I'll start by saying that the only reason I watched this is because I have been on a Sheryl Lee kick lately; tent pole, she's a babe! If you're a fan of her, go ahead and watch this, it's worth it. Sheryl Lee, I salute you! Schwing! Anyway! This is not a good movie. There's a good story in there, but the director couldn't make it work. Good actors, bad casting. If I had to give an example, I'd say Frank Whaley. To the man's credit, he really had the toughest role, but I just didn't buy him as a homicidal narcissist. Really, the deadly flaw here is the way the story is told: there are several time jumps that make this play like a true-crime, made-for-tv movie - i.e., the movie keeps jumping to the present to fill in details by way of oral biography. I get the sense that this has been done before, but I can't think of an example because it was likely done so well that it doesn't stick out. Another big problem is balancing which pieces of the story to focus on: who is this about, Archie (Whaley) or Lucy (Sheryl)? The reality is that it could be told either way. Could it have focused on Archie the entire time, and still given us enough of Lucy, and her mother, to make us care? I think so. Would I have rather seen more of a mystery/drama where we get Lucy, and her mother, then a third-act rug pull where Archie just loses his mind? Yup. There's still enough here to enjoy. If you are super into true-crime type dramas, give it a watch.
Review by BronsonBlockedParent2024-03-06T03:27:45Z
I'll start by saying that the only reason I watched this is because I have been on a Sheryl Lee kick lately; tent pole, she's a babe! If you're a fan of her, go ahead and watch this, it's worth it. Sheryl Lee, I salute you! Schwing!
Anyway!
This is not a good movie. There's a good story in there, but the director couldn't make it work.
Good actors, bad casting. If I had to give an example, I'd say Frank Whaley. To the man's credit, he really had the toughest role, but I just didn't buy him as a homicidal narcissist.
Really, the deadly flaw here is the way the story is told: there are several time jumps that make this play like a true-crime, made-for-tv movie - i.e., the movie keeps jumping to the present to fill in details by way of oral biography. I get the sense that this has been done before, but I can't think of an example because it was likely done so well that it doesn't stick out.
Another big problem is balancing which pieces of the story to focus on: who is this about, Archie (Whaley) or Lucy (Sheryl)? The reality is that it could be told either way. Could it have focused on Archie the entire time, and still given us enough of Lucy, and her mother, to make us care? I think so. Would I have rather seen more of a mystery/drama where we get Lucy, and her mother, then a third-act rug pull where Archie just loses his mind? Yup.
There's still enough here to enjoy. If you are super into true-crime type dramas, give it a watch.