They (1993)

Wonderful character development!

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Great Film overall

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

While there were a few little things in this film that I think could have been improved or further explained (the ghostly owl girl for instance why?), I don't think this one was bad for a TV story. So it looks a little older, so what? It's not overloaded with digital modernity but instead relies on eerie imagery and a classic nostalgia look to it. I wouldn't call it "scary" per-say, but the way that it becomes one giant metaphor for grief and loss was interesting and creative. I think this film deserves a much better rep than what it has. It's not amazing or anything, but it's still worth having a look at.

God, this is bad. Excruciatingly so. A vapid ghost story about a bereaved father who visits a medium in an effort to get back in touch with his ghostly daughter who was killed in a car wreck, it's as maudlin and mawkish as it sounds, descending into sheer sentimentality long before the end and becoming vomit-inducing with it.The film has an ultra-cheap look to it which is no surprise given it's a TV movie from the 1990s (the cameras they shot with back then look awful to modern viewers). Everything about it is dated, from the clothes to the characters, even more so than various movies from the 1980s or even 1970s. The script is strictly cringe-worthy and the attempts to deal with the afterlife are just laughable, like the bit with all the costumed kids playing in the garden.Another surprise is just how bad the cast are. Patrick Bergin had made a pretty good villain in SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY, but his acting is stilted and wooden in the extreme. In some scenes he's still acting like a psycho rather than a grieving father which I'm sure wasn't the effect they wanted. What Vanessa Redgrave is doing here is anyone's guess, but it proves that every actor has one or two skeletons in his/her closet. Everyone else is equally terrible, particularly those obnoxious child actors.

I picked this out of a dollar bin at a movie liquidator store with low expectations. Good thing. It's not a horrible movie, but it really is only t.v. fare. The story is one of a man who loses his daughter in an accident, and feels that after her death he needs to make up for ignoring her while she was still alive. Various clues lead him to an old woman who somehow helps him reconnect with his dead daughter.Oh, and some kid is dressed like an owl for reasons unknown.The main actor was pretty bad, it seemed like he was trying to cover an accent, but let it slip occasionally, making him sound quite...unusual. Ms. Redgrave was the only saving grace in the film.I'd give it 2 stars out of five.

This movie had potential but sadly it ended up being a bore most of the time. It really couldn't decide what type of movie it was. The video case sad Thriller, but it was more of a family drama with a touch of thriller. Vanessa Redgrave was excellent. I've seen her do better, but she was still good. A whole movie could have been made about her character. The actress that played the Mom was also good. Sadly, though, the main actor was terrible. He kept on ruining lines. He had his good moments, but sadly the bad ones keep playing in my mind. The little girl who played the youngest daughter was also terrible. Who cast her? The two scenes that are keepers are when Vanessa describes her life and why the children have come and the final scene between the father and Nikki. I have a system going with IMDb ratings. 10=4, 9=4, 8=3 1/2, 7=3, 6=2 1/2, 5=2, 4=1 1/2, 3=1, 2= 1/2 and 1=bomb. On that note, this film got 2 1/2 stars.