ada the leading man is my tpye

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Kayden This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

Robert J. Maxwell Taylor Spreitler, as Angela Curson, is a high school girl of seventeen and is pregnant. But that's not where the problem lies. A few words of admonishment from her parents -- nice performance from Amy Pietz as the concerned mother -- and the middle-class Curson family happily sets about buying baby doo-dads and fixing up the spare room for a nursery, little pink figures in the wall paper and whatnot. Oh, the family presumably still wishes that their little girl hadn't gotten knocked up at sixteen, but let's put that behind us. Everything is hunky-dory.Except for one thing. The young college student, Chuck Hittinger as Chad Bruning, the father-to-be. The writers have no intention of challenging the viewer. They spill the beans about who's right and who's wrong right off the bat with those names. Now, I ask you, the experienced viewer, the perspicacious assessor, who is good and who is bad -- someone named "Angela Curson" or someone named "Chad Bruning"?Actually Hittinger looks a little like the late Patrick Swayze, and he's all enthusiastic about the pregnancy. Apparently a nice young man, he tries to pressure Spreitler into marrying him so they can live together happily. But by this time the young girl and her family have rethought things. Hittinger is just not their type. So they tell him to bug off. Little did they know that tragedy lay just around the corner.Hittinger had been adopted as a somewhat wayward child by the morally upright Linda Purl. Hittinger's real mother had been a junkie and had wound up in the Crowbar Hotel, but she'd been Purl's housekeeper and, out of kindness, Purl accepted the orphaned Hittinger. (I hope you're following all this.) Now the real mother shows up and begs Purl for her old job back. She's clean and ready. Purl rudely throws her out for no discernible reason.Hittinger's miscreant mother is played by Jamie Luner. She's the most impressive performer in the movie. Deglamorized to the point of homeliness, she exudes pathos and passion. The scene in which Luner politely begs Purl for her old job, while Purl folds her arms across her chest and frowns down at this wreck of a woman may be the only moving moment in the entire story.I think the rest is predictable enough not to need too much description. Hittinger becomes obsessed with "his" child. His importunings become more obvious and more demanding. There is a fist fight with Spreitler's father in a parking lot. Her father is a middle-aged white collar professional but has little trouble decking a larger and younger college student. Finally, with the help of his real mother, Hittinger kidnaps Spreitler and the baby. Tragedy ensues.It's a terrible movie. I watched it fascinated, to see how low it would stoop, how fantastic the plot had to become, to end the way it did. Poor Taylor Spreitler. She's a cute blond but cannot act. And when she's supposed to be pregnant, waddling around wearing that prosthesis under her jersey, the sight is preposterous.The movie embodies two not entirely unpleasant fantasies: (1) Being made a victim so everyone is on your side, and (2) being so desirable that a man would be willing to kill for you. Watch it if you're really curious about this genre.

nburgos002 Out of Lifetime's "at 17" movies, this is probably the best one or at least one of the best. The girl from Melissa & Joey and the guy from Pretty Little Liars and American Reunion do a good job in this flick. Jamie Luner is also in here and gives a great performance as sort of a maniac, out-of-prison mother. As with all the other movies before that dealt with similar material, this is meant for older teenager and probably their parents, if they can watch it together. If not, the teenage audience this is aimed for should watch it, and I believe they will be pleased. Appropriate subject matter, decent script, entertaining movie for the most part.

Viktor Vedmak (realvedmak) Is it only in USA that guy being 21 and girl being 17 somehow is supposed to make audience feel that there is something wrong? That 17 is really not all that much different from 21. You don't know all that much more unless you are undergoing extreme experiences. Most people spend those years mostly in school, and not all that much changes.I don't believe I ever met 17 year old that was as stupid as main character was in this movie.This movie was badly written. They should have had psychologist/psychiatrist with actual field experience as consultant.Instead script reads like it was written by somebody utterly clueless about regular people that age.To top that off, casting was just horrible. Main actress cant act and should look for different career. So should most of the rest of the cast.I find that if script was better written, and if acting was better, perhaps this could have been a tragic story, where we could feel bad for both people. Instead, I felt nothing at all for any character in this movie, and found myself fast forwarding a lot.Give this one a pass, your time should be worth more to you.

edwagreen She just turned 17 and after a brief encounter with a 21 year old, she finds herself pregnant, but certainly not alone.The oddity of this story is that the father of the baby persists that he wants to handle everything. The problems begin when her parents totally reject him and he begins stalking our young lady.His real mother, a convicted felon, adds plenty to the story with those evil eyes that she possesses. She is very scary and intimidating. However, she does know the score. A sidebar to this story is that when she went to prison, the woman whose house she cleaned, a councilwoman who went on to divorce, adopted the young boy as her own.It just shows you the heredity factor here in that the young man is so emotionally unbalanced to say the least.