It's like a bookie tampering with odds at a horse race, like in "The Grifters". When you get this disproportionate splatter of 10/10 reviews that are almost identical, one or two lines and no analysis of why, this would seem symptomatic of synthetic voting to raise an average. Maybe an actors cousins and nieces and pals all chip in, whatever.
I like Paul Sorvino and was trying to see something different he was in and stumbled into this. It is sure not the worst movie I've seen, and maybe if they gave him more to do it would have gained a little more interest.
One tends to think a reader of something like this has already seen the flick, and wants to see if their opinion is corroborated, or is trying to make a decision. In either case, Iy has its redeeming qualities, but not too many, but stilll, interesting enough to keep me watching it .
The premise that goes sci-fi semi-horror, cores around latent and blatant middle class home security fears of robbery, invasion etc. Sorvino plays a salesman, (he's revealed to be more then that), who shows up unannounced at a prospect's home to sell them on the ultimate sci-fi like device. This device is marketed as the ultimate protection, but of course it has a malign special hidden corporate agenda.
In a way it is very similar in structure to "The Box" with Cameron Diaz, but far less surreal and disorganized as that periodically interesting mess.
Sorvino's good enough here, and always brings presence to his parts, but they should have given him more to do, and the other players fill out their mannequin roles predictably as it degenerates into a suspense non-thriller, a race to see if the increasingly twisted "bad daddy", and his crazed behavior, can be stopped.
It wraps with a mild twist ending that is self-conscious and predictable and my final impression was, when the new salesman knocks on a door, is "what a ludicrous looking hat he's wearing."
I suppose I think most any movie is worth a review, mainly good or mainly bad, because of the "mainly". There are things of interest scattered in here, and I wouldn't avoid it. But I can think of several movies where the main star's talents have been putto better use.
I like Paul Sorvino and was trying to see something different he was in and stumbled into this. It is sure not the worst movie I've seen, and maybe if they gave him more to do it would have gained a little more interest.
One tends to think a reader of something like this has already seen the flick, and wants to see if their opinion is corroborated, or is trying to make a decision. In either case, Iy has its redeeming qualities, but not too many, but stilll, interesting enough to keep me watching it .
The premise that goes sci-fi semi-horror, cores around latent and blatant middle class home security fears of robbery, invasion etc. Sorvino plays a salesman, (he's revealed to be more then that), who shows up unannounced at a prospect's home to sell them on the ultimate sci-fi like device. This device is marketed as the ultimate protection, but of course it has a malign special hidden corporate agenda.
In a way it is very similar in structure to "The Box" with Cameron Diaz, but far less surreal and disorganized as that periodically interesting mess.
Sorvino's good enough here, and always brings presence to his parts, but they should have given him more to do, and the other players fill out their mannequin roles predictably as it degenerates into a suspense non-thriller, a race to see if the increasingly twisted "bad daddy", and his crazed behavior, can be stopped.
It wraps with a mild twist ending that is self-conscious and predictable and my final impression was, when the new salesman knocks on a door, is "what a ludicrous looking hat he's wearing."
I suppose I think most any movie is worth a review, mainly good or mainly bad, because of the "mainly". There are things of interest scattered in here, and I wouldn't avoid it. But I can think of several movies where the main star's talents have been putto better use.