BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

BreanneB This movie was total cheese. It stank. The only thing good about it was the acting. Other then that, nothing noteworthy at all.Big Time Spoilers Coming up! Don't Read Anymore If You Have Not Seen It!This movie is centered around a family whose happy and wonderful lives have been shattered as a result of their younger son and later as they find out older son have been molested by their daycare providers. Although, they are called liars in court and the defense attorney is a real prick the jury finds them guilty and convicts them.In the end all I can say to the director is: "The next time you wanna make a movie like this, do it differently".

Ankhoryt Ugh. Yes, it's exactly like the McMartin mess, or the horrific arrests in Wenatchee, Washington. In the movie, the mother keeps aggressively questioning her little boy, over and over and over, until he finally tells her what she obviously wants to hear. The court investigators and "therapists" repeat the pattern. The questioning itself is sexually creepy, a relentlessy repeated assault in its own way.The moviemakers throw in a doctor talking about physical evidence of abuse, maybe to justify the film's point of view: that two- to four-year-olds never make "things like this" up. Well, they will if every adult they know is asking them to. The way this piece endorses such discredited interrogation techniques makes watching it an exercise in frustration for anyone who knows what it takes to get a successful prosecution in real life. (They also add a special arrest incident towards the end to "prove" their case -- no parallel to this fictional incident ever occurred in real life. Can't say more here without turning this into a spoiler, but you'll know it when you see it.)Yes, children are abused, sometimes by paid care providers. But to watch a movie which affirms the ludicrous, hysterical accusations against so many totally innocent people, to watch re-creations of the trials that ruined the lives of countless children as well as the lives of the accused -- I didn't think I'd last until the end. It's just too sad, and made more so by the writing team's seeming endorsement of the abusive, paranoid, obsessional questioning techniques that started -- what can we call it? The bonfire of the sanities? No one I know has ever been accused of child abuse, thank heaven, but my 12-times-over-great grandmother was accused of witchcraft and killed for it. Mobs filled with what they think is holy anger are just as dangerous now as three hundred years ago. Sensational drivel like this -- "These accusations of Satanic abuse are cropping up all over the country, there must be something there!" "So tell the jury that!" -- just eggs them on. And whoever thought it was a good idea to have kids under ten, some of them under five, play these roles? It's traumatic to watch them delivering their lines; how much more traumatic was it to act these parts? The moviemakers' commitment to fight child abuse apparently doesn't apply to themselves. And what were the child-actors' parents THINKING? "Melinda" (uncredited, at least in the version on the A&E Network in 2005, but I think it was Cassy Friel) and "Teddy" (Brian Bonsall) were terrific. Professionals or not, though, they were too young to be exposed to this material, much less to be paid to act it out. Despite ruthlessly exploiting these real-life children, "Do You Know The Muffin Man" got an Emmy nomination for directing -- which just goes to show how crazed things were, back in 1989.

plaid ideals This movie was terrible. It was so very terrible.Most annoying was the way the trial was conducted. The defense attorney is allowed to ramble on and on when questioning a witness without the prosecution making any objections. He attacks the children brought to give testimony with cruel ferociousness and repeatedly yells at them that they're lying. These just aren't things that they subject children who have been sexually abused to. The trial is silly and it ruins the whole movie...(Law & Order has spoiled me for courtroom accuracy-ness).

suessis I have to confess that this film scared the pants off of me. This was mostly from the stand point that things can go on in our world like this, and we don't even see them.Whether or not this is based on the McMartin trial is immaterial. The point is that abuse occurs in this world, and the sad reality is that it can be performed by the kindly grandmother who lives next door as well as anyone. To shrug that off by saying it was produced to assure that a famous court case was not judged fairly is to deny the horror that some people go though on a daily basis. Whether that be by systematic or organized abuse in our preschools or the drunken father or mother in the child's home, it happens.While the adult performances in and the direction of this film are not exactly top-notch, I had to hand it to the kids (Brian Bonsall and Stephen Dorff). They did a fantastic job.