Schrei nach Liebe

A Murderous Affair is an early 90's Made-For-TV movie which depicts the true story involving Caroylin Warmus and her crime of passion.

We see man named Paul leaving his wife late at night to go out bowling. During his night out, his wife is shot to death by an unknown assailant. After we see that, Paul meets Carolyn at a bar to continue in an affair with her that he's been carrying on with for a while. The film eventually takes us into how the affair started and how Carolyn got herself integrated into Paul's family by having dinner with them for example. Police begin to gather evidence against her and that's when they put her on trial for the murder of Jeanne Solomon.

A Murderous Affair is such an early 90's made for TV movie. We get the sax solos and jazz numbers playing as background music, smoky bars/rooms, etc. Aside from that, it made Carolyn Warmus look like a needy self-absorbed woman desperate for men's attention. I don't know enough about the true story and what came out in court, but that is the direction this movie wanted to take us in. That she was a devious woman and Paul was an innocent man taken in by her charms and sexuality.

The acting was good enough. Virginia Madsen was a very sexual and sensual Carolyn Warmus, which seems to be a fit from what I read of the true story. Chris Sarandon was solid in a role that didn't have much to do. William H. Macy played the prosecutor and was good as well, but nothing to write home about. The character development is what lacked here. I wanted to learn more about Carolyn Warmus and her family life and background. We got very little of that which made me wonder why she was the way she was.

A Murderous Affair started well, but fell apart in the later half leading up to the trial. We got nothing in terms of character development and as to why Carolyn would commit such a crime other than she was jealous of Paul's wife. There was definitely more to uncover, but this depiction stuck to the basics and followed the trail of murder scene, police investigation, and trial.

5/10

They really need to make zero stars an option! Everything about this movie is a zero! Anything someone might consider ok about this is ruined by the bad acting and the ridiculous smoky haze. I was disappointed and surprised at how bad Chris Sarandon's acting was. I liked him in "Fright Night". The look on his face when he looked at his hands with all the blood on them was one of the absolute worst acting scenes ever....ever!

Virginia Madsen was the wrong choice for this film, but a good actress would have known to pass it over. This is one of those movies that could damage an actor's career . There is nothing than could have saved it.

***I strongly suggest you do not waste your time watching this if you haven't seen it. Only recommend this movie to someone you want to punish.*** I'm trying to think what could have made it better but it is so bad that it should have never been done in the first place. The next time I start a movie and realize early on it is terrible, I'm going to stop watching and save myself from wasting the time on it. I strongly suggest you do the same. Anyone who gave this movie 3 or more stars was just being nice.

This film was made in the early 90's and it seems that was a time (before reality TV glutted the market) and when subject matter was scarce, so audiences were treated with "ripped from the headlines" type Lifetime movies. Some were okay, some not. A few (though not many) were memorable.

This falls into the forgettable category. Virginia Madsen is worth watching, although the little "get-up" costumes she wears are blatantly obvious and one-dimensional. Surely the director must know of other ways to portray a flirtatious and narcissistic woman other than the little tennis dress and obsession with stuffed animals - silly.

Chris Sarandon is in a thankless role, Lenore Kasdorf as the executed wife. Basically the story does not reveal Warmus' motives, (other than the flat notion that she was jealous). A tired idea, unless the audience is shown WHY she is the way she is; perhaps it was based in childhood?. There is a brief clip of Warmus' childhood, but no depth, no inference. We do not care about the characters.

By the time we get to the courtroom scene, we have lost interest. William H. Macy as prosecutor does nothing to redeem the film. This film with the material, could have been interesting. First we need to care about the characters. Many films may not be masterpieces but if we CARE about the outcome, the story becomes worthwhile. Not so in this case.

Director Martin Davidson has to be congratulated for being one of the few who has made Virginia Madsen look bad, and for presenting a story supposedly centred on a true life woman, with frustrating ambiguity and a general lack of skill.

Madsen plays Carolyn Warmus, a Greenville Springs New York school teacher who is accused of the murder of Betty Jean Solomon (Lenore Kasdorf), the wife of her lover and fellow school teacher Paul Solomon (Chris Sarandon).

The teleplay makes Paul the prime suspect until the narrative skips to Carolyn's stalking of him once he stops seeing her after Betty Jean is killed. Making Paul a womaniser is an interesting plot development, however writers Earl & Pamela Wallace and Davidson never add enough depth or characterisation to Carolyn to suggest that she is the murderer she goes on trial for being. Flashback memory is used clumsily in response to police interrogation of various people for the backstory, and the touches of Carolyn's relationship with her father in a pre-credit sequence and via his appearance at her 2nd trial are slight. This seeming unmotivated entrapment of Carolyn by the police is also highlighted by their insensitive ridicule of her during a search of her home. Paul is given a speech to Carolyn's defence attorney that no judge would ordinarily allow, and Betty Jean is shown to sleep whilst a war movie plays loudly on her television.

Matters aren't helped by Davidson's plodding direction, and cliched use of black & white, slow motion, tilted camera, lighting for flashbacks, and the overuse of saxophone to represent Carolyn's sexuality. Although he does use an interesting stylisation for Carolyn's hearing pleas and sentencing, otherwise Davidson paints her in the broadest possible strokes, where Madsen overplays being a femme fatale, and is particularly ridiculous in a montage of her being photographed. She only manages subtlety when looking at herself in the mirror on 2 occasions, where her sultriness is not forced, in a scene of anger and in some of her silent reactions at the trial. Davidson also strangely provides a lot of footage of Sarandon's bare and sweaty torso, though once works against an expectation, as the water splash from a pool where he sunbakes comes from a fat lady.

I recall the headlines somewhat, & recall knowing there was a significant amount of evidence against Warmus, including that she had stalked previous lovers and tried to run over one of their girlfriends. But in watching this film in 2021, I was expecting to have my memory refreshed on the actual facts of the case. This film doesn't do that, really, except to link the murder weapon to Warmus and show her femme fatal persona -- which is a bit hard to believe looking at actual photos of her. So, while the film shows her as a siren I think the attraction men may have had to her was much more basic and looks like a dollar sign. I will assume the actress was just following direction in trying to show how self-engrossed Warmus was and how highly she thought of herself; but Virginia Madsen is said to have been influenced by people like Betty Davis, Katherine Hepburn, and Marilyn Monroe which I think gives more background on how she played the role than anything related to Carolyn. I remember Madsen from a great tv series called The Witches at East End. The film also does nothing to provide any back story on Warmus such as that her daddy was a wealthy businessman, making us wonder how a teacher could afford her lavish style and spur of the moment travel. There is a very vague insinuation that she had daddy issues but the vague innuendo is based on the viewer having a solid background on the case via the media. Maybe at the time the film was made it was relevant to those who had some prior knowledge of the case and anti-social behavior of Warmus. But this film, imo, is poorly done using romantic jazz music every time Warmus is shown, and seems to be more a vehicle to plant doubt. What actually turned the tables on the 2nd trial was the additional evidence where they matched an expensive bloody glove found at the scene to gloves in Warmus' closet (also not in the film). And apparently Warmus has a legal fund-me type site open that her own father has never contributed to. The film also doesn't tell us that Mrs. Solomon knew about the affair and that Warmus had sent her notes that could be construed as threatening. The fact is, though, not everyone who stalks and has the financial means to try to control others is capable of murder. But in this case, Warmus was proven to be the killer and I feel this film tries to leave that open. All in all, this film overplays the seductive abilities of Warmus, downplays the stupidity of Solomon (and his family who all accepted financial favors and gifts from Warmus), and fails to show us even 50% of what the jury was shown. It's just a way to fill airspace and take advantage of headlines.