Great Film overall

Awesome Movie

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

The plot is so stupid. The acting from the lead actress was not bad. Her performance was only the good thing about this bad & lazy writing lifetime movie. I don't recommend this at tall. The twist was predictable and numb. 1/10

This is certainly written by someone with no knowledge of policing, FBI and detective work when it comes to missing persons cases, abductions and murder. It makes the mom, FBI and police look utterly daft.Two school girls were abducted at knife point. The movie doesn't show you what the unsub (unknown subject) did with the girls right after he abducted them. In fact, it doesn't even show you how he abducted the girl in the shower. Did he kill her there? No one saw him carry the girls into his car? The things that happened in the house should have been shown in the movie. These are all important parts of the movie in my opinion. The movie doesn't focus on the victims' experiences at all. Instead they show you stupid scenes of her talking to her dead father, sister and friend. Unrealistic-parts: The mom just leaves to go and get groceries after the daughter just randomly asks her to cook something, knowing the police told her to stay with the daughter. No mother in her right mind would leave her daughter alone at home, knowing a deranged lunatic may be after her. It was also so obvious that the daughter's request for a special dish was part of a ploy to get her mom out of the house. No mother would be that daft to not suspect that her daughter was up to something. This part of the movie was just plain dumb.The ending was utterly absurd, like a high school student who knows nothing about how the police catch serial killers wrote this. The person who wrote this needs to watch some crime shows. They find out who went shopping for some questionable supplies (although they never tell you what those were) and right off the bat, they assume it is the son and he acted alone.The odds of their being only one assailant involved in the abduction of two high school girls, at the same, are already pretty low -- most work in pairs (e.g., Paul Bernardo and Karla Hamolka) -- the odds of a high school boy pulling that off on his own are less than .05%.The first thing the police would be trying to rule out was whether the father and son were working together; they would have at least suspected the father had knowledge and tried to rule that out before they would RELEASE him. Both the father and son would have been in police custody. There is no way they would be so daft. He would have been arrested too, not just the son, and put in a holding cell until police finished running forensics and questioning both of them.They certainly would have checked the knife for finger prints before deciding the son was guilty of murder. The father could be framing his son for the crime because he is still under the age of 18 and would not receive capital punishment nor a life sentence. This does happen and kids too cover for their parents. Police would be working on ruling this out before locking the son up for murder.The police and FBI would NEVER have showed up to his house without a search warrant. If the father declined to permit them to search the house, he would have had enough time to discard valuable evidence needed by the police. The police had enough to get a search warrant, which guaranteed that they would have entry into the home.After finding the knife and car with blood in the trunk, they would have arrested both of them because real police would suspect the father was involved or at least knew about the crime. The father would have been the first they would interrogate because he could give up the son.If they suspected the son, they would have questioned the father to death before they began to question the son. Everything they had was circumstantial evidence at best. A few shopping receipts; the blood in the trunk of that car, which could have come from a deer or other animal. They didn't even know whether the knife they found was in fact the one used in the murder. NON-SENSE. If police could arrest people that easily for murder, O. J. Simpson would not be a free man right now. The movie makes the high school girl appear more intelligent than the adults in the film (FBI, police, her mom) when she's the most daft. She chases after a car and breaks into a house with no mobile phone or weapons to defend herself, nearly getting herself killed and getting her friend killed, who could have been rescued, if this girl were smarter. She thinks she's like superwoman in her little cheerleader uniform.She decides to visit her friends memorial without her boy friend, just cancelling on him so callously while he's waiting for her at the bleachers. She also lies to the mom. She knows a lunatic is after her and she wants to be his bate. The boy friend is waiting for her, and worst of all, she cancels on him via text. The 15 year old who wrote this only put that part in, so that she would be chasing the kidnapper alone by car and subsequently breaking into his house on her own. A smart person would never go to a suspects home alone EVER, with no phone, without telling anyone where she is, without even a knife as a weapon, and MOST especially not in a little cheerleader uniform which was like her asking to get raped first, then, killed.

Here's the set-up… Startlingly full-figured 13-year-old Samantha Boscarino (as Ellie Davis) thinks she is cursed. A van full of partying cheerleaders apparently crashes. Next, a young man appears to expire at a party. Finally, another young man enters Ms. Boscarino's house and shoots half her family. The last shot occurs off camera. That could be a suicide, or an unseen family cat. The important part of what you saw in the opening minutes was the murder of Boscarino's father and sister. The other stuff is part of the curse. Three years later, Boscarino is a sweet 16-year-old high school student. Her cheerleader friends mysteriously disappear and it seems like the curse has returned to frighten Boscarino and quite possibly take her life...The words "Inspired by True Events" introduce this TV movie...It does not seem possible that a real "curse" was at work here and the story offers no evidence. Now and then, a dead character seemingly offers support. Possibly, the curse and its connection to a ghost or imaginary character were clearer in writer Matt Young's original story. Director David Jackson, with Eric Potter's editing, moves "The Cheerleader Murders" around by artfully positioning characters into scenes with surprise and relating events with quick inter-cutting. There is very little to warrant this attention, however. Boscarino is very attractive. Her boyfriend Austin Lyon (as Nicholas "Nic" Ryder) is stable (until his final scene). Devin Crittenden (as Ben Forester) is sufficiently creepy, but you may be better off watching the eyeliner.**** The Cheerleader Murders (4/9/16) David Jackson ~ Samantha Boscarino, Austin Lyon, Tessie Santiago, Devin Crittenden

A father framing his own son for murder and then having the latter commit suicide? A girl losing her father and sister to a deranged boyfriend of the latter and then to fall into a situation where she leaves the house with friends just in time, as the two are subsequently kidnapped and ultimately murdered? All this may be a little too much to comprehend, but it is done well and you wonder throughout this film who the guilty party really is.The tragic young man hints earlier of a curse. Then we have an element of Peyton Place here with the married chemistry teacher having a fling with the coach, who seems to be a suspect at first.O well, remember when school was for education. Not so much so anymore as these films now often depict.