Invaderbank
The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.
Humbersi
The first must-see film of the year.
Yazmin
Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.
wingedheartart
With Lifetime and Hallmark movies there seems to be a trend. The mother is passive and has one or two children that talk to her horribly and she puts up with it. Why can't a mom just say, "I know you are you are pi--ed off that I have spent time blah-blah, but you know what? You are almost grown and acting like a spoiled brat isn't helping anyone."Trust me, real moms have periods of time when their kids are being rude, where we are blunt and open with a situation/feelings. Showing moms in movies like this, is frustrating and makes the moms in the movies unrealistically ignorant and like doormats. Another thing, there is technology now, that is IMPORTANT to use to verify a sibling/son. Hello, DNA test. Stupid not to have a test done, with the tests protected, not left on a freaking counter. "I trust this is my son." Please. And, trusting a total stranger, alone with your younger kid is RIDICULOUS. Would you do that with a person you met on the internet? If so, you are RIDICULOUS too. So, am ready for these channels to grow up and get more real. Yes that is expecting a lot from fluff movies. I watched because I love Virginia Madsen and she isn't in as many movies as she should be. As for the typical move-on dad with a younger, pregnant wife....gag. The angry, bitter daughter? Grow up. The poor younger kid with a manipulative new brother? Sounds familiar. So, watch with a grain of salt, a big one.
insomniac_rod
Well, the premise is very interesting and makes you think about many possibilities regarding the "lost boy" character.To be honest with you, I only watched it for morbid curiosity; I mean, I expected the "lost boy" to terrorize the family in unlike ways, not in the likes of "Saw", but, situations like in "The Hand that Rocks the Craddle" (1992). However, the situations are very lame and soon you lose empathy towards the main character.The script is very weak and never fully explains the origin of the lost boy or who really "took him" when he was an infant. Virginia Madsen is fantastic as always and her portrayal of a mother that cannot cope with the lose of a son but keeps the hope for many years is perfect. Watch it only if it airs at 2:00 a.m.
edwagreen
The beginning of the film shows promise with a woman counseling parents whose children are missing despite the fact that her own son has been gone for ten years.The story is dysfunctional in the fact that she has divorced her husband and she gets along beautifully with the woman he is about to marry who is carrying his child. The children live with the father and that is never explained.The movie begins to take a nosedive with the sudden arrival of the missing son. The mother doesn't want to question him regarding where he has been all these years.When you think that the boy is playing a fast one and is not really their son, we then see his rather bizarre and increasingly violent behavior and we are left to wonder what is going on here.Interesting plot but there are unanswered questions and material hard to fathom.
loueymc
This movie is a watchable storyline and it does leave you wondering the whole time if he is or is not their Son, the cast all play good parts. Matthew Fahey plays his part quite well, he's basically a very damaged young man, due to years of abuse at the hands of people who took/raised him...is desperate to fit in with a good family, which is exactly what you would expect from a boy who had been taken, had years of abuse thrown his way and then finally see's a family which could be his. The Mother pretty much reacts the way you'd expect (considering she never gave up hope) she's just extremely happy to finally have her Son back, which is what blind sights her, but again, understandable. The Father warms to his Son a little more easily than I expected (I thought he'd at least be sceptical) considering in previous scenes he shows disinterest in keeping up hope or with the search for him. Carly Pope's character shows a more sensible approach to the initial situation (but given that she's not a parent to the boy, it'll be easier for her to think more logically) by suggesting a DNA test and providing the boy with much needed therapy-which for some reason does not happen!! Why?? He shows signs early on of needing this and even if he didn't, it would still be a responsible thing to do. Abused children DO NOT just slip right in to a normal happy family situation as easily as they seemed to attempt it. Finally, the ending....is what kills it, why wouldn't you open that letter??! Yes, he showed many signs of abusive behavior and dangerous...but wouldn't you still WANT to know if he was your Son, any normal real parent would not be able to keep themselves from at least knowing for sure. Fair enough, if you see the result as not a match for DNA, walk away, but if he was their Son, after years of waiting for him to come back, you could not just walk away....you'd want to get him help/therapy! So, as watchable storyline as I found it, it only gets a 6/10 from me, purely because of that ending
