Tag Archives: review

Late Night Retro Television Review: Pacific Blue 4.6 “Silver Dollar”

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Welcome to Late Night Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past! On Tuesdays, I will be reviewing Pacific Blue, a cop show that aired from 1996 to 2000 on the USA Network!  It’s currently streaming everywhere, though I’m watching it on Tubi.

This week, gamblers are causing trouble on campus! It’s time to send in an undercover bike cop!

Episode 4.6 “Silver Dollar”

(Dir by Scott Lautanen, originally aired on August 30th, 1998)

At the local college, a bookie is trying to fix games and having his henchwoman beat up the students and the teachers who owe him money. The funny thing about the bookie’s enforcer is that she wears all black and a translucent top and she is constantly kicking people in the face but no one ever seems to notice her. I mean, I can still remember how, during the fourth season of The Wire, Wee-Bey Bice got angry at his son Namond for having a different haircut from all the other members of his crew. Wee-Bey said that you never want to give the police an easy way to spot you in a lineup and that really does make sense. I get the feeling that Pacific Blue might not be as realistic as The Wire was.

Anyway, this is yet another episode where a bike cop goes undercover. This time, recovering gambler Russ is sent undercover to take down the bookies and he’s given $500 of the department’s money to play with. This seems like a terrible idea. Cory eventually figures out that it’s a terrible idea and she spends the entire episode randomly showing up and yelling at Russ about his attitude. Eventually, Cory gets so mad that she beats Russ up. “That was so badass!” Russ says and it was kind of. That said, I do have to wonder about the fact that all of the members of Pacific Blue really do seem to hate each other. They’re always getting into fights or yelling at each other. It takes a lot of charisma to pull off the whole “renegade who does things his way” schtick and, as a character, Russ really doesn’t have it. Unfortunately, Cory doesn’t really have the charisma to pull off the “boss who demands results” thing eitehr.

My point is that this was a boring episode, Russ is a boring character. His roommate, Jamie, is even more boring. The whole subplot about Russ having a lucky silver dollar felt idiotic. For all the time that was spent on Russ trying not to blow his cover, it’s debatable whether or not his police work really had that much to do with taking down the bad guys. Instead, Cory just showed up and beat everyone up. That’s one way to get results. And it actually makes a lot more sense than assigning a bike cop to work undercover.

Why are bike cops going undercover? Aren’t they just supposed to be handing out tickets? On a good day, it appears that there are only seven members of the bike patrol so can they really afford for one of them to go a week without riding his bike? Seriously, is this any way to keep Los Angeles safe?

None of this would happen if Spencer Pratt was mayor.

Retro Television Review: Saved By The Bell: The New Class 2.5 “Squash It”

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past!  On Tuesdays, I will be reviewing Saved By The Bell: The New Class, which ran on NBC from 1993 to 2o00.  The show is currently on Prime.

Hey, it’s time for yet another school carnival!

Episode 2.5 “Squash It”

(Dir by Don Barnhart, originally aired on September 25th, 1994)

Because no one at this school actually has to go to class or anything, it’s time for the annual Bayside carnival!  Who will win the prize for best booth?

Will it be Tommy and Lindsay’s kissing booth?  Neither Tommy nor Lindsay are happy about the idea of either one of them kissing anyone else.  So why did they agree to a kissing booth in the first place?

Will it be Rachel and Brian’s dunk tank?  When Belding comes down with a cold, Brian takes Belding’s place as the dunkee.  Everyone wants to dunk Brian because he’s spent a week deliberately insulting everyone.  However, Brian has rigged the tank so he won’t fall in the water.  “You forgot to release the safety!”  Belding says, not realizing that there’s a reason for that.  Uh-oh.  Soon, Brian is soaked and the audience is saying, “Woooo!”

Will it be Megan and Bobby’s mind-reading booth?  Let’s hope not because that’s really dumb.  Bobby also has to remove his mind-reading turban so he can fight a bully.  Fortunately, Screech has taught him karate!

I know this all sounds terrible but this is actually a pretty cute episode.  Instead of being Screech-centered, this episode actually allows every member of the cast to have at least one moment to shine.  (I hate to keep pointing this out but the season 2 cast has a far more appealing chemistry than the season 1 cast.)  Even Screech teaching Bobby karate is amusing.  There’s nothing subtle about Dustin Diamond’s performance but, for once, the broad humor actually works.  Add to that, Bobby learns how to fight but then he chooses not to.  Hey, that’s actually a good lesson, even if it is a bit anticlimatic.

We never learn who wins the Best Booth prize.  I would have given it to Brian and Rachel.  They’re a cute couple, even if they’re not technically dating.  (It also helps if you don’t think about the fact that there was a 8 year age-difference between the actors.)

All in all, this was a good episode.  I’m as shocked as anyone.

Late Night Retro Television Review: CHiPs 5.22 “A Threat of War”

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Welcome to Late Night Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past!  On Mondays, I will be reviewing CHiPs, which ran on NBC from 1977 to 1983.  The entire show is currently streaming on Prime!

This week, two opponents from the past return.

Episode 5.22 “A Threat of War”

(Dir by Leslie H. Martinson, originally aired on March 21st, 1982)

When Ponch and Baker try to break up a fight between a group of white kids and a group of Spanish kids, they discover that the white gang is being led by their old foe, Billy Rogers (Danny Bonaduce).  Billy still knows karate and his attitude has gotten even worse.

Suddenly, another old foe shows up.  Andy Macedon (Lewis Van Bergen) says that he’s no longer into the gang life and he’s trying to bring peace to the old neighborhood.  Ponch is skeptical so Andy challenges him to a karate match at the youth center.

Everyone tells Ponch that he shouldn’t show up for the fight but Ponch does show up.  Ponch back down from a fight?  No way.  There’s one thing that you can always count on when it comes to CHiPs in its fifth season.  Baker might still occasionally get to do something heroic but, for the most part, this is now The Ponch Show.  Baker gets to write tickets and occasionally tell people to slow down on the highway.  Ponch is the one who gets to sing, dance, flirt, skydive, and just about every other cool thing you could do in California in the 80s.  Needless to say, when the show needs someone to take part in a karate match, Ponch is the one who is going to be donning his black belt.

As for the match itself, Ponch and Andy fight each other to a draw and then they shake hands, showing that peace can be achieved.  It turns out that Andy was telling the truth!  He has reformed!  However, Billy Rogers is a lost cause.  Not even seeing Ponch and Andy clasping hands is enough to keep him from pursuing the gang life.  It would be a sad story if not for the fact that Billy is played by Danny Bonaduce.  Instead, it’s just kind of campy.

Considering that this episode revolved around karate, it should have been more exciting.  Instead, Estrada just smiled a lot and the episode end up neutering Andy Macedon, one of the best villains  that the show ever had.  The threat of war was not worth the cost.

Retro Television Review: Crime Story 1.6 “Abrams For The Defense”

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Welcome to Retro Television Reviews, a feature where we review some of our favorite and least favorite shows of the past!  On Mondays, I will be reviewing Crime Story, which ran on NBC from 1986 to 1988.  The entire show can be found on Tubi!

This week, David Abrams gets his time in the spotlight.

Episode 1.6 “Abrams For The Defense”

(Dir by Aaron Lipstadt, originally aired on October 14th, 1986)

In the slums of Chicago, Hector Lincoln (Ving Rhames) strikes his landlord, Sturkowski (Frederick Nuemann), after one of Hector’s children is bitten by one of the rats that roams freely through the apartment building.  Hector is arrested and facing time in prison.  Public defender David Abrams (Stephen Lang) defends Hector in court, claiming that conditions in the slums were so bad that Hector only struck Sturkowski in self-defense.  Helping David to make his case about the conditions in Sturkowski’s building is a crusader reporter named Suzanne Terry (Pam Grier).

This episode was all about showing us who David Abrams is.  David’s father was a mob lawyer but David has no interest in working with people like Ray Luca and Phil Bartoli.  Instead, he wants to defend the poor and the downtrodden.  Torello and Krychek happen to stop by the trail and they’re impressed with David’s passion.  Krychek is disgusted when Sturkowski says that Hector and his family don’t deserve to live a better life.  Who knew that two Chicago cops would be so liberal?

To celebrate Hector’s acquittal, a block party is held.  David is the guest of honor and, for reasons that aren’t really clear, he decides to invite Torello and Krychek to come celebrate with him.  Everyone at the block party is super excited that two cops are hanging out with them.  But then Sturkowski tries to evict the Lincolns and Hector strikes him again.  This time, he kills Sturkowski.  Torello and Krychek promptly arrest Hector as the episode comes to an end.

(And that is why you don’t invite cops to the block party.)

This episode was well-acted, if a bit heavy-handed.  (To a certain extent, it reminded me of those episodes of Miami Vice where Crockett would certainly start talking like an undergrad who had just read about Marx for the first time.)  It certainly allowed us to get to know more about David Abrams and Stephen Lang and Pam Grier had a good deal of chemistry as two people who appear to be poised on pursuing a relationship that was not all that common in 1963 Chicago.  The block party was where the episode kind of lost me, just because I found it hard to believe that Torello and Krychek would not only show up but be treated as the guests of honor despite the fact that most of the people at the party wouldn’t have the slightest idea who they were.  I can understand Abrams being welcomed because Abrams kept Hector out of prison.  But Torello and Krychek are just two random, middle-aged, white cops.

This episode established David Abrams as being a man caught between two different worlds, the law and lawless.  I can’t wait to see what the show does with him.

 

Lisa Marie’s Week In Television: 5/31/26 — 6/6/26

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Election Coverage

Several states voted on Tuesday.  Everyone was able to quickly count their votes …. except for California.  Poor Spencer Pratt.  I would have voted for him but it doesn’t look like he’s going to be the next mayor of Los Angeles.  With each new update, he’s falling behind and it looks like the whiny commie no one took seriously will be in the run-off instead.  It’s funny how this always happens in the state that takes over a month to count the votes.  That said, it could also be argued that the results coming out of Los Angeles are a reminder that getting attention online doesn’t necessarily translate into votes on the ground.  There’s a lesson there for us all.

The Facts of Life (Tubi)

I was having a panic attack on Wednesday night so I calmed myself down by watching random episodes of this slightly cringey 80s comedy.  I ended up getting the theme song stuck in my head.  If you hear them from your brother, better clear them with your mother….

The Hillside Strangler (HBOMax)

Yet another serial killer documentary.  Cousins Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo Buono killed a still undetermined number of women in Los Angeles in the 1970s.  Bianchi claimed that he had a second personality that was responsible for the murders.  Fortunately, the jury did not believe him and he is currently serving a life sentence.  Buono died in prison.  Good riddance.

Impact x Nightline (Hulu)

This week, I watched an episode about the heart-breaking Kristen Smart case.  Though Paul Flores has (after 20+ years) finally been convinced of murdering Smart, her body has yet to be recovered.  I cannot imagine the pain that Smart’s family has been put through.  This is actually a case that I’ve been following for a while, even before it became the subject of podcasts.  It’s not just that Paul Flores murdered Kristen.  It’s that he was so damn cocky about it.  He really thought he would get away with it.

Susan Smith: Sex Behind Bars (Reelz)

This short documentary about Susan Smith, a young mother who drowned her children and then tried to blame it on an imaginary black carjacker, and the sexual affairs that she had with two correctional officers in prison was exploitive and icky.  And yet, I watched it.  So, shame on me.

Trainwreck: Woodstock ’99 (Netflix)

I reviewed this documentary here!

Lifetime Film Review: Mama’s Little Murderer (dir by Andrew Parkes)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Well, this one is just strange.

Mama’s Little Murderer opens with twenty-something Anthony (Isaac Kragten) being abducted and taken, with a bag over his head, to a random wooded location.  Uh-oh, looks like Anthony is in trouble!  Suddenly, we flash back to Anthony getting suspended from college because of his fearsome tempter.  Then, a few weeks later, Anthony shows up at home where he is upset to discover that his mother, Constance (Sara Canning), is living with her boyfriend, Leo (Ian Kilburn).  Anthony is jealous and goes to extremes to try to break up Constance and Leo.

Because of the title, I assumed that this film would be about a mom discovering that her son is a murderer.  I also thought that the son would be much younger than he turned out to be.  You don’t really refer to a twenty-year old as being “mama’s little anything.”  Due to the title, I was expecting this to be a version of The Bad Seed.  Instead, it just became a film about a selfish and rather annoying college student who couldn’t accept the fact that his mom was moving on with her life.  Anthony went to extremes to try to break up Leo and his mom but, and please forgive the spoiler, he never murdered anyone.

While we’re watching Anthony act like a loser in the past, we’re also watching Constance and Leo trying to deal with him being kidnapped in the present.  Now, I will say that there was some suspense as to whether or not Anthony was in on the kidnapping. Or at least, there was initially.  But it soon became clear that, while Anthony was guilty of being a very bad son, he was not guilty of setting up his own kidnapping.  Indeed, the kidnapping had very little do with his efforts to break up his mother and Leo.

As I watched this movie, I found myself thinking about how much I hated The King of Staten Island.  That was the film that featured Pete Davidson as an annoying little jerk who got mad because his mother (Marisa Tomei) was dating a fireman (Bill Burr).  My main issue with that film was that everyone seemed to be way too forgiving of Davidson’s character.  The same thing happens here.  Anthony does some terrible things.  He doesn’t even tell his mom the truth about what happened at the college.  But, when all of his lies and his schemes are revealed, he just apologizes and everyone’s like, “Oh, okay, that’s cool.”  Whereas, in reality, they should have kicked him out of the house and had him committed somewhere.

(Needless to say, it’s never a good sign when a film makes you think about another film that you disliked.)

This was essentially two films in one. One film was about a mentally unstable son.  The other film was a standard kidnapping film.  Unfortunately, the two films didn’t really go together and neither one felt fully developed.  It’s a shame because Sara Canning was likable as Constance and you really did hope that she would find happiness with Leo.  It was hard not to feel that both Constance and Leo deserved better than having to deal with Anthony.  They should have let the kidnappers keep him.

Two From Richard Linklater: Blue Moon and Nouvelle Vague

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

As a Texan who loves movie, I have to say that 2025 will always be a special year for me.  2025 was the year that Richard Linklater, the godfather of modern Texas filmmaking, was responsible for directing two of the best films of the year.

Blue Moon opens with famed American lyricist Lorenz Hart (Ethan Hawke) collapsing in an alley and cursing under his breath as he dies.  The film then flashes back a few weeks to Hart arriving at Sardi’s and waiting for the crowd to arrive from the Broadway premiere of Oklahoma!  Hart is dismissive of Oklahoma!, largely because it’s the product of a collaboration between his former partner, Richard Rodgers (Andrew Scott) and Oscar Hammerstein II (Simon Delaney).  Hart dismisses it as being simplistic, a crowd pleaser with no depth.  But as Hart speaks, it’s easy to see that his disdain has more to do with his own hurt feelings than the actual show.

(That said, he’s still right about Oklahoma!)

Hart talks.  He talks a lot.  Perhaps the simplest way to describe Blue Moon would be to say that it’s a film about one man who won’t stop talking to the people around him.  Bobby Cannavale plays the friendly bartender who has obviously heard all of Hart’s stories before.  Patrick Kennedy (not the former Congressman) plays author E.B. White, who politely listens as Hart pours his heart out and takes note when Hart talks about a mouse named Stuart.  Margaret Qualley plays Elizabeth Weiland, a twenty year-old acting student who Hart feels might be the love of his life despite the fact it soon becomes obvious that Elizabeth is smitten with a student her own age and that she views Hart as being just a potential mentor.  Hart is the type who will talk nonstop, even if no one is actually listening.  The only time that Hart stop speaking is when he’s alone with Elizabeth.

Blue Moon largely plays out in real time.  It’s essentially a theatrical piece, with Ethan Hawke delivering what amounts to a monologue in which he portrays Lorenz Hart as being witty, self-destructive, and ultimately painfully lonely.  Everyone he talks to appreciates his talent but it’s obvious that they’ve had their fill of his addictions and his fragile ego.  Even when Hart is at his most vulnerable, it’s obvious that he’s burned too many bridges to ever make it back to where he once was.

Hawke gives a wonderful performance as Hart, playing him as being a natural performer.  Like all great actors, Hawke is willing to be annoying.  Hart can be witty but he can also be corrosive.  There’s a mean-streak behind some of his comments  But your heart still breaks for him when he begs Rodgers to collaborate on a new show or when he talks about the people from his past who loved him but “not in that way.”  The film definitely has a stagey feel to it but, as a director, Linklater has the confidence to allow his actors to truly dig into their characters.  The end result is a rather touching movie about a talented man who could not get out of his own way.

In 2025, Linklater also gave us Nouvelle Vague, a French-language film about the early days of the French New Wave.  Featuring gorgeous black-and-white cinematography, Nouvelle Vague follows Jean-Luc Godard (Guillaume Marbeck) as he directs Breathless and changes cinema forever.  Aubry Dullin plays Jean-Paul Belmondo while Zoey Deutch plays Jean Seberg.  Nouvelle Vague is a both a tribute to and an homage to the French New Wave.  It’s also a film about the joy of creation and the excitement of working on a film.  Nouvelle Vague may be about the shooting of Breathless but it’s also Linklater’s Day For Night.

It’s a fun movie to watch, especially if you know about the history of the French New Wave.  (This film helpfully includes title cards to let us know who is who.  Everyone from Roberto Rossellini to Francois Truffaut to Agnes Varda to Claude Chabrol and Jean Cocteau makes an appearance.)  If Blue Moon was about the tendency towards self-destruction that haunts so many artists, Nouvelle Vague is a celebration of creativity, cinematic revolution, and being young and idealistic enough to break all of the established rules without a second thought.  Linklater keeps the story moving and he directs with a clear eye for detail.  Zoey Deutch is perfect as Seberg, playing her as a Hollywood survivor who is alternately thrilled and annoyed with Godard’s unorthodox style of directing.

I have to admit that I did get a little bit sad as I watched the movie.  In real life, Seberg committed suicide in 1979 and Godard followed over forty years later.  While Godard and Seberg both made good films after Breathless, none of them were quite as transformative as their one collaboration.  No other director seemed to understand Seberg’s unique persona quite as well as Godard did.  Godard, meanwhile, fell into the trap of placing ideology before creativity.  At least Jean-Paul Belmondo seemed to go on to have a happy life.

Blue Moon received Oscar nominations for Ethan Hawke and its screenplay.  Nouvelle Vague was ignored by the Academy but Richard Linklater did become the first Texan to win the Cesar Award for Best Director and for that, I certainly applaud him.  Getting the French to honor someone from Texas?  That takes talent!

Blue Moon and Nouvelle Vague, two of the best films of 2025, can currently be found on Netflix.

 

 

Musical Documentary Review: Woodstock ’94 (dir by Bruce Gowers)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

Woodstock ’94 is the forgotten Woodstock.

Taking place in a field in Saugerties, New York, Woodstock ’94 opened on August 12 and it ended two days later.  Officially, it was held to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the original Woodstock and it was produced and promoted largely by the same people who were behind the original festival.  They were hoping to actually make some money this time but that plan failed when the fence surrounding the concert area was torn down by people who wanted to see the bands and hear the music without having to pay an exorbitant amount of money for tickets.  In all, 164,000 tickets were sold for Woodstock ’94 but it’s estimated that 350,000 attended.  To be honest, that sounds like a good example of the Woodstock spirit to me.  The people in charge of the festival disagreed, which is what led to the disaster that was Woodstock ’99.

Woodstock ’94 tends to be overlooked, precisely because it was neither the spontaneous celebration of the first Woodstock nor the epic trainwreck of the third Woodstock.  Instead, the second Woodstock was a largely peaceful festival that featured a good mix of older and, at the time, newer acts.  The original Woodstock featured open love and the third Woodstock featured random acts of arson.  The second Woodstock, on the other hand, featured a lot of rain.  Apparently, Green Day got pelted with mud.  Maybe a time traveler went back to 1994 and told everyone about American Idiot before the band started playing.  It makes sense if you think about it.

The first Woodstock lives forever as an epic documentary.  The third Woodstock has inspired at least two docuseries, both of which examine the festival with the grim weariness of a true crime recreation.  Earlier today, I discovered that the second Woodstock actually was filmed as well, though apparently Bruce Gowers’s Woodstock ’94 was never released in theaters and instead went straight to video.  It’s a sign of how forgotten Woodstock ’94 is that the film has never even been released on DVD or Blu-ray.  That said, after I learned of the film’s existence, I really did want to see it.  (I’m a completist at heart.)  I discovered that, fortunately, it’s been uploaded to YouTube.

From the start, Woodstock ’94 sets out to duplicate the style of the first Woodstock.  There’s plenty of split screens.  We open with people working hard to get the festival grounds ready.  There are interviews with concert goers.  There’s an interview with a guy selling food.  We get a few random announcements from the stage.  There’s a hint of nudity, though nowhere near as much as in the first film.  Probably the funniest moment in the documentary is when we see a sign telling us that a certain area has been reserved for those wanting to watch the concert nude.  During the first Woodstock, the nudity was spontaneous.  For the second one, it was prepared for.  The main thing that I noticed was how pleasant everyone seemed to be.  There was none of the anger that defined Woodstock ’99.  There was none of the bad brown acid that inspired so many warnings at the first Woodstock.  Instead, everyone appeared to be having a good time.  Even with Green Day getting pelted with mud, the Woodstock ’94 audience appeared to be rather mild-mannered.  Most of them seemed like they probably play golf now.

The majority of the documentary is devoted to the music.  We see tightly edited performances from, amongst others, Bob Dylan, Sheryl Crow, Aerosmith, Crosby Still Nash & Young, Nine Inch Nails, Metallica, The Cranberries, Green Day (though we don’t really get to see the incident with the mud, which is a shame), and Primus.  The festival had a good lineup.  Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young are a bit on the dull side but Primus more than makes up for it.  My only real complaint is that we only get to hear one song from each featured group.

Woodstock ’94 was surprisingly pleasant.  It’s too bad that, five years later, the whole idea of Woodstock fell apart.

Lifetime Film Review: Death At The Dinner Party (dir by Alain Desrochers)

Posted on by Lisa Marie Bowman

There’s been a Death At The Dinner Party!

This Lifetime film has a title that makes it sound like it should be one of those British murder mysteries, set in the 1920s and featuring a Scotland Yard inspector limping around a mansion while trying to figure out who killed the notorious ne’er-do-well, Freddy Gibbs.  (The Inspector would limp because of the wound he received while fighting in the Great War.)  Was it the maid?  Was it the groundskeeper?  Was it the flighty flapper or the grand dame with the mysterious past?  Or was the murderer the shadowy visitor from America, the one who is rumored to be connected to bootleggers in Toronto.  Fear not!  Stanley of the Yard is on the case!

Where was I?  Oh yeah, I was creating a different movie in my head.  Anyway, let’s talk about the movie that I actually watched….

Andrea Gibbs (Candice Lidstone) is visiting her son, Ethan (Cameron Brodeur).  Ethan is a somewhat nerdy college student who is rooming with a platonic female friend who he is obviously in love with.  Andrea can tell that Ethan has been friend zoned and sweetly asks his roommate to let him down gently.  Ethan’s roommate later ends up dead at a dinner party that is attended by Ethan and Andrea.  The dinner party’s host is a psychology professor, Alan Jackson (Mark Day).  Jackson posts his fascistic lectures online and he has a loyal following of all-male students.  Gee, can you guess who was actually behind the murder?

(Last summer, Erin and I watched several episodes of an old show that featured Jim Hutton as Ellery Queen.  We loved it whenever Hutton would suddenly look at the camera and say, “Well, I’ve figured this one out!  Have you!?”  I have to admit that usually, I had not.  Erin was much better at figuring out who the murderer was than I was.  But, in the case of this film, I think Ellery probably would have looked straight at the camera before the murder even happened.)

There’s nothing particularly subtle about Death At The Dinner Party.  The film’s portrayal of dangerous, right-wing college professors gives the whole thing a dated feel, as if it should have aired ten years earlier than it did.  The film could have just as easily have been called Murder On The Intellectual Dark Web or Death At Evergreen College.  Today, I imagine that members of the angry dishrag brigade are a more realistic danger than a fight club of psych majors.  But the lack of subtlety and even the dated premise give this film a certain charm.  It’s over-the-top and it embraces the melodrama, just as every Lifetime film should.

Though she only appears to be a few years older than the actor playing her son, Candice Lidstone does a good job playing the mother who is rightly concerned about what her child is learning in college.  Indeed, the mother-child relationship was this film’s secret weapon. When I was in college, I never would have had the courage to invite my mom to a dinner party with any of my professors.  Then again, at my college, dinner with a professor usually meant a lot more alcohol and definitely a lot more weed.  However, there was also significantly less murder so everything evened out in the end.