Q: I watch most movies that Nick Mancuso is in because, frankly, I love the guy, even though as he ages he is typically cast as the baddie (long-time fans should note that he is for some reason blond in this flick). It's a fairly familiar movie in terms of plot (but then most movies these days aren't exactly original), but Rick Roberts is appealing as the imperfect husband, Martha MacIsaac is equally appealing as the daughter, and Mitzi Kapture does a good job, if that was her goal, of being angry and sometimes pretty hard to like. Nick has still got it in terms of being able to demonstrate both charm and psychosis. However, too much of the plot takes place off-screen -- like motivation, prior behaviors, good times and bad times -- and things that seem apparent to the characters never quite make it to the audience (i.e., me). The final scene leaves everything to be desired in the "but what about..." category, and overall, I can't say that I cared much about any of the characters. That being said, it was what it was -- a reasonably entertaining way to spend the afternoon -- and I still like Nick.
A: positive
Q: ...And I never thought a movie deserved to be awarded a 1! But this one is honestly the worst movie I've ever watched. My wife picked it up because of the cast, but the storyline right since the DVD box seemed quite predictable. It is not a mystery, nor a juvenile-catching film. It does not include any sensuality, if that's what the title could remotely have suggest any of you. This is just a total no-no. Don't waste your time or money unless you feel like watching a bunch of youngsters in a as-grown-up kind of Gothic setting, where a killer is going after them. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth watching. Max Makowski makes the worst of Nick Stahl.
A: negative
Q: I'm stunned that the reviewers @ IMDb gave this TV film as a high a rating as they did. It's an innocuous, sweet, uncomplicated cliche' of a film that had two big names from the past in it (both of whom did a decent job), but this film reeks of the low budget work we can see any day of week on the lesser cable channels. I like a good romance as well as anyone, but as my wife and I were watching this--and before we saw the rating-we said, "There are people who are going to rate this film too highly simply because there's nothing in it to challenge their brains, their faith, their comfort level or their cultural preferences. It's possible to make a good film like that (and Away from Her is an example), but this was amateur hour. There are some quite good films rated much lower than this one. Truly, another in a long line of woefully inadequate holiday films. Watch The Family Stone. It's miles ahead of this schlock.
A: negative
Q: It's interesting that a novel with no plot has become the basis for two films. While The Heiress was a good, if not entirely accurate, adaptation, Washington Square is a heavy-handed and poorly acted, except for the part of Dr Sloper, film that could have been so much better.

The director's attempts at making 'beautiful' scenes were so obvious that I actually cringed. It has none of the understated and simple beauty that a movie with no plot can have, such as Onegin. I agree with other comments about Leigh's portrayal of Catherine as an idiot, instead of naive and shy; she made me despise her not feel for her.

Catherine's transition from childlike trusting to adult cynicism, the whole point of the story, was internalised, just as it was in the novel. But we don't have the benefit of a narrative voice to tell us that in a film! I think someone skipped adaptation class at filmschool.

I appreciate the director's attempts to make a moving and beautiful film out of a difficult text but it just didn't work.
A: negative