working in English for the first time, has not worked again. What was his reaction when he saw this mess with his name plastered to it?