Stranger in My House (1999)

Powerful

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Beautiful, moving film.

The acting in this movie is really good.

Got into this flick, just as it was beginning, on an afternoon where I was home with a touch of flu - otherwise I'd have missed it. That probably would have been best.I noticed the presence of Lindsay Crouse and Jay Thomas - both very good performers - and thought this might be worth a look. It proved to be to some extent, but only because it is one of those stories so awful it fascinates.Zoe McLellan has little to recommend her talents, except for her Jayne Mansfield- or Loni Anderson-like bosom. Unfortunately, her acting prowess - at least here - makes Mansfield and Anderson seem to be Garbo or Davis by comparison.The young nut case's white rat, the owner's cat, the young nut case having the owner evicted and restrained in her own home, and a bunch of doophus's (including the young nut case) running around a bio hazard facility, and the absurd conclusion. I kept waiting for at least some scene or plot element to contain at least a modicum of realism, believability or being capable of evoking some empathy/sympathy -- but this proved to be in vain.

This movie was bad. The story was clumsy, it made no sense the way the main characters would behave from one scene to the next. The cast was good for the most part; Lindsay Crouse and Paige Moss were a believable mother/daughter. Zoe McLellan may have been hamstrung by the bad story or maybe she is a bad actress, I'm not sure. Jay Thomas is like Robert Horry scoring reliably for the LA Lakers, a talented veteran underused. The way that lighting and music is used to try and create tension brought me mirth instead. This film is horribly clichéd and very predictable. I cannot compare it with any movies without giving the whole movie away. After ten minutes the viewer will know already how things are going to end. I found this movie boring indeed. It is only watchable if you are a fan of the elusive Paige Moss, or of one of the other stars.

The movie was enjoyable to watch and Lindsay Crouse and Zoe McClellan did fine jobs with their roles. As the movie wore on though it seemed so much like "Pacific Heights" with McClellan as the female equivalent to Michael Keaton's character in "Heights".

This Lifetime style movie takes the middle aged divorcee victim who then finally fights back genre to new depths of cartoon-like absurdity.Here the 40 something stay-at-home ex-wife of a successful lawyer protagonist (daughter away at college) is starting a new life after her divorce, helped by a female college friend in opening a new dress shop as a sort of franchise expansion deal. She has even started up a friendship with her attractive, slightly younger perhaps, landscape architect / gardener (who's black). But then horror of middle-aged women's horrors, ANOTHER 20 something female she took on as a tenant to let a room to, starts 'taking over" her life.What this new younger woman threat really does is mildly flirt with the gardener, and offer him a glass of wine that * gasp * really belonged to the divorcee!! She runs up the utility bills by not turning down the thermostat!! And backed up the toilet! And leaves old food gone bad in the refrigerator! And hangs her pieces of (African) artwork in the living room!! And so on. Well she may have killed the cat as well. Yeah, ok, the extent to which this one does these things is bad enough, but its more than a little ridiculous, especially as it turns into a campaign. The character reality is that any tiny part of this would drive this particular prissy woman insane. (So why did she rent the room -- and to horror of horrors, a much younger woman?)Supposedly this increasingly arrogant (natch) younger woman has a mania for seizing control. And our brave 40 something must learn to fight back against this evil (and erotically hot looking, of course) 20 something. But there's this problem. Anytime the 20 something starts to maybe get into trouble she uses her POWER -- and just flirts or has sex with some guy, and escapes the consequences. (Well, there actually is something to that capability of good looking 20 somethings. It just isn't * generally * used in quite this sort of way.)The premise is moved along by the device of the 20 something conning the divorcee into formalizing their room rental deal with a written lease produced by her. Of course the 40 something doesn't know about these things, and the 20 something has had help. The lease actually gives the younger woman equal right to the whole house during the rental period, with utilities thrown in at the fixed price. Even though an eviction proceeding is soon pending, the 20 something soon gets a temporary restraining order against the older woman, supposedly because she has been threatening the 20 something. You know, the judge is sympathetic to all the woe-is-me of the sexy sweet young thing. Finally the 40 something's "heroic" battle back for THE HOUSE then begins. Woopie!!The only realistic or perceptive thing in this movie is how horrificly easy TRO's (or orders of protection) are for women to get on nothing more than her unsubstantiated say so -- although they are generally only this easy against men. They are sometimes just as unjustified and just as motivated to seize control of a home as it is here. Indeed, girlfriends who have moved in with their boyfriends can often get them evicted from their own homes or condos on the basis of no proof whatsoever, but only an unsubstantiated claim of threats, and sometimes without even hearing his side. Even when there is a hearing, it is routinely impossible to rebut claims of threats (to prove a negative), when the burden of proof is effectively on the accused, rather than the accuser. (This is one of the only areas of American law where that is true -- and it's a signal outrage of feminist overreaching, and the failure of any organized group to resist the steamroller.) Of course that's not likely to be the subject of any Lifetime movie in this lifetime.The absurd basic premise of this movie relies upon the explanation that the 20 something is psychotic, and isn't taking her medicine. Even so it makes no sense. She isn't after the successful lawyer ex-husband, though she does con his help (to the ex wife's fury) in her quest. She's after THE HOUSE (technically, to drive the divorcee out of it during the period of the lease). This second younger woman is after ALL THAT'S LEFT after the divorce, after affairs with other 20 somethings STOLE her husband!! (The ex-husband seems unattached and basically solicitous after his fling -- doesn't matter, he still strayed!!!)The protagonist is good enough looking for her age. But her outlook, attitude and focus is so small minded, frumpy and utterly without imagination or life force that it's impossible to care about her. Well, a core group of Lifetime fans care, I guess, judging by the average score the small number of raters gave it. (I kept watching it only because it was so extremely bad and cartoonish that it had a camp appeal. I couldn't resist seeing just how far they'd take it.)** Spoiler ** (if such a thing is possible with this flick). Well, here's a clue. The movie ends with the 20 something getting bailed out of jail by promising to "listen to" her 20 something male co-worker and sometimes lover, and "do whatever he says" and "let him take care of her" (he means get her to keep taking her medicine) -- and then tricking him and returning to THE HOUSE. There she climbs the stairs with a knife, demonicly stalking her nemesis 40 something, who is taking a bath by candlelight, secure in the thought that the younger woman is out of her life. There's a struggle -- and the 40 something mom wins -- by sticking the 20 something with a hypodermic needle full of anti-psychotic medicine she had found. She then begins stroking her, mom like, and the two women have a bonding, female solidarity moment!!! How sweet.