A DAUGHTER'S DECEPTION
(TV Movie 2019)
BASIC PLOT: Laura Parker (Jade Harlow) has always felt something was missing from her life. At 17, she was forced by her parents, to give up her daughter for adoption. That was eighteen years ago, and Laura hasn't spoken to her parents since. She has a new family now, a loving husband Michael (Rusty Joiner), and a teenage daughter Skylar (Brianna Gage. Her current happiness can't erase the memory of what was stolen from her, and her thoughts are often on the daughter she lost. But then a miracle happens, Laura's long lost daughter shows up on her doorstep. Is this the reunion she's been waiting for, or is something more sinister going on?
WHAT WORKS: *The basic plot is above average, for a made-for-tv melodrama. It had real potential, but instead falls into nonsensical plot devices, and circular logic problems.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *TWO BLUE EYED PEOPLE CAN'T HAVE A BROWN EYED DAUGHTER Brianna Gage, who plays Skylar Parker, is clearly NOT related to either of the people playing her parents, in fact, she couldn't be. Both "parents" have blue eyes, and could NOT have a brown eyed child. Also, her skin tone is about 3 shades darker than either of her "parents". This has nothing to do with her acting, but her appearance DOES NOT fit the role she is playing. When she is in scenes with her "parents," the differences are so noticable, it's laughable.
*BULLYING SCENE DOESN'T WORK FOR GIRLS The bullying scene is RIDICULOUS! Girls don't tend to bully in a pack, in a physical way. When they do bully, they are more verbally hurtful, not instantaneously physically violent. Arguments between girls, build to violent altercations, they don't immediately jump to it. The dialog is wrong for girls as well. The whole scene would be fine for teenage male behavior, not female behavior. I also don't find Bree/Jessica's reaction to her "sister's" assault, shocking. She's not out of control, she doesn't seriously injure Chloe, and it's a sad fact that sometimes the only way to thwart a bully, is to take them down in front of their crew. These types of negative behaviors flourish, because teenagers have a closed society. In other words, it's also not believable Chloe (Katelyn Dunkin) would run to her parents for help with this situation. Adam Rockoff, the writer, should have reworked this entire scene.
*UNHAPPY FATHER OF SCHOOLMATE DOESN'T WORK AS PLOT DEVICE I assume having Chloe's father come to the house to discuss the altercation, is a plot device for Skyler's parents finding out about it. If you're going to do it this way, Chloe's father would need to be a bigger jackass. The only way this scene works, is if Chloe had bruises from "Bree's" assault, her father browbeat the truth from her, and then transfered that rage to Skylar's parents. Since none of that happens, all you're left with, is a man standing in their living room, relating the story. Why is he here? What's his motivation for going to their house? What's he hope to accomplish by being there? He's not angry, so it doesn't work. He literally says, "I'll show myself out," WHY DID HE GO TO THEIR HOUSE? Adam Rockoff, the writer, has good ideas, but we've all gotten lazy in this day and age. Mediocrity is not something that should be strived for, we should never be satisfied with, just good enough.
*MICHAEL PARKER'S DISTRUST IS LAUGHABLE Michael Parker's (Rusty Joiner) reluctance to have his daughter, Skylar (Brianna Gage) spend time with Jessica/"Bree" (nm5885052Kennedy Tucker) is laughable. WHY?! Characters NEED motivations for their behaviors! Jessica/"Bree" hasn't given Michael ANY reason to not trust her yet. Let's put this another way, if Skylar made a new friend at school, who then offered her a ride home, or just wanted to hang out, would his behavior be this overzealous? His daughter is seventeen, and a good kid, WHY is he reacting this way? Skylar will be going to college in less than a year. Why is he treating her like she's seven, and going on a play date? He tells his friend, Tom Caldwell (Dan Gauthier) "it's just too convenient, she just shows up, out of the blue." What does that even mean? Most adopted kids wait until they're 18, to find their birth parents. That appears to be what is happening here, so why does he find that strange? Please don't give me "gut instinct". Men rarely listen to their intuition, so that's a laughable excuse for poor writing.
*WHY DOES LAURA PARKER FAVOR "BREE" OVER HER OWN FAMILY? For a family that's supposed to be so great, they sure don't talk, or trust each other! In the same way Michael's distrust of "Bree" is without motivation, Laura's over attachment, at the expense of her family, also doesn't work. Any mother's inclination, would be to protect Skylar, the daughter she's raised, and lives with. Guilt or love might explain wanting to get to know "Bree", but she wouldn't sacrifice her other daughter in the process.
*WHY DOES SUDDEN=BAD!? Both Michael and Skylar say "Bree" showing up "out of the blue," and "all of the sudden," is BAD. WHY? What was she supposed to do, sneak in? How does sudden =suspicious? Wouldn't it be a shock, no matter how she did it? And no matter how, be it a phone call, email, or just showing up, wouldn't it still be sudden?
*THE CHARACTER OF GARETH COMES ACROSS AS A USELESS AFTERTHOUGHT Why do we need the character Gareth Drury (Max Gray Wilbur)? If it's just to showcase Jessica's brutality, I think that's already been established. Is it just for filler? That's not reason enough to add a character. He's established as Michael's friend, but then doesn't tell him his family's in danger, why?
*STOP USING BAD POLICE AS A PLOT DEVICE! A detective would never pry open someone's shed, right in front of them, with NO warrant, and NO probable cause. This behavior would open them up to lawsuits and reprimands. Even if the police found something in the shed, they couldn't use it, because they HAD NO WARRANT. I'M SO SICK OF SEEING BAD/STUPID POLICE AS A PLOT DEVICE! Try something new, because this type of police intimidation/harassment, doesn't work on upper middle class, white people, whose lawyer is SITTING TEN FEET AWAY!
*IN THESE DAYS, OF OVER SHARING ON THE INTERNET, THIS PLOT LINE DOESN'T WORK How did Jessica think she'd get away with this? How did she think she'd hide her family from her new "mom" and "sister"? Didn't she think someone would look them up? They are found with a basic web search, why didn't she think this would happen?
*WHY DOES SKYLAR RUN FROM BREE'S FAMILY? Skylar has been told Jessica is unstable, and has spent time in a mental institution. When she discovers Jessica has perpetrated a dangerous hoax, wouldn't she seek help from Jessica's parents and sister, especially since she's sitting at the table with them? Why does she run out of their house, without telling them what's going on? Don't they deserve to know what's happening, with their disturbed daughter?
*NO PSYCHIATRIST WOULD EVER FEED INTO A DANGEROUSLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUALS DELUSION In the group therapy session, at the end of the movie, the psychiatrist calls Jessica by her hoax name, after she ignores his calls by her real name. This would never happen. No psychiatrist would ever feed into someone's dangerous psychopathy this way. It's asinine.
*BAD LIGHTING/CINEMATOGRAPHY Some of the scene set-ups are awkward. There are several profile shots, where the actors faces are turned away from the camera. It's distracting, and confusing, since the viewer can't read the actors expressions. I'm not sure if these problems are directorial, in which case Devon Downs and Kenny Gagewould be at fault. Or if these bad decisions are the cinematographer's (Theo Angell) fault, either way, someone should have caught it along the way. The lighting is also terrible throughout the movie, EVERYTHING is too dark, and hard to see (I added the pictures to the scroll, and I had to lighten almost everyone of them).
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *This is not a terrible made-for-tv movie. Adam Rockoff, the writer, has good ideas, which he poorly executes. With a bit of tweaking, this could have been a good made-for-tv movie, but instead, it's just mediocre, with lots of character flaws, and unbelievable plot devices. I love melodramas, but the exaggerated motivations still need to be somewhat believable. There's nothing believable here, it's just a jumble of ideas, never coming together to form anything. I'd recommend a successful outing from Adam Rockoff instead, A Neighbor's Deception (2017). It's one of my all time favorite made-for-tv melodramas.
CLOSING NOTES: *This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.
BASIC PLOT: Laura Parker (Jade Harlow) has always felt something was missing from her life. At 17, she was forced by her parents, to give up her daughter for adoption. That was eighteen years ago, and Laura hasn't spoken to her parents since. She has a new family now, a loving husband Michael (Rusty Joiner), and a teenage daughter Skylar (Brianna Gage. Her current happiness can't erase the memory of what was stolen from her, and her thoughts are often on the daughter she lost. But then a miracle happens, Laura's long lost daughter shows up on her doorstep. Is this the reunion she's been waiting for, or is something more sinister going on?
WHAT WORKS: *The basic plot is above average, for a made-for-tv melodrama. It had real potential, but instead falls into nonsensical plot devices, and circular logic problems.
WHAT DOESN'T WORK: *TWO BLUE EYED PEOPLE CAN'T HAVE A BROWN EYED DAUGHTER Brianna Gage, who plays Skylar Parker, is clearly NOT related to either of the people playing her parents, in fact, she couldn't be. Both "parents" have blue eyes, and could NOT have a brown eyed child. Also, her skin tone is about 3 shades darker than either of her "parents". This has nothing to do with her acting, but her appearance DOES NOT fit the role she is playing. When she is in scenes with her "parents," the differences are so noticable, it's laughable.
*BULLYING SCENE DOESN'T WORK FOR GIRLS The bullying scene is RIDICULOUS! Girls don't tend to bully in a pack, in a physical way. When they do bully, they are more verbally hurtful, not instantaneously physically violent. Arguments between girls, build to violent altercations, they don't immediately jump to it. The dialog is wrong for girls as well. The whole scene would be fine for teenage male behavior, not female behavior. I also don't find Bree/Jessica's reaction to her "sister's" assault, shocking. She's not out of control, she doesn't seriously injure Chloe, and it's a sad fact that sometimes the only way to thwart a bully, is to take them down in front of their crew. These types of negative behaviors flourish, because teenagers have a closed society. In other words, it's also not believable Chloe (Katelyn Dunkin) would run to her parents for help with this situation. Adam Rockoff, the writer, should have reworked this entire scene.
*UNHAPPY FATHER OF SCHOOLMATE DOESN'T WORK AS PLOT DEVICE I assume having Chloe's father come to the house to discuss the altercation, is a plot device for Skyler's parents finding out about it. If you're going to do it this way, Chloe's father would need to be a bigger jackass. The only way this scene works, is if Chloe had bruises from "Bree's" assault, her father browbeat the truth from her, and then transfered that rage to Skylar's parents. Since none of that happens, all you're left with, is a man standing in their living room, relating the story. Why is he here? What's his motivation for going to their house? What's he hope to accomplish by being there? He's not angry, so it doesn't work. He literally says, "I'll show myself out," WHY DID HE GO TO THEIR HOUSE? Adam Rockoff, the writer, has good ideas, but we've all gotten lazy in this day and age. Mediocrity is not something that should be strived for, we should never be satisfied with, just good enough.
*MICHAEL PARKER'S DISTRUST IS LAUGHABLE Michael Parker's (Rusty Joiner) reluctance to have his daughter, Skylar (Brianna Gage) spend time with Jessica/"Bree" (nm5885052Kennedy Tucker) is laughable. WHY?! Characters NEED motivations for their behaviors! Jessica/"Bree" hasn't given Michael ANY reason to not trust her yet. Let's put this another way, if Skylar made a new friend at school, who then offered her a ride home, or just wanted to hang out, would his behavior be this overzealous? His daughter is seventeen, and a good kid, WHY is he reacting this way? Skylar will be going to college in less than a year. Why is he treating her like she's seven, and going on a play date? He tells his friend, Tom Caldwell (Dan Gauthier) "it's just too convenient, she just shows up, out of the blue." What does that even mean? Most adopted kids wait until they're 18, to find their birth parents. That appears to be what is happening here, so why does he find that strange? Please don't give me "gut instinct". Men rarely listen to their intuition, so that's a laughable excuse for poor writing.
*WHY DOES LAURA PARKER FAVOR "BREE" OVER HER OWN FAMILY? For a family that's supposed to be so great, they sure don't talk, or trust each other! In the same way Michael's distrust of "Bree" is without motivation, Laura's over attachment, at the expense of her family, also doesn't work. Any mother's inclination, would be to protect Skylar, the daughter she's raised, and lives with. Guilt or love might explain wanting to get to know "Bree", but she wouldn't sacrifice her other daughter in the process.
*WHY DOES SUDDEN=BAD!? Both Michael and Skylar say "Bree" showing up "out of the blue," and "all of the sudden," is BAD. WHY? What was she supposed to do, sneak in? How does sudden =suspicious? Wouldn't it be a shock, no matter how she did it? And no matter how, be it a phone call, email, or just showing up, wouldn't it still be sudden?
*THE CHARACTER OF GARETH COMES ACROSS AS A USELESS AFTERTHOUGHT Why do we need the character Gareth Drury (Max Gray Wilbur)? If it's just to showcase Jessica's brutality, I think that's already been established. Is it just for filler? That's not reason enough to add a character. He's established as Michael's friend, but then doesn't tell him his family's in danger, why?
*STOP USING BAD POLICE AS A PLOT DEVICE! A detective would never pry open someone's shed, right in front of them, with NO warrant, and NO probable cause. This behavior would open them up to lawsuits and reprimands. Even if the police found something in the shed, they couldn't use it, because they HAD NO WARRANT. I'M SO SICK OF SEEING BAD/STUPID POLICE AS A PLOT DEVICE! Try something new, because this type of police intimidation/harassment, doesn't work on upper middle class, white people, whose lawyer is SITTING TEN FEET AWAY!
*IN THESE DAYS, OF OVER SHARING ON THE INTERNET, THIS PLOT LINE DOESN'T WORK How did Jessica think she'd get away with this? How did she think she'd hide her family from her new "mom" and "sister"? Didn't she think someone would look them up? They are found with a basic web search, why didn't she think this would happen?
*WHY DOES SKYLAR RUN FROM BREE'S FAMILY? Skylar has been told Jessica is unstable, and has spent time in a mental institution. When she discovers Jessica has perpetrated a dangerous hoax, wouldn't she seek help from Jessica's parents and sister, especially since she's sitting at the table with them? Why does she run out of their house, without telling them what's going on? Don't they deserve to know what's happening, with their disturbed daughter?
*NO PSYCHIATRIST WOULD EVER FEED INTO A DANGEROUSLY DISTURBED INDIVIDUALS DELUSION In the group therapy session, at the end of the movie, the psychiatrist calls Jessica by her hoax name, after she ignores his calls by her real name. This would never happen. No psychiatrist would ever feed into someone's dangerous psychopathy this way. It's asinine.
*BAD LIGHTING/CINEMATOGRAPHY Some of the scene set-ups are awkward. There are several profile shots, where the actors faces are turned away from the camera. It's distracting, and confusing, since the viewer can't read the actors expressions. I'm not sure if these problems are directorial, in which case Devon Downs and Kenny Gagewould be at fault. Or if these bad decisions are the cinematographer's (Theo Angell) fault, either way, someone should have caught it along the way. The lighting is also terrible throughout the movie, EVERYTHING is too dark, and hard to see (I added the pictures to the scroll, and I had to lighten almost everyone of them).
TO RECOMMEND, OR NOT TO RECOMMEND, THAT IS THE QUESTION: *This is not a terrible made-for-tv movie. Adam Rockoff, the writer, has good ideas, which he poorly executes. With a bit of tweaking, this could have been a good made-for-tv movie, but instead, it's just mediocre, with lots of character flaws, and unbelievable plot devices. I love melodramas, but the exaggerated motivations still need to be somewhat believable. There's nothing believable here, it's just a jumble of ideas, never coming together to form anything. I'd recommend a successful outing from Adam Rockoff instead, A Neighbor's Deception (2017). It's one of my all time favorite made-for-tv melodramas.
CLOSING NOTES: *This is a made-for-tv movie, please keep that in mind before you watch\rate it. TV movies have a much lower budget, and so your expectations should be adjusted.
*I have no connection to the film, or production in ANY way. This was NOT written in ANY way by a bot. I am just an honest viewer, who wishes for more straight forward reviews, and better entertainment. Hope I helped you out.