Real Murders: An Aurora Teagarden Mystery
2015 · 84 min · Director: Martin Wood
Show plot summary (may contain spoilers)
The latest meeting of Lawrenceton librarian Aurora "Ro" Teagarden's real murders discussion club - where fellow member and Ro's best friend, newspaper reporter Sally Allison, had arranged for new Lawrenceton resident, Ro's favorite current mystery novelist and temporary university professor, Robin Daniels, to speak - is canceled after one of the club members is found bludgeoned to death in his/her home. The case is being led by Homicide Detective Lynn Liggett-Smith, the husband of fellow detective, and Ro's ex-boyfriend and ex-club member, Arthur Smith. There is no love lost between Lynn and Ro because of Ro's amateur sleuthing in past murder cases in town. Because of a telephone call to the meeting venue earlier in the evening referring to the Julia Wallace murder, the initial thought by Ro based on this circumstantial evidence is that the murderer is one of the club members. Julia Wallace's unsolved murder from 1934, the case which only the club members would have known was going to be discussed at the meeting, mimics this murder. Robin's coincidental arrival onto the scene and his seeming inability or non-want to provide an alibi for the time of the murder also places him on the suspect list. As the detectives, Ro and the club members investigate, other club members and their loved ones are targeted by the murderer, each attempt mimicking a case previously discussed by the club. Ro systematically tries to discover who the next victim or victims will be both to prevent the attempts from succeeding and discover the identity of the murderer. She also has to decide whether to trust Robin, the two who are beginning to have feelings for each other.
Your viewing check-in
Emotional fingerprint
Real Murders: An Aurora Teagarden Mystery (2015) — Movie. Top emotional signals: Curiosity 30%, Anticipation 25%, Tension 20%. Source: AI estimate. Shares describe emotional signal, not percentages of people. Your experience may differ. How we measure
- Curiosity30%
- Anticipation25%
- Tension20%
- Surprise15%
- Satisfaction10%
AI estimate · no viewer votes yet
How we measure
AI estimate
Share of emotional signal, not the percentage of people or a probability of enjoyment.
Each viewer contributes one response, split equally across their selected emotions. When available, an automated estimate supplies a prior that is blended with those responses. Counts include distinct viewers, not automated estimates or archived anonymous votes. Fewer than 3 viewers is an early estimate; more responses do not guarantee certainty.
Why it feels this way
The strongest emotional signals are Curiosity, Anticipation, Tension. Genres: Drama, Mystery, Crime. AI estimate.
Is it worth watching?
Consider this title if you are looking for Curiosity, Anticipation and Tension. Its IMDb rating of 6.8/10 suggests a generally positive audience reception. For these leading emotions, its Feel Score is 68/100.
How did it make you feel?
Votes are saved to the fingerprint once you’re signed in.
Pick up to three · 0/3
Emotional journey
- Curiosity
- Tension
- Relief
Not enough subtitle evidence
No dominant emotion
Dominant emotion: Humor
Dominant emotion: Curiosity
Dominant emotion: Tension
Dominant emotion: Relief
Dominant emotion
| % | Approximate minute | Dominant emotion | Overall intensity | Curiosity | Tension | Relief |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.5 % | ≈ 2′ | Humor | 48 % | 33 % | 40 % | 0 % |
| 7.5 % | ≈ 6′ | Curiosity | 50 % | 48 % | 43 % | 0 % |
| 12.5 % | ≈ 11′ | Curiosity | 54 % | 60 % | 45 % | 0 % |
| 17.5 % | ≈ 15′ | Curiosity | 50 % | 56 % | 36 % | 0 % |
| 22.5 % | ≈ 19′ | Curiosity | 48 % | 49 % | 31 % | 3 % |
| 27.5 % | ≈ 23′ | Curiosity | 53 % | 53 % | 43 % | 9 % |
| 32.5 % | ≈ 27′ | Curiosity | 53 % | 54 % | 48 % | 10 % |
| 37.5 % | ≈ 32′ | Tension | 53 % | 51 % | 48 % | 4 % |
| 42.5 % | ≈ 36′ | Curiosity | 55 % | 58 % | 49 % | 9 % |
| 47.5 % | ≈ 40′ | Curiosity | 50 % | 55 % | 43 % | 23 % |
| 52.5 % | ≈ 44′ | Curiosity | 43 % | 45 % | 33 % | 23 % |
| 57.5 % | ≈ 48′ | Curiosity | 43 % | 48 % | 30 % | 13 % |
| 62.5 % | ≈ 53′ | Curiosity | 52 % | 50 % | 45 % | 14 % |
| 67.5 % | ≈ 57′ | Tension | 60 % | 48 % | 55 % | 28 % |
| 72.5 % | ≈ 61′ | Curiosity | 57 % | 55 % | 49 % | 25 % |
| 77.5 % | ≈ 65′ | Curiosity | 60 % | 66 % | 54 % | 8 % |
| 82.5 % | ≈ 69′ | Curiosity | 70 % | 69 % | 69 % | 0 % |
| 87.5 % | ≈ 74′ | Tension | 80 % | 61 % | 80 % | 0 % |
| 92.5 % | ≈ 78′ | Tension | 84 % | 44 % | 80 % | 19 % |
| 97.5 % | ≈ 82′ | Relief | 80 % | 28 % | 70 % | 50 % |
Icarus
Rags to riches: The emotional tone rises from negative to positive.
Riches to rags: The emotional tone falls from positive to negative.
Man in a hole: The tone falls, then recovers.
Icarus: The tone rises, then falls.
Cinderella: The tone rises, falls, then rises again.
Oedipus: The tone falls, rises, then falls again.
AI reading of the film’s English subtitles (dialogue and sound cues) — not viewer votes. How we measure ↗
Kadri — your film companion
AIAsk anything about Real Murders: An Aurora Teagarden Mystery. From the film’s own dialogue and FeelDB data, at your spoiler level.
Kadri
Hi, I’m Kadri. Ask me anything about Real Murders: An Aurora Teagarden Mystery — I’ll stay inside your spoiler line.
Premise onlyAfterward Reveal viewer responses · may contain spoilers
Viewer responses about feelings after the title ended, separate from feelings while watching. No AI estimates.
0 responses so far
Feeling details appear after at least 3 viewers respond, to protect privacy.
Cast
Details
- Directed by
- Martin Wood
- Written by
- Teena Booth, Charlaine Harris
- Type
- Movies
- Released
- 2015
- Runtime
- 84 min
- Country
- Canada, United States
- Ratings
- Feels mostly
- Curiosity
- Data updated
Where to watch
Subscription
Rent
Feels similar
More like this →Emotion overlap shows mood similarity, not a prediction of enjoyment.





