Sugar Daddies

According to this movie: i) old men with money are creepy and evil; ii) young people with outstanding good looks should not use their attributes to get on in life; iii) everyone must confirm to a certain moral code and avoid having an intimate relationship with anyone in a different age range.

-Even though throughout the whole world it is often the matching of money and good looks which makes the world a better place.

The story:

An outstandingly good-looking young woman in need of income is persuaded to fall for the charms of a rich older man in exchange for money and other gifts which will benefit her and her family.

However, whoever wrote this movie obviously strongly disapproves of such a relationship and so does everything possible to portray it in a bad light.

When the truth is that in most cases the matching of good looks and money benefits everyone.

But hey when does truth get in the way of the moral code of someone who has never had either good looks or money?

5/10,

Pretty pre-law co-ed Taylor Gildersleeve (as Kara Jones) explains how difficult it is to make money, then she gets into a dark, foreboding car. One month earlier, we see Ms. Gildersleeve has lost her job as a waitress. Law school is expensive and her auto-mechanic father James C. Burns (as Barry Jones) needs money for medical bills. He may lose the family home. Naturally, Gildersleeve goes out with one of her girlfriends to one of those places where old people hook up with much younger sex partners, for big bucks. Initially reluctant, Gildersleeve is hired by one of the wealthiest seniors in the room, "fossilized" investor Peter Strauss (as Grant F. Zager)...

Other than being unavailable on her dad's birthday party, the arrangement works out well. At $5,000 a pop, Gildersleeve has hit the "sugar daddy" jackpot. Alas, this being a "Lifetime" TV movie, things start to go wrong. Gildersleeve loses sexy young boyfriend Griffin Freeman (as Justin). Her life gets even worse when old Mr. Strauss declares, "I like to be choked." For the first half, this is a silly and unconvincing morality drama. With some funny lines ("He's a lonely old man with a drawer full of Viagra"), writer Barbara Kymlicka keeps it running. Later on, director Doug Campbell arrests dwindling interest with "three-way" helper Samantha Robinson (as Lia).

***** Sugar Daddies (12/23/14) Doug Campbell ~ Taylor Gildersleeve, Peter Strauss, James C. Burns, Samantha Robinson

What to do when you have money issues? Work it before you lose it (I may be miss-quoting one of the characters, but you get the point). Not that it is explicitly shown, though there is one pivotal scene where you see a bit more (no "nudity" that would require an R-rating, though this was made for TV anyway, not HBO).

Apart from that there are not many Highlights, if you even want to call that a Highlight. You can be sure that this is predictable, although you can't fault the actors, they are trying the best they can. Still this isn't really worth your time, apart from watching beautiful looking people with non-issues and dialog that is cringe-worthy at best

A tale of the roles that women and men have played since the dawn of humanity. Except butchered by being told from a very deluded liberal point of view - man evil and conniving, and woman victim. I believe that the good reviews for this were written by friends and family of the director and actors, and quite possibly by psychotic virgins rejected from society. Do yourself a favor, flush and watch your own creation swirl away, it's far better done and believable than this high school amateur waste of 2 hours.

I'll be honest, I caught this randomly on Prime and thought it would be great to have on in the background while I was working from home. 5.0 rating with no famous names attached, maybe I'll catch an occasional cheesy line that will distract me for a moment and elevate my mood from the mundane situation of working from home.

However, the realistic dialogue is what first piqued my interest. Every conversation and situation seemed practical, and no character in this film makes ridiculous decisions out of the ordinary considering the scenarios they're in. It was actually quite well written and avoided the hokey tropes that I expected.

Sure, the production value isn't A-level for Hollywood, but I'm writing this review to give kudos to a team that was most definitely under-appreciated for actually producing an interesting and engaging story. It's actually a good watch and has a solid ending. Not a masterpiece, but definitely better than a 5/10 rating! Solid 7 considering the level it was produced at.