Strictly average movie

Did you people see the same film I saw?

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

In this sequel to the mediocre original, another teenage girl and young boy get adopted by a creepy couple after their parents pass away. At first, their new life seems idyllic, but as in the first film, things aren't always as they seem, and there are a few skeletons busting to come out of the closet.Okay, for a start the main problem here is there is not a sympathetic character in the film. Mom is a psycho, Dad is a doormat, Abby (the girl) is a total biatch and the young lad has so few scenes we barely know what to think of him. Also, from the beginning it's pretty obvious that everything about this place spells *CREEPY* and yet, it takes Abby more than an hour of the movie to bother doing anything about it. That's after her foster mother purposely leaves broken glass in the sink for her to cut herself with, drugs her with tranquilisers so she spends days at a time in her room and forbids her to leave the house or speak to anyone on the phone. Even when her brother falls MYSTERIOUSLY ILL with 'food poisoning' and crazy mom won't take him to the hospital, she still doesn't twig. Fortunately, there's a convenient bedroom full of evidence of her past crimes and... Oh, wait, I'm getting ahead of myself here. If you're going to watch it, I suppose you want to discover the 'surprises' all by yourself. Lucky you.The acting all round ranges from average to deplorable (especially in the later sections when things get REALLY over the top), there isn't an unpredictable plot twist in the script and most of the occurrences happened in the original, anyway. So why not do yourself a favour, see The Glass House again instead? Save yourself a rental fee. Or better yet, why not just dump both movies and go watch something classic from that Master Of Suspense himself, Sir Alfred Hitchcock? I recommend North By Northwest or The Birds. No, they weren't made this century, but I tell you what.. they beat ten shades of poo out of today's so-called thrillers. Exhibit A: this film. Life is short, after all.. 3/10

this movie has nothing to do with the first one.the actors and the characters are different.it starts out promising but quickly sputters.i could only watch it for about 35 minutes.i just found it way too slow and boring.Angie Harmon make for a compelling villain,except we are only given glimpses into her character.i know i hadn't watched it very long,but i just expected something more.i felt no tension or suspense and to be honest,i really didn't care about what happened.to me,it was just that uninteresting and not compelling.maybe sometime in the future i will attempt to watch the whole movie.in which case this review may or may not change,but as it stands,i give Glass House:The Good Mother a 2/10,based on Angie Harmon.

When a sequel is direct to video and ups the ante to a 'R' rating, shouldn't the audience hope for a more salacious and violent viewing experience? Unfortunately, with the perpetually stern and severe, though gorgeous, Angie Harmon starring, those hopes are laid to rest. Whereas the original was proud of its B-roots and had an excellent slimy, perverted performance from Stellan Skaarsgaard...this film actually wants the audience to take the plot of a grieiving mother gone overprotective gone crazy, seriously. The original had a PG-13 rating, and yet delighted in ingénue Leelee Sobieski's nubile, well-developed frame while providing its audience with delightful action and a propulsive narrative. In this poor sequel, we get a whiny prudish protagonist, very little violence, and stultefyingly lame tension. The original was set in that amazingly austere cold house, made of actual glass. "The Glass House 2: the Good Mother" instead employs its characters in an adobe-styled Spanish château, which leads me to the poor choice of cinematography. The allegiance to using a gold-hued tint to add Latina flair to the visuals was poor decision-making especially considering the milquetoast energies enemating from the acting crew. (There are white people still in Cali, y'know.) I like Joel Gretsch, but when Jason London has more inner force than any of the other talent, "Houston, we may have a problem."

I had a feeling I may not enjoy this film because a lot of straight to DVD sequels are bad.I think I would have enjoyed this movie more if the name "Glass house" was not associated with it.This movie should have only been called "the good mother".It was not a sequel to the first one at all,and had nothing at all to do with a glass house and was like watching a made for TV movie.It had no plot and the story was rushed.The deleted scenes were almost better.They were good and explained more of the story so i don't understand why they were deleted to begin with. Just like the beginning of the story being rushed,the ending sucked as well.It never explained what becomes of the girl and her brother after their rotten experience with the foster parents.Also there was a back story mentioned near the beginning of the movie that was never mentioned or addressed again. The whole movie was very unrealistic and I am angry it was called Glass house 2.I really liked the 1st one because it had a plot,the characters were believable,it had a nice thunderstorm and atmosphere, and it had an acceptable ending.Even if this bad sequel had a small budget,again it should never have been associated with the 1st one period!