freemanpatrick7

Back in 2012 when I saw Bunee Tomlinson take what was a simple script and turn it into a wonderful narrative short film I though then that this incredible young man could well be the next Steven Spielberg. In Boomtown I see that he could also be the next Ken Burms. It's good to see how diverse he has become as a film director.

Boomtown: An American Journey caught my attention initially because my mother spent many of her childhood years in Tulsa. There was so much of the history of the city that I was previously unaware of, save for the snippets of stories my mom used to tell. After watching the film I not only know more about the city, but I have a better picture of.backdrop of those stories. Both Mom's parents worked in that Douglas bomber plant that is mentioned in the film and the money they were able to earn there, as had never been possible before, brought Mom's family out of its own depression.

Sadly, in 41 minutes, there is so much about the history of this city that couldn't be covered in depth. But Tomlinson's work on this film makes me want to dig deeper into the lives and times of the city and the people who have inhabited it throughout history.

Lance Daly's Black '47 is virtual perfection in cinematic storytelling as far as I'm concerned. Sadly no one in the entertainment industry knows how to market films that are based on comic books or super heroes. I won't bother to retell the story in a synopsis as it has most certainly been done extensively. My only regret is that at times the photography is too dark to see what is going on. I think I've always been aware of the Irish famine of the mid 19th century but this film sheds light on horrible atrocities committed by the British that I had not previously been aware of. Although, being an American, I can't look don't my nose too much, since our own history is filled with its own atrocities committed against the Indians, the Africans, both during and after the abolition of slavery, the Chinese immigrants and the Japanese Americans during WWII Black '47 is a wonderful dramatic film, flawlessly written and directed, beautifully shot, and with impressive performances throughout. Don't miss this one.

I'm not going to spell out the synopsis since it's been done before. This seemingly low budget thriller does a fine job putting all the pieces together. The acting, for the most part is adequate. The fx are a lot better than what I've seen in films with a much bigger budget. The director (Clay Staub) does a great job of hiding the monster until it couldn't be hidden any longer. With the exception of some CGI you never get the feeling that this is a cheap and cheesy student film. But by far the crowning glory of the whole project is the brilliant cinematography. Miroslaw Baszak does an excellent job of capturing the bleak and dreary landscape to the point that you don't want to visit the area, let alone live there. His interior shots are perfectly lit, giving the desired creepy-old-house affect while still allowing us to see what's going on. Editing, sound design and the score all complement the film so seamlessly that you never think about them - you experience them. The story is nothing new. (But what is these days?) It combines elements of several other stories we've all seen before. Which isn't to say that it's bad, it's just not ground breaking. All in all the completed project is something that all cast & crew involced should be proud to have been a part of.

Having nothing of any interest that Hollywood put out this week I thought I'd give this a try. And I'm not totally disappointed. It's a pretty decent film, all things considered except for the ever present nauseous shaky cam that I though (hoped) went out of fashion ten years ago. Besides the shaky cam, which gives you the distinct impression that the DP is drunk, everything about this film is technically fine. There were some obvious Adobe After Effects effects which made the film seem just a little bit cheesy but with the budget they were dealing with whattayagonnado? My main gripe with the film is that it has a totally depressing theme with almost no redeeming characters. A group of drug enforcement cops trying to make a drug bust get set up And then all hell breaks loose. Young men, old men, women and children turn on the cops and begin attacking them. It reminded me of what Obama tried to start here in the US. But the acting was good and the action scenes, for the most part, were spot on.

I have no idea what the source material for this is. I stopped playing video games at Pacman. But I got enough here to follow the story line. And it seems like a story that would work well for TV. I say "seems like" because I'm no sure. I don't watch TV. I gave up on TV when the writing got so bad I couldn't stand it anymore.

But from my memory of TV this looks like it would fit right in. The action, the writing and the photography all fits perfectly.

Now obviously this was a one-off low budget proof of concept piece. And as such it does its job nicely. Having no previous attachment to the source material I can't say whether the actors fit their characters or not. But Fillion and Lang are top notch actors so they'd certainly both be up to the task.

If this project somehow makes it to the big screen I hope to God that they invest a lot more time and effort in the writing. If they do that, and with a good DP, this could be pretty good. As it is it's just OK.

I found this on youtube while looking for samples or Eric Winter's work. I have to say that if I were ready to go into preproduction I'd be giving his agent a call right now just based on this one short film. Frank is sitting in his car in a deserted area waiting to end it all when he's accosted by Ivan Sergei (The Break Up) and Summer Glau (Firefly) who are running from cops and need a ride. But since Frank was ready to die anyway he doesn't see any need to be scared of these two so he takes them on a wild ride. And then WTF just happened?

From the directing to the sound design to the photography, everything about this short film is perfect except for the fact that I'm still confused about the ending.

With limited dialog writer/director Julien Grincajgier lets his talented actors tell the beautiful story of an old soldier who visits the grave of a fallen comrade.

Through flashback we see the story unfold of this unlikely friendship that was forged on the battlefield and continued on into later years.

The score is a bit loud at times but very well chosen. The photography is top notch.

Bottom line: It's a very touching story that I'd recommend to anyone.

I'm not rating this because I didn't finish it. I found this on youtube from one link that led to another link that lead to another...you know how it is. Anyway, I just had to watch it to see what a $500 feature looks like. I have to say, "I've seen worse." It's only mostly dead lol. No, seriously, parts of it don't look bad. Extensive use of camera drone makes for some interesting footage. And the exterior wide shots are actually kind of nice sometimes. But the night shots are so dark you can't see anything. And that's about it for the pros. The cons: One of the oldest truisms of film making is that if your script sucks then so will your movie. When you have a limited budget you don't pay anyone to write the script, you have to write it yourself. So the script doesn't cost anything but time. Ergo you can' t blame a crappy script on a low budget. The story itself isn't bad but the dialog is. I mean really bad. Add to that the fact that the ADR is so sketchy that at times it sounds like three or more unmatched sound recordings all forced into the same scene. One guy sounds like he was recorded in an echo chamber, while another guy is talking under a blanket. It's distracting to say the least. Apparently the budget didn't have room for a dolly, or a steady-cam, or even a tripod. The shaky-cam is making me seasick. When you have no money then nobody who works on the production gets paid. I mean NOBODY. You have to find "actors" who will work for free. And like so many other things in life you get what you pay for. These aren't the worst actors I've ever seen. But they're not even good amateurs. I'm 30 minutes in now and I can't take anymore. I've seen enough to satisfy my curiosity and to answer the one question I had: Can you really make a feature film for $500? Yes, you can. But is it worth it?

Well, almost everything. If you're looking for the typical witty one-liners then you're out of luck. But for a minuscule budget (reported $14 million) this movie packs plenty of punch. I'm not sure why Sony seems to be sweeping this one under the carpet but it really deserves better than that. I once though of Taraji P. Henson as an actor with limited range. I'm not ashamed to admit that i was completely wrong about that. She shows a complete range here and really sells kick-ass. Not many women can do that successfully but she does it easily. If you're looking for a laugh a minute like in a Samuel L. Jackson film you won't find this here. But if you're looking for a decent drama with characters you care about (I actually teared up a bit at one point, I won't lie) with plenty of action to keep you entertained then give this one a shot...so to speak.

If you live long enough you'll everything at least twice. In this case it's three times. In 1988 James Caan and Mandy Patinkin made this exact same movie. Only then it was called Alien Nation, on account of the fact that the "outsiders" were extra terrestrials. A year later they made it into a TV show that lasted a whole 22 episodes. The TV show starred Gary Graham and Eric Pierpoint. You'll probably have to look those guys up since their careers were no more memorable than the show. Now we get Bright...because...why would anyone want to do anything new? I wonder if this marks the end of Will Smith's career as a film star and sends him back to TV.

Was this remake necessary? Define "necessary". I saw the Albert Finney/Sydney Lumet version when it was released in 1974. I was only 11 years old when it first came out so I don't remember much of how it affected me. But in the many years since then I have become a fan of Agatha Christie and have seen it again and again, as well as other adaptations. I've always thought that Finney's interpretation of Poirot was a bit over the top. Still it was never as bad as Peter Ustinov's. Fortunately I never saw Alfred Molina's version. And then came David Suchet, who, in my opinion, nails the role perfectly. Any remake is naturally going to be compared, favorably or unfavorably, to its predecessors. In my opinion Branagh's attempt fell below Suchet but above all others. Far above. Any time the director is the star you run the risk of over indulgences and this film suffers some of that. Few actors, if any, can resist the temptation to place the value of their own egos above that of the picture as a whole. Which is not to say that Branagh is a bad actor or a bad director. Nothing could be further from the truth. I just didn't feel like he performed either job brilliantly in this picture. It might be that I'm making the mistake of over comparison to the Suchet version. And taken on its own merits alone this picture is decent, if not great. The acting is superb. The photography is beautiful. I couldn't help being overwhelmed by the abundance of CGI but whattayagonnado? It's everywhere these days. The opening scene and the reveal scene at the end differ greatly from the source material. It doesn't hurt the story at all, it's just different. And I can't think of any reason to have done them this way except just to be different. But all in all it was an enjoyable film, exactly what I was hoping for, and I definitely recommend it to anyone who is tired of the same old crap that Hollywood has been churning out over the past few years.

For a low budget film it looks good and there are some decent battle scenes. And it has a very interesting premise. That's the good part.

Unfortunately that about all this film has going for it. The acting is pretty wooden. You never know what anyone is thinking, or feeling. There seem to be plenty of pensive moments but they don't reveal anything. Because not one character in the whole movie has a complete character arc. Who they are when they first appear is exactly who they are when the film ends. No one is changed by anything. No one learns anything. Not one plot point it ever resolved.

The first and second acts plod along, not at a sluggish pace, but none too swiftly. And then, before you know it, the war is over. Literally, just like that. Not with a bang. Not with some triumphant battle. Just one long and boring scene with Germany surrendering to the Soviets. You wonder if this will eventually lead to something. But it doesn't. This is followed by another long and boring scene of marching captured German soldiers. And you think this is going to lead to something. But it doesn't. I can't help but wonder if either they couldn't figure out how to end it. Or that the whole movie was created just to give some public service announcement about the horrors of war.

I don't give tens very often because, in my opinion, very few films hit every mark. This one is an awesome exception. The Cowboy, written and starring Peter Banifaz and brilliantly directed by Omid Shabkhiz, hits every single nail right on the head and drives it home. From the opening shot, immaculately photographed by Alex Pollini, you have the distinct feeling that you're watching a Rodriguez or Tarantino film with a budget behind it. No expense or effort was spared. Productions values are first rate. Every little detail is considered and taken care of. They even thought to include bullets in the revolvers. If I had a dollar for every time I've seen a shot of an empty revolver aimed at a camera I could fund my own movie. The script, particularly the dialog, is...dare I say, elegant. Every word from every character is totally real and believable. Looking into the resumes of all involved I expected to see long lists of credits, major well known works with their names on them, and big name talent agencies attached to them. I was surprised to find that this wasn't true. This whole project seems to be the product of a mass of underrated talent. This little short film will go down on my list of the best movies I've ever seen.

How to make a successful movie in a few simple steps. 1) Find a new idea! Wow, what a concept! Not a remake or a reboot or a reheat or rehash. An actual new bleeping idea. 2) Don't spend $100 million on it. This $9 million movie has grossed almost $270 million world wide! 3) Create an impressive trailer. See, with a good movie you don't have to put all the best parts in the trailer, thereby spoiling any possible surprise the audience might have enjoyed. 4) Don't hire Adam Sandler, Amy Schumer or Katherine Heigl

It's not rocket science guys. People have been making successful movies for more than 100 years. Just use your head and follow these simple rules.

In this post 1230 West Rd., La Habra Heights, CA 90631tic indie film writer/director Austin Barbetto shows that you can still make a decent looking film on a shoe string budget.

Pros.

The cinematography, editing, and sound design are all decent, for the most part. I've seen films with a budget that weren't done as well. The score is minimalistic which works at times, at other...not so much.

Cons.

When working on a tight budget it's common to do without certain crew members. But when this happens it's imperative that some else fill in. Make-up and wardrobe, for example. And props. It's supposed to be post apocalypse but our main character has clearly showered and shaved and put on clean clothes the morning of the shoot. There's not even a speck of dirt on his shoes. His fingernails are spotless. Facts that make it somewhat comical when he washes himself in the dirty water of a creek. And his water bottle looks like it came right off the shelf of a store.

His acting is pretty bad. At about 9 minutes in he crying because he love left him. But I don't believe it for a minute. It's more believable that he's crying over the annoying guitar music.

A little more bounced light during the fire scene would have helped to see what he was looking at.

OK, two lens flares in 16 minutes. I'm giving up on this. I would like to have commented on the plot. But I'm not sure there is one.

I watched this on a bootleg site that was all written in Arabic. The copy of the DVD had Arabic subtitles. I couldn't help wondering how that audience receives a movie like this, let alone do they enjoy watching it? Maybe they don't care, they just pirate the movies and make their money.

Anyway, I've been out of the "Sniper" loop since about the second one (What are we on now? 12?) so I needed to do a little catching up. I have to say that this wasn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be. Sure the visual fx were pretty cheesy and the dialog was, at times, embarrassing. But over all it far surpassed anything Steven Seagal has done in the last decade or so (with the possible exception of The Cockpuncher) So, in doing a little research I discovered that just about anyone associated with these films is either trying to get a career started or pretending their career isn't yet over.

There was, in fact some decent acting. You can tell a good actor when he delivers the cheesiest line in a way that almost makes you believe him (or her)

But the one overlying factor was that whenever Dennis Haysbert was on screen I kept expecting him to say, "That's Allstate's stand. Are you in good hands?"

In a day and age when theatrical releases leave one wanting, this TV movie Delivers.

When Trumpets Fade tells the story of Manning (Ron Eldard), a man who has seen more than his share of hell and wants more of it. But war is a jealous mistress and won't let him go so easily. While Private Manning, then Sergeant Manning, then eventually Lt. Manning would just like to go home, he's continually called upon to lead others into battle in one of the most horrific events of WWII.

This being a TV movie one hardly expects that there was a huge production budget. Yet John Irvin (Hamburger Hill), working from a brilliant screenplay by W.W. Vought, directs and brilliant cast of familiar, if not A-List faces through an incredibly moving and gripping tale.

Working with the elegant natural landscape, production designer László Rajk makes the past come alive in the here and now. While cinematographer Thomas Burstyn catches the action and the drama like he's working with a blockbuster budget.

In all aspects When Trumpets Fade stands proudly among the best war movies ever made. A near perfect execution.

I'm not sure what anyone else was expecting by I enjoyed this film very much. From all the negative comments and reviews I'm a little confused as to what others thought they'd be seeing.

I had never even heard of the book so I had no clue what the title meant. Even the trailer I saw gave me no concrete answers and I had to guess. I think this might have been the biggest marketing SNAFU of the whole film. I'm sure Spielberg et al wanted to remain true to the source material but I think it would have been forgivable to change the title to Big Friendly Giant.

Having seen the trailer I thought it looked good. When it came out and flopped I was a little confused but figured it must have been more of a problem with the film's marketing than the film itself. Having finally seen the movie I can say that I think it was wonderful and I only wish it had come out while my children were little.

In spite of what others have said Ruby Barnhill, the little girl who plays Sophie, was awesome! I was constantly being impressive with her range and depth as an actor.

OF course in a movie like this there will be lots of CGI. But it looks good. In fact some of was so impressive that I couldn't always tell what was real and what was CG.

I do think the flatulence scenes were a bit much, even though they did make me laugh. Other than that I thought it was a delightful film.

I came looking for a demo reel for Grace Huang and found Bloodtraffick. Everything about this ingenuous short film is perfect except for the fight scenes. The music and the cinematography work perfectly together to set the tone and feel of the whole movie. The set design was very impressive. I guess short films in Hong Kong get bigger budgets than some features in the US. Grace Huang and her co-star Kirt Kishita played beautifully together. They could be best friends in real life but you never doubted for a second that they were mortal enemies and that someone was going to die. Unfortunately, and I hate to even mention this, but the fight scenes were just too slow, too stage-combat-like, to be believable. Everything about it was too choreographed. Nothing seemed at all spontaneous. Other than that it was a near perfect effort from all involved.

I usually wait until all the hype has cooled down before going to see a movie. This one, being an Oscar winner, had a long hype cycle. So it took me a while to finally see it. It wasn't bad. It wasn't great. It wasn't Oscar worthy. But it wasn't bad.

From the trailer The Revenant was the first DiCaprio movie I've ever actually wanted to see. Usually he doesn't impress me. He's a decent actor. He's not bad. He's just not worthy of all the hype. But this movie looked like it would be pretty good and, from the trailer, DiCaprio looked to be playing a character I could care about. Which usually is not the case.

I have to say that his performance was good, maybe better than any other performance I've seen him give. But every actor in the movie was good. Tom Hardy wasn't just good - he was awesome. But then bad guys don't usually get the Oscar now do they?

The cinematography was beautiful. Emmanuel Lubezki flawlessly captured, in dark tones, the spirit of the freezing freaking cold untamed wilderness. But then it was filmed in Canada so how are you going to mess that up.

Personally, I think Alejandro G. Iñárritu is highly overrated as a director. He's not bad, per se. But two Oscars in two years? OK, granted, this year he didn't have much competition.

The movie was decent. And since I waited until it was playing at the $3 theater I felt like I got my money's worth. But a good editor with a sharp pair of scissors could have cut about 45 minutes out of it and made it much better.

I can't remember if it was a movie or TV show that used the same type of proximity devices to keep prisoners from trying to escape. Only, in that case, the bombs were collars around the neck. Anyway, because of that movie, I instantly knew what the situation was with the collars.

But that was one of the few questions that got answered and it wasn't answered by the film.

Why deal with collars in the first place? If you're going to take men out into the woods to kill them, why play games? Just kill them and be done with it.

Why were the men being hunted in the first place?

If you're hunting men for sport, wouldn't it be more sporting to hunt them while they still have two good legs?

Why did the second prisoner come back to fight Jake when he could have just kept on running?

How did Jake fight so well with a stick shoved into his gut? He didn't even act like it bothered him after the initial shock.

The acting was good and the action was excellent.

Haze tells the story of a woman caught in a love triangle between the man she loves and his wife. Only, at the risk of sounding cliché', things are all as they seem. Are they ever?

But nothing about the film itself is cliché'. I was impressed by what writer/director Roger Cordon was able to accomplish with such a small budget. I counted 9 actors and 12 crew members. Cordon must have a lot of friends. The photography, while at times poorly lit, at least didn't feel the need to rely on the ever present and always annoying shakycam technique in order to establish action. The camera is always moving, but with a steady hand. God bless you Anthony Reyes for that.

Acting is a bit iffy at times, nothing over the top, with Rachel (Adina Stecu) delivering the best performance by far.

All in all a good first effort and something to be proud of. Kudos to Roger Cordon and company for a good film. I'm looking forward to see what comes next.

Family members have been trying to get me to watch this movie for a while. I was reluctant because, by the way they described it, I was sure it would be just another chick flick filled with OH COME ON! moments.

I finally relented and watched it. And I was partly right. There were moments when I was screaming OH COME ON! at the screen. It was almost enough to make me quit watching it. Almost.

There was no believable reason for Grace's reluctance to mail the letter. It was anonymous. It was a thank you note, written in the sincerest possible words. It is conceivable that it might have been hard to write, difficult to find the right wording. But once it was written any normal minded person would have dropped it in the mail box. Now some will argue that there were some womanly, inexplicable, incomprehensible emotions tying her up inside. And that's just my point. Chick Flick. OH COME ON!

The whole business of her reluctance to tell Bob about her heart surgery made no sense to me. Again, maybe it makes some sense in some womanly manner that no man can ever comprehend. Again - chick flick.

But the worst part of all was Bob running away. WAD! This was the worst part of the movie. The whole time we're lead to believe that he's Mr. Wonderful, Mr. Perfect, Mr. Knight in Shining Armor. And at the first moment of any realism he runs away with the old cliché' "I gotta go"? Give me one big f***ing break!

All of that was just contrived conflict pieces, totally implausible plot devices that exist for no purpose but to increase conflict in the story and to drag out the running time. I hate those. I knew they'd be there and I was right. It doesn't matter if it's a man directing or a woman, whether the writer was male or female, it's just pure lazy film making in my opinion. I get that conflict in a story is necessary. But to create conflict purely for its own sake is like being married to someone who starts fights just because she gets bored.

And I f***ing hated the way that Joe and Megan yelled at each other, yelled at the kids, cussed in front of the kids, and treated each other. There was some attempt to show that they really loved each other. But sh*t, who could handle being yelled at like that all the time. Megan is standing in the kitchen doing nothing but yells at Joe to change a diaper. He's sitting there holding the boy. But because he's drinking a beer he's made to look like a dead beat dad who never helps out around the house. That part drove me nuts.

The woman who played Sofie was really bad. I mean, like community theater bad.

Carroll O'Conner's Irish accent was about the worst I've ever heard.

Some of the editing was iffy. The scene when Bob breaks down crying on the floor, I felt, was cut away too quickly to the scene of grace in the garden. I felt it needed just a moment longer.

At times the music was perfect and at others it was distracting. The opening song was perfect and it would have been nice to close with that too. I'm sure budget constraints played some part in that.

However, all in all it was great story. It did have me in tears on more than one occasion. Duchovny and Driver have unmistakable chemistry and their respective talents make you wonder why we don't see more of them. The photography was great. The chemistry between the four old guys was also great.

The priest was an unnecessary addition that made no sense to me and added nothing to the story. It was never mentioned why he was no longer a priest. It was just dropped...until he pops up obnoxiously again at the end.

The Don Lake character (dude with the hair transplant) was also too much. It was necessary to show what Grace is subjected to with people trying to set her up. But it went on way too long.

The biggest injustice was Bonnie Hunt, who did a fine job of directing, and the film grossed more than its budget, is relegated to doing TV, like so many other women directors. If she were a man she'd be doing features.

Over all, if you like romance, if you like drama, comedy and tears, and if you're OK with chick flicks, then I highly recommend this film.

I find it sometimes hard to get into foreign films for the simple reasons of the language barrier and typically low production values. Pen-Ek Ratanaruang's thriller Headhshot is a rare exception. Though at times the photography was too dark to see clearly what was going on, on the whole I found this film to be easy enough to follow and engaging enough to keep me glued to the screen.

Tul (Nopachai Chaiyanam) is one of the last honest cops struggling with the frustration of being one man against an insurmountable war on drugs. After a major bust involving the brother of a highly placed politician Tul is offered a bribe to lose the evidence and drop the case.

After he turns down a cash offer he is set up. He meets Joy (Chanokporn Sayoungkul) in a parking garage and strikes up a relationship. Now, it might be mentioned here that this seemed a little suspicious to me from the start, since Joy is this smoking hot beauty and Tul is...well, not very handsome...at all. But who knows, maybe Thai chicks dig that sort.

Anyway, after the set-up and the subsequent fall out Tul goes ballistic. He is framed and sent to prison where he is visited by Mr. Demon, a man who offers him a chance to get out of prison if Tul will become their "Special Assassin".

There's no telling what the budget on this film was but I have to say this, whatever it was it was obviously sufficient because everything about this film was excellent. The two actresses in the film, Sayoungkul and Sirin Horwang, were not only incredibly beautiful, they were totally professional. There was no point where they weren't completely believable. How many American actresses can you say that about. In fact, everyone in the film was a fine actor. The script was tight and witty. There was enough action to keep it going without becoming mundane. And even in the action scenes I never got the sense of the all-too-obvious shakycam that plague so many wannabe American directors these days.

All in all it was an excellent movie.

In my book a 1 star is for the worst of the worst - like "The Room". This isn't quite that bad. But it's pretty bad.

The thing is, it could have been good. If it had made up its mind to either be a comedy or a drama. But trying to be both it fails miserably. There's no laugh...at all. Any attempt at comedy ranges from flat to annoying. If that isn't bad enough, they attempt to recycle the dumb jokes that didn't work the first time. There's an on going schtick about Frankie's cologne, Brut. Like anyone besides Joe Namath ever really wore that stuff. The joke never works. Not the first time. Not the third time.

Frankie has to get rid of a body. We don't know if the body is dead or just unconscious. Until the body farts...three separate times. "Frankie, did you say something?" Yeah, hilarious.

The saddest part of all this is that the director, Martyn Burke, wrote Top Secret, one of the funniest movies of all time. How he could miss so badly with this movie I'll never understand.

Now, if this had been written as a drama, with action scenes, a little love story, not too over the top, it might have worked. It could have been good. As long as Madeleine Stowe's character was maybe only slightly annoying instead of completely over the top. Why Frankie hasn't shot her yet I have no idea.

The writing is atrocious. Nothing makes any sense. Angelo thinks something might happen to him, but Frankie leaves him unprotected in the restaurant to go deal with a parking ticket. Jennifer lives in this enormous mansion that has no security system whatsoever. Bad guys and ex-husbands come and go at all hours of the night. She's "terrified" but goes out at night to the guest house to have a conversation about nothing.

It's not like Stallone and Stowe have no chemistry together, but it isn't allowed to develop because her character is so annoying. I'm 48 minutes into it hoping against hope that it will get better.