SPELLING: Looking back, on some level, you want to ask, "Why were they so critical? These were just light, fun TV-movie romps." It's not like anyone went out of their way to give a campy performance. At the same time, no one was filming these scripts with these actors thinking, "I'm going to get an Emmy for this." We all got that these were Women in Peril TV movies. In the end, the heroine always won, and the bad person got killed. There was a method to them, and it worked, so why change it? But I think if people reviewed those movies now, they would not review them as harshly, and maybe "get it" more in the way we "got it" then.
SERGEI: I think I overdid it at certain points, but [Montesi] allowed me to be human with the role.
BANES: You play it for keeps! No matter what you're doing. You don't judge it. You take it very, very seriously. You just say, "OK, I'm the mother of this girl," and you just go from there. You don't question it. You just go.
MONTESI: I was pleased with the finished movie. I mean, the story has a lot of holes, right? And you hope that the audience won't notice, because they don't have the privilege of reading the script, they just see the thing. If you add some bells and whistles, you hope they'll ignore some of the holes in the plot. The way the mother comes to terms with the information is a bit forced, right? [For instance, she finds a picture of Billy's first victim while searching his apartment, and instinctively recognizes the photo's significance for no reason.] I think the struggle with MMISWD? was to make everything coherent. But him killing all those people and then just getting away with it?... It's a bit... OK, y'know, it's a convention for certain kinds of movies, and you move along, right? Y'know -- "Can't you just make it work?" Do you have any idea how many times I've heard that in my career?