Schrei nach Liebe

The case of Carolyn Warmus, a beautiful teacher who was accused of murdering the wife of her boyfriend, a co-worker, resulted in a three-year, two-trial case. In fact, Warmus maintains her innocence to this day, and there were some weaknesses in the prosecution's case. But none of this gets noticed. Virginia Madsen gives a respectable performance as Warmus, but the script is of the tabloid trash variety. The scene where she comes on to him is so ludicrous, it would embarrass a first-time screenwriter. I didn't watch the whole film, it was so dull. In fact, even though it was based on a real life case, it plays like fourth-rate crime fiction. All one can do after watching this is to wonder what really happened. Too bad.

I disliked this 1992 melodrama for its writing, direction and performances by almost everyone in the cast. I'm not a Virginia Madsen fan, what else has she done, and this movie is an example of her work. First of all she should stop trying to be a Sharon Stone imitation, for Stone certainly has more appeal in the looks department. And she should learn to act, other than gyrating and posturing all over the place. Her entrance in the tennis outfit had to be a joke, right? Then we have an equally bad performance from Chris Sarandon, who plays a better vampire, as a weakling of a husband who doesn't seem to have any guts at all. He whines and cries throughout the film. I had wished the dame had knocked him off instead, he was that annoying. Two redeeming factors however remain in the film. William H. Macy, who I usually don't like, does well as the prosecuting attorney and Herb Mitchell, as the Judge at the trial, was excellent. I cheered when he told the dame to shut up and sit down in court. This is a bad bad movie and a waste of time, believe me.

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.

There are two versions of Carolyn Warmus' story - this one and another 1992 version starring Jenny Robertson and Joe Penny. So Carolyn doesn't beat out Amy Fisher, of whom it was said, "Jesus Christ didn't have that many movies made of his life."

This TV movie, starring Virginia Madsen and Chris Sarandon, is superior to the other, which isn't saying too awfully much. The cast is definitely better. Though I am a fan of Joe Penny's, I never considered Robertson much of an actress; however, in recent years, now that she is more in the leading lady stage of her career, she is much better. Both films portray Carolyn as a man magnet with a great body and loads of sex appeal. In both versions, much is made of her grand, electric entrance into the courtroom on the first day of her trial. This film has one thing the other lacked - the real-life character of Vincent Parco, the detective who sold Carolyn the murder weapon (with a silencer). For an important figure in the case, it's strange that he isn't a character in the Robertson-Penny movie. I actually have spoken with Vincent Parco, so I admit to finding this version more interesting.

Without going into enormous detail, Warmus is the woman suspected of killing her boyfriend's wife, Betty Jean Solomon. At first, her boyfriend is the chief suspect. Eventually the focus falls on Carolyn.

I thought Madsen was great showing how unstable and obsessive Carolyn was, trashing a room and stalking Carlin and his wife in Puerto Rico (in flashback). Chris Sarandon, as Michael Carlin, the guilt-ridden, overwrought, cheating husband, is very good.

Peter Haskell, another favorite of mine, plays Carolyn's father in flashback. He's uncredited. Ned Eisenberg, another favorite and a good actor is the detective assigned to the case.

So for me, the dice are loaded in favor of this version. Both are routine, and as we know, the beautiful and talented Madsen has gone on to much better.

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.