We caught this on Lifetime last night. The movie wasn't terrible but it was anything to write home about, either! Engaged couple meets rich groom's family and friends and bad stuff starts happening! Audrey Landers could have done way better but I suppose a weak script really doesn't help! Other actors are pretty unknown. Skip it.
17 Reviews
Could have been better.
tomfsloan6 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This review contains spoilers: The plot didn't bother me too much. Because when you expect the worst, anything is better. Most of the actors were fine. But a few others...mm-mmmm. Particularly the mother and her daughter Ruby. There were lots of stupid little things, too many to mention.
Some goofs: during the fire, she couldn't escape out the window? Why were the names that were carved in the wooden post, as good as new 10 years later after the fire? They needed to use two cameras to film the scene on the boat. One cutaway was sunny, the other view cloudy. Again and again. The Mississippi River is muddy, brown, and murky. But in the underwater scenes it was clear. To top it off, the movie had a really lousy dramatic final scene.
The title is wrong too. It wasn't the "psycho" that the blonde was engaged to.
On the plus side, it was nice to see a different setting. The mansion in Louisville was a very pleasant change.
In laws!
phd_travel2 September 2019
A woman is swept off her feet and goes to her boyfriend's family home for the wedding. There she meets her future Mother in law played by the still beautiful Audrey Landers. And her future sister in law who was adopted and very close to her Brother. Something mysterious happened to his previous fiancé who burned to death. The story is promising for this kind of Lifetime thriller. It's not annoying but it's slow in the middle. Still want to see it to the end.
Terrible
carlosfilipeseco8 March 2020
Misleading title!
deedrala20 May 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I could barely give this stinker a 1 out of 10, but since there's no zero or minus/negative numbers then 1 it is.
Lifetime should be shut down until they grow up and get half a brain. The movies are getting worse and there's no excuse for blatantly misleading their viewers with titles like this that purposely mislead and imply the wrong content just to get more people to watch. The psycho in this shameless piece of crap was not either one of the engaged couple - it was someone close to one of them. But that wouldn't have been an enticing title to rope in viewers. Not cool and totally unacceptable.
They should have kept the original title 'Murder at the Mansion' since that's a true description of the content and not intentionally misleading like 'Engaged to a Psycho'.
But the movie was so bad It doesn't really matter. To begin with, I'm so tired of Jason-Shane Scott in these dumb LMN movies. He's SO unattractive (although he - and apparently Lifetime - thinks he's hot stuff) and untalented and blah. He cannot act his way out of a paper bag and he's not even good looking or well built to compensate for it. He's not even a talented writer, since he was one of the writers of this pathetic turkey. I cannot say enough bad about him - he has absolutely no redeeming qualities. I was beyond disgusted when he did the gratuitous shirtless muscle flexing on the boat as the women 'feasted their eyes' and oohed and aahed....give me a break!
Audrey Landers was so absurdly miscast as his mother that I literally winced every time she was onscreen.
The acting from most of the cast was abominable. The storyline was silly and predictable even though they tried to throw the audience off with the incorrect title. And I'm sorry to be seemingly preoccupied with looks, but I must say the lead actress - (the bride) - was unattractive too.
And how did the wood post in the carriage house with 'Karl n Nicole' carved on it survive the fire that killed Nicole who was locked inside? And why in the world would he leave her in there to go help his mom with dinner, instead of her going in the main house with him? What is she supposed to do there by herself in the barn/carriage house? Just stand there admiring the names in the post until he comes back? Oh, that's right - he had to leave her there and she stupidly stayed there by herself to make it easier to kill her off to start the contrived plotline that stayed hopelessly ridiculous throughout this travesty.
And why was Sienna killed off by the psycho? She was no threat whatsoever. Just more needless gratuitous pandering contrived garbage.
Stupid dumb inane movie that if I didn't know better, I would think was written by second graders. Lifetime, I know you can do better and stop pandering to the audience with the lying/misleading titles.
They should have kept the original title 'Murder at the Mansion' since that's a true description of the content and not intentionally misleading like 'Engaged to a Psycho'.
But the movie was so bad It doesn't really matter. To begin with, I'm so tired of Jason-Shane Scott in these dumb LMN movies. He's SO unattractive (although he - and apparently Lifetime - thinks he's hot stuff) and untalented and blah. He cannot act his way out of a paper bag and he's not even good looking or well built to compensate for it. He's not even a talented writer, since he was one of the writers of this pathetic turkey. I cannot say enough bad about him - he has absolutely no redeeming qualities. I was beyond disgusted when he did the gratuitous shirtless muscle flexing on the boat as the women 'feasted their eyes' and oohed and aahed....give me a break!
Audrey Landers was so absurdly miscast as his mother that I literally winced every time she was onscreen.
The acting from most of the cast was abominable. The storyline was silly and predictable even though they tried to throw the audience off with the incorrect title. And I'm sorry to be seemingly preoccupied with looks, but I must say the lead actress - (the bride) - was unattractive too.
And how did the wood post in the carriage house with 'Karl n Nicole' carved on it survive the fire that killed Nicole who was locked inside? And why in the world would he leave her in there to go help his mom with dinner, instead of her going in the main house with him? What is she supposed to do there by herself in the barn/carriage house? Just stand there admiring the names in the post until he comes back? Oh, that's right - he had to leave her there and she stupidly stayed there by herself to make it easier to kill her off to start the contrived plotline that stayed hopelessly ridiculous throughout this travesty.
And why was Sienna killed off by the psycho? She was no threat whatsoever. Just more needless gratuitous pandering contrived garbage.
Stupid dumb inane movie that if I didn't know better, I would think was written by second graders. Lifetime, I know you can do better and stop pandering to the audience with the lying/misleading titles.
Absolute Rubbish --> This Movie Was BELOW Sub-Par
Denny12318 June 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I usually enjoy a good Lifetime movie. They are usually entertaining and often have a good plot.
Everything about this movie was terrible. Where do I begin? The plot was nonsense, the dialogue was terrible and the story was awful. The story was infantile, the plot wasn't very clever and the characters were not believable. The script lacked any sort of originality and was very predictable.
There are movies that you can really get into and it reaches the point where the characters seem real and it is as if they are not acting. This is NOT one of those movies.
1. As soon as the female protagonist reveals her coconut allergy, it is clear that this is going to be used to advance the plot. When her Epipen is found in the rubbish, no one really questions it.
2. When the female protagonist goes out on the boat and mentions that she cannot swim, it is fairly evident what is going to happen. These conveniences get so boring.
3. The house is fitted with CCTV and yet, no one seems to know what is going on.
4. The chef gets murdered and everyone is quick to call it an accident and no one even mentions him again or seems to care.
5. Of course when the lead female and her friend use the sauna, they get stuck. That plot device has been used so many times. Couldn't the writer think up something slightly more unique? The stuck in the sauna scene was just so boring because the writer lacked imagination.
6. The movie just harps upon things until it gets dull. For example, the female protagonist keeps going on and on about her mother's wedding ring. The audience gets it. It is cemented into the audience's head until it becomes monotonous.
7. The acting is terrible. Just awful. It is as if one is watching a mediocre movie that some talentless film studies students put together in haste because they had been slacking all term and realised too late that there was a deadline.
8. The characters are just so one dimensional and not very interesting.
The movie was just painful to watch. It lacked depth. It lacked substance. It was not interesting at all. This was one of the worst Lifetime movies I have ever seen.
Everything about this movie was terrible. Where do I begin? The plot was nonsense, the dialogue was terrible and the story was awful. The story was infantile, the plot wasn't very clever and the characters were not believable. The script lacked any sort of originality and was very predictable.
There are movies that you can really get into and it reaches the point where the characters seem real and it is as if they are not acting. This is NOT one of those movies.
1. As soon as the female protagonist reveals her coconut allergy, it is clear that this is going to be used to advance the plot. When her Epipen is found in the rubbish, no one really questions it.
2. When the female protagonist goes out on the boat and mentions that she cannot swim, it is fairly evident what is going to happen. These conveniences get so boring.
3. The house is fitted with CCTV and yet, no one seems to know what is going on.
4. The chef gets murdered and everyone is quick to call it an accident and no one even mentions him again or seems to care.
5. Of course when the lead female and her friend use the sauna, they get stuck. That plot device has been used so many times. Couldn't the writer think up something slightly more unique? The stuck in the sauna scene was just so boring because the writer lacked imagination.
6. The movie just harps upon things until it gets dull. For example, the female protagonist keeps going on and on about her mother's wedding ring. The audience gets it. It is cemented into the audience's head until it becomes monotonous.
7. The acting is terrible. Just awful. It is as if one is watching a mediocre movie that some talentless film studies students put together in haste because they had been slacking all term and realised too late that there was a deadline.
8. The characters are just so one dimensional and not very interesting.
The movie was just painful to watch. It lacked depth. It lacked substance. It was not interesting at all. This was one of the worst Lifetime movies I have ever seen.
Rubbish
ruthgray-614174 August 2019
Well, it's good if you have nothing else to do
lmorgan-6250816 September 2020
Warning: Spoilers
It started out okay, but it just didn't click with me other than I wanted to know who the killer was at the end. Siena's murder wasn't addressed at the end. Too many things happened that would make anyone question why Deanna would still be there. Clearly someone was trying to hurt her. And 2 murders at the mansion didn't seem to clue anyone in that this was a bad place.
And the title. Why would it be called Engaged to a Psycho when her fiance wasn't the psycho. So I think Murder at the Mansion would be a much better title.
And the title. Why would it be called Engaged to a Psycho when her fiance wasn't the psycho. So I think Murder at the Mansion would be a much better title.
My Old Kentucky Home
lavatch14 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
When Karl Davers invites his fiancée Deanna to the Kentucky estate of his family, it appears as though the genteel company and lush grounds will be the perfect site for the wedding. But for Deanna, it turns out to be a detour through hell.
As if the presence of the domineering mother Ivy and the former girlfriend Sienna are not enough for Deanna to stomach, she has to deal with Karl's step-sister Ruby, whose character is defined by the Electra complex. Ruby is bonded to Karl in such an unhealthy way that it is surprising that the seemingly perceptive Karl has never been aware of her obsession.
A problem with "Engaged to a Psycho" (a.k.a., "Murder at the Mansion") was its predictability. There was never much of a mystery when cupcakes are laced with coconut oil are eaten by the deathly allergic Deanna and her epipens have mysteriously disappeared. Or, when the ring belonging to Deanna's mother suddenly vanishes from her nightstand. Or, when the railing on the boat gives way, and Deanna, who cannot swim, topples into the river. Or, when Sienna Moss is drowned in the river. Or, when the kind gardener Jimmy suffers a fatal heart attack.
Other victims of the past included the family patriarch Mr. Davers, who was reluctant to adopt Ruby. He paid the ultimate price, dying of alleged "accidental dehydration." The same was true for Karl's first fiancée, Nicole, who was burned alive in an another "accident" in the carriage house.
There was some good dialogue, especially Ruby's testimonial to her brother delivered at the pre-wedding get-together. After Ruby rose and delivered her speech, there was not a single jaw left in its correct anatomical place due to Deanna's icky remarks that conveyed nearly everything abhorrent about sisterly love.
But, in the end, the film was a formulaic and slow-paced vehicle set in a creepy mansion, where the genteel folk drop like flies courtesy of Ruby Davers. Ruby needed the wisdom of Deanna's mother, who reinforced in her daughter that "Things may seem tough, but you're tougher." By contrast, Ruby was weak, insecure, and narcissistic.
As if the presence of the domineering mother Ivy and the former girlfriend Sienna are not enough for Deanna to stomach, she has to deal with Karl's step-sister Ruby, whose character is defined by the Electra complex. Ruby is bonded to Karl in such an unhealthy way that it is surprising that the seemingly perceptive Karl has never been aware of her obsession.
A problem with "Engaged to a Psycho" (a.k.a., "Murder at the Mansion") was its predictability. There was never much of a mystery when cupcakes are laced with coconut oil are eaten by the deathly allergic Deanna and her epipens have mysteriously disappeared. Or, when the ring belonging to Deanna's mother suddenly vanishes from her nightstand. Or, when the railing on the boat gives way, and Deanna, who cannot swim, topples into the river. Or, when Sienna Moss is drowned in the river. Or, when the kind gardener Jimmy suffers a fatal heart attack.
Other victims of the past included the family patriarch Mr. Davers, who was reluctant to adopt Ruby. He paid the ultimate price, dying of alleged "accidental dehydration." The same was true for Karl's first fiancée, Nicole, who was burned alive in an another "accident" in the carriage house.
There was some good dialogue, especially Ruby's testimonial to her brother delivered at the pre-wedding get-together. After Ruby rose and delivered her speech, there was not a single jaw left in its correct anatomical place due to Deanna's icky remarks that conveyed nearly everything abhorrent about sisterly love.
But, in the end, the film was a formulaic and slow-paced vehicle set in a creepy mansion, where the genteel folk drop like flies courtesy of Ruby Davers. Ruby needed the wisdom of Deanna's mother, who reinforced in her daughter that "Things may seem tough, but you're tougher." By contrast, Ruby was weak, insecure, and narcissistic.
Just why?!?!
hnm-9218925 July 2021
So I get that LMN movies are meant to be very dramatic.... But they could have found someone else to play the adopted sister. She sounds like she is reading straight from her script.... Not to mention being super nasally.
This had potential.
CranberriAppl7 May 2021
Warning: Spoilers
So props to him for expanding beyond just acting (I remember him from soaps), but the title is completely misleading. I'd read the reviews and a couple of summaries before watching, so I knew who the villain was, but even with that information, I wouldn't say the movie ever made me think it was him. It was obviously not the mom, because why would the mom kill a teenager? And IF it were the mom, how would the ex-gf have escaped being terrorized to the point where she was still friendly with the family? Why would she want to be? She did mention that the mom liked her more when she wasn't dating Karl, but that doesn't justify why she'd want to be around the family much less helping with the wedding. The only one with constant motivation was XXXXXX.
And what weak motivation it was. When they do these incestuous villains (be it adopted or step), they never explain how it turned into romantic obsession. I feel like that's owed to the viewers. I also think that this movie had senseless deaths. It's so lazy for these thrillers to just kill people like they're trying to make a quota. Not to mention that whenever people die...no one cares! That is a running theme with these movies. High body count...yet no one cares or grieves. I thought it was in poor taste for the last two victims since everyone decided to "deal with them later," so not to interfere with the wedding. Completely tasteless and made me less sympathetic to everything going on. Literally nobody ever questions how in the WORLD three people ended up dead in just days.
A couple of a lame bits: whenever someone has allergies, you know it's only a matter of time. Not only that, but their epipens are always compromised. The one time in a movie that the allergy trope truly "worked" was the tragic scene in My Girl. Unless it's played for laughs, allergy scenes are cliche because an important (most of the time the lead) character is never really in danger. (this is why it worked to our shock and horror in My Girl). Another annoying part was Deanna not knowing how to swim. Why do people who can't swim get on boats, and then wear no life jackets?
I'm really tired of villains not getting what due them. This particular villain killed five people and attempted to kill more.
And what weak motivation it was. When they do these incestuous villains (be it adopted or step), they never explain how it turned into romantic obsession. I feel like that's owed to the viewers. I also think that this movie had senseless deaths. It's so lazy for these thrillers to just kill people like they're trying to make a quota. Not to mention that whenever people die...no one cares! That is a running theme with these movies. High body count...yet no one cares or grieves. I thought it was in poor taste for the last two victims since everyone decided to "deal with them later," so not to interfere with the wedding. Completely tasteless and made me less sympathetic to everything going on. Literally nobody ever questions how in the WORLD three people ended up dead in just days.
A couple of a lame bits: whenever someone has allergies, you know it's only a matter of time. Not only that, but their epipens are always compromised. The one time in a movie that the allergy trope truly "worked" was the tragic scene in My Girl. Unless it's played for laughs, allergy scenes are cliche because an important (most of the time the lead) character is never really in danger. (this is why it worked to our shock and horror in My Girl). Another annoying part was Deanna not knowing how to swim. Why do people who can't swim get on boats, and then wear no life jackets?
I'm really tired of villains not getting what due them. This particular villain killed five people and attempted to kill more.
You will not believe it, but this guy Karl
aocsincher19 October 2020
Is as big a d il do as you will ever see.
Even though his fiance is a stunner in her own right, she is also a 90's waif and if you are into that then ok...but this guy is surrounded by ex-girlfiends, A SMOKING HOTTTT "sister" and even a mi lf mother, that have resulted in ER visits to alleviate massive bo ners days after viewing this film.
High Camp. Ivy is my KWEEN.
LifetimeUncorkedPodcast16 May 2020
Lindsay Hartley, & Jason-Shane Scott are a great writing team. The movies they write always nail the Lifetime vibe.
Acting was so over the top. I'm pretty sure Ivy (Audrey Landers) is a drag queen. When she rang a bell instead of calling 911, I died. Pour it up!
🔪🔪🔪🔪 (4 Knives) 🍷🍷🍷 (3 glasses of wine required.)
Acting was so over the top. I'm pretty sure Ivy (Audrey Landers) is a drag queen. When she rang a bell instead of calling 911, I died. Pour it up!
🔪🔪🔪🔪 (4 Knives) 🍷🍷🍷 (3 glasses of wine required.)
So bad it's good
pocoamelia23 April 2020
UGH
carnstabba-556722 August 2019
Well I tried thinking it had to get better as let's face it, there's no way it could get worse. WRONG. Rubbish storyline, terrible acting etc etc. Another couple of hours of my life that I'll never get back. Avoid at all costs.
Logical? No. Hell no.
athorsell-594-45673229 October 2021
This could actually have been a rather good movie. The actors aren't half bad, and the movie "looks" good. But how the people react and what they do in this movie is just ridiculous. First, the main man, who is supposed to be the man of the house, very straightforward, very dominating, someone that everybody relies on, he just freezes or even cries when anything happens. Then they happily go on boat rides even when the bride-to-be has made it clear that she can't swim. And why not enter a sauna that has a lock on the outside of the door? Like most saunas do, right? Not. And allergy to coconut? Yes, we show the cabinet where all coconut of the house has been put. And the final nail in the coffin, for me, was when the bride-to-be and her sister sits on the edge of the boat by the dock to talk about the bad or strange things that have happened, and they don't even see the clearly floating corpse of the murdered ex-fiancee right below them. I mean, you couldn't miss her even in the corner of your eye. Sigh. No, this has to get 1/10 from me, even less if I could give it. How did they even get this thing published? Doesn't anybody question anything in the movie making business, or do they actually think that most people who will watch it are totally stupid. What a total waste of time and money.
Not a brilliant plot
keith-hewle27 February 2021
Borrowing some text from another reviewr.
As soon as the female protagonist reveals her coconut allergy, it is clear that this is going to be used to advance the plot. When her Epipen is found in the rubbish, no one really questions it.{ END }
So many of these thriller plots rely on a victim having A fatal reaction to one allergy or other. Yet the affected person keeps the antidote in their luggage, in their purse even a car. Why not on their person always at hand and less likely to be stolen ?
Am I the only one who finds this strange ?
Commenting on the story. The identity of the killer is telegraphed almost at the beginning of the film. So no surprise by the end
As soon as the female protagonist reveals her coconut allergy, it is clear that this is going to be used to advance the plot. When her Epipen is found in the rubbish, no one really questions it.{ END }
So many of these thriller plots rely on a victim having A fatal reaction to one allergy or other. Yet the affected person keeps the antidote in their luggage, in their purse even a car. Why not on their person always at hand and less likely to be stolen ?
Am I the only one who finds this strange ?
Commenting on the story. The identity of the killer is telegraphed almost at the beginning of the film. So no surprise by the end
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
