opieandy-1 The movie dragged without creating enough suspense. I don't mind slow- paced movies if there's a point. Hitchcock, for example, was genius at this. In this one, it felt like there has wasn't enough script or plot points, so they slowed it down. That's what happens when you ask a B-list cast to fill in the gaps. I like Roddy McDowell, but after all, he's just a poor man's Vincent Price. And Mary Steenburgen is very average. I did like the storyline enough to give it a 6. However, it had the potential to be much better.My scale: 1-5 decreasing degrees of "terrible", with 5 being "mediocre"6- OK. Generally held my interest OR had reasonable cast and/or cinematography, might watch it again 7 - Good. My default rating for a movie I liked enough to watch again, but didn't rise to the upper echelons 8- Very Good. Would watch again and recommend to others 9- Outstanding. Would watch over and over; top 10% of my ratings10 - A Classic (6 of 430 movies have received this)

nexus-37 I didn't know what to except, reviews didn't give a clue what I'm going to watch.Well first of all, big minus for the beginning, somewhere in 10 minutes or so you get the idea of whole movie. Don't get me wrong, this was very interesting and very well acted and all, nicely put together, and the ending was little twist that saved a lot.Few parts doesn't make any sense in the movie but that didn't bother me. It was lovely to watch the whole movie with huge interest for the ending.Truly worth of watch if you can handle thrillers and 80's style doesn't bother you.And for the last words, this was pretty original for a thriller.. legendary maybe. Now I got lost in nostalgic, enjoy!

easy_eight Awful says it all. I switched to another channel when the police came and did not take Mary S. with them to the police station and did not try to verify her story.And if she had called 911, they would have been able to trace the call.The movie is ridiculous. Another failed attempt by Hollywood to present a credible storyline.If you think about most movie plots and break them down, they just do not make sense. Pure entertainment and fantasy. I like to be challenged mentally when I watch a movie and more often than not the challenge is to figure out why plot is ridiculous. But many people simply go to movies because they have nothing better or more interesting to do and let the movie makers do their thinking for them. It surely is still a good excuse to sit and eat a big container of popcorn and a Diet Coke with your significant other and friends even if the movie is awful.When you think about moviegoers as educated consumers, you can see why most of what comes out of studios today is garbage. On the other hand, there are enough rare exceptions to keep our interest. This is one of the throw-aways.However, Mary does do a nice job of acting. Her mistake is not throwing the script back at the filmmaker and asking for a rewrite. On the other hand, she probably had fun making the movie and got a big paycheck. But it surely was a waster of talent and money.Also, another reviewer mentioned that the Director took over from a neophyte who got fired. It does seem like a half-hearted attempt by the Director to clean up a pretty awful mess. Of course, he got paid for it, so the only ones who suffered are the investors and the viewers. I had the good sense to switch channels. Fortunately, I did not pay to see this trash in a theater.

ccthemovieman-1 "Routine" is the best word to describe this thriller about a woman trapped in an English house. But, overall, it entertains which is why I still give it a "7."Mary Steenburgen yells and runs up and down stairs a lot. Yes, there are plenty of holes in the story and scenes where you say to yourself "Why are you doing this?" or "Why don't you do the sensible thing and do ---(whatever)?" It can be a tad frustrating as our Damsel In Distress, "Katie," can't seem to figure things out for a long time.No matter, I enjoy looking at young Steenburgen's face. She has always fascinated me; that face and soft voice. Roddy McDowell and Jan Rubes co-star as "Mr. Murray" and "Dr. Lewis," respectively, the men who imprison her, and there is a weirdo named "Eveyln," but this is Steenburgen's movie.There is a nice twist at the end, a clever way our heroine discovers to escape her lunatic kidnapper. It changes the film from being somewhat dumb to somewhat intelligent. I won't say how but it's not spoiling things to say she wins out in the end. That's always the case in films like this.They say this is a re-make of the 1945 film, "My Name Is Julie Ross," but I've never seen that. Does anyone remember Samanatha Egger in a similar trapped-in-the-English house-movie in 1965 called "The Collector?"