Baby Love

Baby Love emerges as a curiously uneven psychological drama that attempts to navigate the treacherous waters of adolescent trauma and sexual awakening, yet struggles to find its footing between exploitation and genuine character study. The film's 1969 sensibilities feel both dated and strangely prescient, capturing the moral ambiguity of late-60s Britain while grappling with themes that remain uncomfortable decades later.

The cinematography exhibits a workmanlike competence without ever ascending to true artistry. Reid employs conventional framing and lighting that serves the narrative adequately but lacks the visual poetry one might expect from a film dealing with such psychologically complex material. The domestic interiors feel authentically middle-class and suffocating, which works in the film's favor, though the exterior shots possess a pedestrian quality that undermines the film's dramatic tension. The color palette remains muted and uninspired, reflecting the emotional restraint of the characters but offering little visual intrigue for the viewer.

Linda Hayden delivers a committed performance as the troubled teenage protagonist, managing to convey both vulnerability and manipulative cunning without veering into caricature. Her portrayal captures the genuine confusion and rage of a young woman processing grief and displacement, though the script occasionally forces her into situations that feel more exploitative than psychologically authentic. Diana Dors provides solid support as the conflicted mother figure, bringing a world-weary gravitas to her role that elevates the material around her. The supporting cast, including Keith Barron and Ann Lynn, inhabits their roles with professional competence, though none manage to transcend the somewhat schematic nature of their characters.

The film's atmosphere oscillates between genuine psychological insight and uncomfortable voyeurism. Reid demonstrates moments of directorial sensitivity, particularly in scenes depicting the protagonist's internal struggles, but these instances are undermined by sequences that feel designed primarily to titillate rather than illuminate. The pacing suffers from this tonal inconsistency, with the narrative momentum frequently interrupted by extended sequences that add little to our understanding of the characters or their motivations. The dialogue occasionally achieves naturalistic authenticity but too often descends into melodramatic territory that weakens the film's credibility.

While Baby Love tackles genuinely challenging subject matter about trauma, class dynamics, and sexual awakening, it lacks the courage of its convictions. The film hints at deeper psychological truths but rarely commits to exploring them fully, instead settling for surface-level provocations that feel hollow upon reflection. The ending arrives without the emotional catharsis that the preceding drama seems to promise, leaving viewers with a sense of incompleteness rather than resolution.

Would you believe that this very old movie, with little known stars (well, even back then, I suppose) has actually stood the test of time?

Okay, towards the end, it shoots itself in the foot when the movie turns violent. But aside from that...

I'm always on the look for controversial movies and when I read about this one, I was immediately intrigued. With something so old and with such an unknown cast and, on top of it, dealing with such a subject matter, I didn't even expect it to have been released on DVD, much less find it on my seller site, but I did.

First off, let me just voice an objection. The current (2017) summary here on INDb was written by somebody (anonymous) who doesn't like the movie, and that particular style is fine (and entertaining enough) for a review, but absolutely unsuitable for a summary. To each their own, if they don't like a movie, they don't have to be nice, but summaries should be factual and impartial.

The movie doesn't deserve to be derided. As for the deeply human characters, I have enjoyed watching, I was pleasantly surprised, it is a good movie. Yes, I'm into pretty actresses, we all know The Raven, but besides the obvious points of interest for me, it was surprisingly well done. The movie is almost fifty years old and I knew I was taking a big chance when I bought it sight unseen.

I'm glad I did.

Diana Dors is just way off-putting as the choice for Luci's Mom, and here's something else: Somebody who already knows pain (cancer) would choose being scalded by boiling water while bleeding to death because of razor slices as method of suicide? I think that nasty start should have been replaced with something more "sedate" like sleeping pills or so. That was just to shock! And the movie doesn't need it.

Anyway, loved Linda Hayden and appreciate her fine performance. I do appreciate that she is the real thing, only fifteen years old, imagine this being done today!!! Good choice with mature female lead Ann Lynn as well.

This nifty, late-60's British thriller is about a scheming teenage girl (Linda Hayden) who after her mother's suicide moves in with the family of her mother's married lover and proceeds to seduce all three of them (father, mother, teenage son)--two of whom may be blood relatives! If this sounds vaguely familiar, it's because it was the subject of an uncredited, near-remake by Hollywood in the early 1990's called "Poison Ivy", which spawned three increasingly trashy sequels and revived the career of Drew Barrymore. Hayden is actually much better here than Barrymore was in "Poison Ivy", but this movie is very hard to find today, no doubt because Hayden has several brief nude scenes and was about the same age at the time as her fifteen-year-old character. This is monumentally silly more than forty years later--half the adult population (women) have seen a girl that age naked, and the other half (let's just be honest here) probably have at some point in their lives. But we live in a society today where if a teenage girl sends nude photos of herself to her teenage boyfriend, instead of considering it a "teachable moment", we're more likely to charge them both with distributing child pornography!

Anyway, whatever else she was, Linda Hayden was a criminally underrated actress. She got some attention for her appearances in Hammer's "Taste the Blood of Dracula" and as another sexy, evil vixen in "Blood on Satan's Claw" (where, incidentally, she has even more graphic and still-underage nude scenes as well). She had more bad luck after that though. She reunited with the director here (Alistair Reid) as well Peter Finch and Shelly Winters in another very solid thriller called "Something to Hide" that has been all hacked up and never released on DVD for no good reason I can tell. Her best performance perhaps though was in "The House on Straw Hill" (which makes it's likely inspiration, Sam Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs", look like a Disney film), but that entertaining but uber-sleazy venture became the only British-made film to be labeled a "video nasty" in Britain and it was banned there for many years. As a somewhat ironic result, it's considered a minor cult film there today(and was even remade in 2009), but was little seen outside of the UK. As for Hayden, she eventually took her considerable charms to dumb British sex comedies like the "Confessions of" series and "Queen Kong" (starring her then paramour Robin Askwith) before ending her career with a cameo role (mostly nude, of course) in "The Boys of Brazil".

There's nothing much to say about the rest of the cast as this is Linda Hayden's show all the way. But there is a good cameo at the beginning by ill-fated, former glamor actress Diana Dors as the Hayden character's mother. As for the director, Alistair Reid, he's no doubt now written off as a "dirty old man" in some quarters for having directed this, but his "Something to Hide" and "Deadly Strangers" (with Hayley Mills and Sterling Hayden)were equally good British thrillers. I'd certainly recommend this.

Surprisingly good and whilst not a major work, a most interesting and involving film from that sunny 1968 with appropriately colourful and short skirts and dresses. Basically exploitation this is not, however, without thought but now is it steeped in moralising as the British film of the time tended to be. Indeed, although the plot here concerns the dropping of a highly sexed and vulnerable 15 year old into a well off family situation where the father once went out with the girl's mother it is dealt with in a refreshingly reasonable manner. Nevertheless there are various hints and incidents of rape and incest along the way as this goes from bad to bad but always with a smile. Not much smiling from Keith Barron who seems to not be enjoying his part here at all. For the rest it is a different story and Linda Hayden excels as the British Lolita with more than an eye for the men, and women. It is an impressive and nuanced performance and no wonder at all that she went on to further movies. It is also a credit to all involved that it was possible to get such a performance out of the youngster. Dick Emery just about controls himself in a small but exuberant role and overall this is a most watchable film very much of the moment that certainly could not be made today.

Even at only 15 years old, Linda Hayden ably illustrated her skills as an actress in 'Baby love.' Luci is roundly conniving and manipulative - and troubled - and Hayden possesses the poise, nuance, and intensity to portray her most ably, but also the capable range to reflect the character's garbled emotional state. This is hardly to count out her costars, though, particularly Ann Lynn and Keith Barron - steady and believable as adoptive parents Amy and Robert, responding to the turmoil of Luci's coming with their own strong feelings.

The movie is by all means a portrait of Luci, with her compartmentalized vulnerabilities and deviousness. But to the same extent it's a depiction of the widening fractures her behavior exposes and deepens in the Quayle's - and the iniquities she brings out in all those around her. There is definite plot, tracing the progression of the tumult, yet the way the film is structured quite centers Luci as more than just a character. In the same way that, for example, Michael Myers in the 'Halloween' franchise comes across as a brutal force of nature, Luci seems to be the unfettered embodiment of discord, bringing strife with her wherever she goes. And even still, Luci is only human - struggling with the trauma she has experienced, and the unwelcome overtures from those she unwittingly summons to her, set against the willfulness she represents. Though never fully engaging, it's a tack that certainly kept my attention.

On the other hand - that's the movie we get, but even without being familiar with the novel of the same name by Tina Chad Christian, I kind of get the impression that this wasn't necessarily the intention of the screenplay. Luci, in the film, also somewhat reflects a diluted interpretation of the vamp archetype, seen in her carefree flirtations amidst a disordered mentality that sows still greater chaos. But the narrative and scene writing never truly brings this aspect of the character to fruition, and with this notion lodged in our minds, the entertainment factor is weakened with a hodgepodge of half-realized tableaus. I'm of the mind that if one approaches 'Baby love' with the expectation borne out in common synopses, of a young seductress rending a family atwain, you're primed for disappointment. Why, given the varied ways that characters respond to Luci over time, the loftier assessment is the one that makes the movie work, and in general, only in broadening one's horizons to encompass a more esoteric reading does the movie become more engrossing, and satisfying.

With all that said, I think 'Baby love' is an imperfect happy accident. We've all seen movies that were so regrettably untidy in their execution that their purpose is subverted, becoming a delightful outright comedy instead of a drama or serious thriller. 'Baby love' also suffers a similar difficulty, except instead of totally upending the picture as we see it, the perspective is simply altered, like a different filter used in capturing an image. The writing isn't strong enough to cement the cinematic telling of a story, but in its faults it gives way to something even better. Other details in the feature are quite fine - I love the care given to wardrobe, hair, and makeup, and the filmmakers put together a solid soundtrack. Instances of camerawork emphasizing small details in a scene, or subtleties of a performance, are most appreciated. Again keeping in mind the dependence on one's analysis, I think scenes are put together quite well.

'Baby love' is a bit of an oddity. The suggested subject matter is lurid, and the story as written is direct. But the execution is a little less unseemly than we'd anticipate, and the plot becomes something more amorphous. There are a lot of points here that may be a turn-off for some viewers, including not least of all how rough it is around the edges - again, that I think the movie comes off well appears to be lucky happenstance. Of course it also goes without saying that there's a content warning for sexual content involving a minor. But the performances are great, and there's a lot of value here if you can pick up on the more illustrious overarching ideas that the incomplete writing fortuitously conjured in its wake. Recommended most of all for fans of Linda Hayden, one needn't necessarily go out of their way for 'Baby love,' but it's peculiarly enjoyable if you come across it.