ForVirg
As others have noted, this is just a very poorly done sex-changed redo of Hitchcock's classic "Strangers On A Train." However, this remake is done without the finesse of Hitchcock's direction, great acting, and well-written screenplay of the original.Somehow the filmmakers and writers in this one managed to dumb down a brilliant premise and reduce interesting characters to predictable, one-dimensional caricatures. I cannot fathom why anyone involved would have wasted their time with this seriously bad film. I recommend viewers not toss their time into the waste basket with the them. Find anything else at all to watch.Better yet, go rent, stream, or find a TV showing of the masterful original. "Strangers On A Train" is never a waste of time.
edwagreen
A film where the plot is extremely contrived. Anyone see some similarity to the 1950's Hitchcock thriller, "Strangers on A Train?" Obviously, it's not the same thing but the believed to be chance meeting of 2 strangers on a vehicle leading to plotting for murder can't be totally overlooked.In this case, the meeting takes place on the bus. Of course, it turns out that this was not as innocent as it first appears. When one of the people just casts the meeting off as being made up by some kind of nut job, things begin to happen as our second person is victimized and almost drawn into this plot by a really sick woman.
boblipton
This Lifetime Movie Network movie is a blah sex-change variation of Alfred Hitchcock's classic STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, with psycho Allison Lange killing Brian Krause's psycho ex-wife to make things easier for his current wife, Brigid Brannagh -- the last an actress new to me, whom I like very much -- she could be a voice double for the late Suzanne Pleshette. The acting is decent, but by the time anything new showed up in the story, I had lost interest.There's little that's particularly wrong about this movie, but there is nothing in it that is actively engaging. Once you realize the model of the story, everything becomes very predictable except you wonder how they could have missed the things that made the original Hitchcock movie so good.The pacing is flat, the music is overwrought and the camera lighting is dark and broody, except for the scene where they are explaining to the little girl that mommy has been murdered: that shot is a very pretty one.In short, there is nothing in this sub-par time waster to attract anyone who has seen the Hitchcock original.
guil fisher
This almost tops the list as the worst film of the year. Story is just plain stupid. The acting is just as bad on every one's part, except the little girl and the father who managed to make a decent performance out of a trite and idiotic story line. The two leading ladies, won't mention their names as I'd sooner forget their work. One goes around looking like a vampire as the daughter who wants her daddy dead. The other goes around with this weird look on her face. She looks crazier than the crazy one. Backed by over the hill acting. And the guy playing the husband is just as bad. The acting on all parts is so bad, I laughed.Writing, directing not so good either. Wow, sure would like the money they spent in producing this loser. It might have backed a more worthy work of art. Too bad.
AD
