IN: Review: (WARNING: minor spoilers)

I ran into this one partway through and watched from there, not knowing what it was or what the plot was. It certainly held my attention; I didn't know until the ending that it was based on a true story! The guy she used to do the dirty deed came out looking like a seriously nice guy who just got his head twisted around by a devious girl; I have to question how true to life that portrayal is. Anyone who would murder a husband and wife as they slept just can't be entirely nice. Still, I did have some sympathy for him, as he had been set up and taken advantage of; that much was made clear.

My main complaint is with the ending (here comes the biggest spoiler! skip this paragraph if you don't want to learn it). A few minutes before it ended, there seemed no way for the truth to be discovered. The way it got discovered was in a "sting" operation, but my question is: how did the police get convinced to go along with it? The movie didn't show us that, and it seemed a bit too convenient absent the explanation of how they were persuaded to do it.

I think the way they handled that was done for dramatic purposes, as the omission of the explanation lent an aura of suspense to the crucial scene which otherwise wouldn't have been there (we would already have known what the scene was about, and what was going on with Brad in it).

Otherwise, this is a pretty good film; I give it 7/10. It made me think. Now I'm interested to find out the facts of the real case.

One more thing: the movie was done in 1996. Some of the reviews here seem to be treating it as a more recent movie.

P.S. Meadow Sisto is lovely. I hadn't seen her before. She can act a little, too (always a plus in her line of work, LOL).
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Merry madcaps in London stage a treasure hunt, with one young woman inadvertently fixing up her married politician father with a strong, independent lady-flier who's never been in love. Intriguing early vehicle for Katharine Hepburn, playing an Amelia Earhart-like aviatrix who's been too self-involved to give herself over to any man. The director (Dorothy Arzner) and the screenwriter (Zoe Akins, who adapted Gilbert Frankau's book) were obviously assigned to this project to get the female point of view, but why are all the old cliches kept intact like frozen artifacts? Billie Burke plays the type of simpering, weepy wife who takes to her bed when thing go wrong, and Hepburn's final scene is another bummer. A curious artifact, but not a classic for Kate-watchers. ** from ****
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I don't know what it is about this movie- director Sam Mraovich somehow messed up just about every little aspect in this movie. I would normally say that this is a movie that should not exist, but this movie may be the most important of all time. This movie should exist for the sole purpose of being without a doubt 'The Worst Movie Ever Made'. I've seen bad movies in my lifetime, but this somehow breaks what I considered bad into something much more hard to imagine.

Everything in this movie is hilarious, but the single funniest thing is that Mraovich himself considers this to be a great movie.

Oh wow...
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: While on a vacation at the beach, red-haired brothers Michael McGreevey and Billy Mumy (as Arthur and Petey Loomis) find a seal. The lads christen their critter "Sammy", and spend summertime frolicking with the sandy sea lion. When it's time to go home, the boys begin to suffer separation anxiety. Young Mr. McGreevey decides they can't take "Sammy" back to "Disneyland" er, "Gatesville" - but, young Mr. Mumy packs him anyway. At home, they try to hide "the Way-out Seal" from adults, and, of course hijacks ensue!

**** Sammy - The Way-out Seal, pt 1 (10/28/62) Norman Tokar ~ Michael McGreevey, Bill Mumy, Robert Culp
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative