AniInterview
Sorry, this movie sucks
Titreenp
SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?
Beulah Bram
A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.
duke1907
I just thought of this film today because the lead actor Sam Bottoms passed away from a brain tumor. I always laughed when I heard his last name, but he was good in several different films, but unfortunately this wasn't one of them.When I majored in film at San Francisco State the director was one of my instructors. He showed the film to our class one day and I was embarrassed for him. He taught a course on Latin film and he was so passionate about movies that I found it hard to believe that he made this awful film. At least he had made a film though, ten years later I'm working nights as a security guard and writing during the day without having accomplished anything. The chick is hot, but this movie is not worth watching.
Robert J. Maxwell
Plot: Dennis Cromwell (Sam Bottoms) is a prosperous banker with a wife and new baby girl in Marin County. He's friends with his roofer, Enrique (Marco Rodrigues) whose teen-aged daughter is Bottoms' baby sitter. The perky daughter (Yeniffer Behrens) develops a crush on Bottoms and they begin an affair. She's also being stalked by a hook-nosed guy but forget that. The affair is discovered. Bottoms' wife leaves him, taking the infant and the house with her. He's fired from the bank. He's charged with statutory rape and shunned by the community. Behrens is taken away from him, sobbing. He hasn't a friend left in the world. At the end he's involved in a homicide and Lord only knows what sort of moral terpitude he'll be charged with now.And all this time you thought Cromwell was a Puritan? It's really difficult to describe this movie. The plot is done and redone, young girl has affair with older married man. "The Crush" is typical. Usually they stink although, as "Lolita" demonstrates, the story, if not the films, can be sublimely told.I don't know exactly whose fantasy this film is aimed at -- the middle-aged man lusting after the tan gymnasticized thighs of a 16-year-old baby sitter or the overpowering love of a naive but nubile girl for a powerful but understanding father figure. Probably both. The roots of these motives lie buried in evolutionary psychology.One of the theories advanced for the incest taboo, though, is well illustrated here. It mixes up the roles in the division of labor. The confusion manifests itself in jealousy or in some African societies in accusations of witchcraft. Nobody knows quite who belongs to whom or who's dominant. You cannot have two wimmin in the same house. Reckon that's a law of life. Signed: Prof. John Wayne, Director of Gender Studies.What is there to say about the movie? The performances are somewhat below those found in TV commercials? (With the possible exception of Marco Rodriguez'? Rodriguez has a good scene in which he stands over the body of a recently murdered heavy and crosses himself. Then he spits on the body.) The direction is flat and uninteresting? The photography is ambitious but blurry? The editing confusing? (See the scene in which Bottoms and Behrens run to each other and kiss hotly while the gym coach stands by aghast. Next shot, he's missing.) The script? People say things like: "We have to talk." Twice. And once it's a man. Bottoms and Behrens walking along a beach having an earnest discussion about what to do with their lives. Behrens: "You know, in some countries we could be married." Bottoms: "Yeah, but this isn't one of them." Behrens: "I know. What a bummer." It's too bad this is so little other than a minor soap opera because it was shot partly in Millbrae, one of the prettiest little towns on the San Francisco peninsula.
Konnitiwa_5
Before seeing this movie, I really only read bad things about it. The thing is, I was interested in the plot so I thought I would give it a rent. As expected, it was very bad acting and the filming was very simple. It basically played from scene to scene and you could never really feel for the characters because the acting was not good. The main guy didn't really care about his family, the town characters lacked a lot of emotion, and Angel's friends looked a lot like guys! (Could have been just me....I was in a "state of high-ness" when I watched this). There was a few moments when the Angel was upset and she did well but otherwise, not so good. Also, in one scene in the dumpyard, you can clearly see the fuzzy part of the boom mike above the police officer's head! Despite these problems, the romance between the two main characters was great. I gave this movie an 8 because I'm really into this kind of romance and I find it really attractive so that kinda made the movie for me. Finally, it takes some understanding. The movie may have been made in 1998, but I'm pretty sure it was based in 1985-ish because the guy's 25th reunion would make the 50's/60's music appropriate and the clothing and lighting was definitely 80's. It's interesting how these TV movies turn out. The ending was disappointing, but it could have been much much worse. If you are really into this kind of romance, between a man and a girl, see the 1997 Lolita, because that's a way better movie.
Poochie
Also known as "Angel Blue" (it's released on video under that name-describing it as a "Latin Lolita" !) this was obviously made with the intention of a theatrical release. Instead it was shown on Lifetime Television minus the brief nudity and brief adult language. In any case it's lame even by TV movie standards. At one point Bottoms & Eichhorn go to his 25th high school class re-union and the music playing on the soundtrack is from the '50's (this is the late '90's so wouldn't the music be '70's? Or is music from the '50's the only music the evokes memories of high school?). Karen Black appears for about 4 minutes at the end of the film in extreme close-up as a cynical social worker. With the exception of Black, the acting is either overdone or underdone. Don't bother!
