User reviews

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.

Terrible acting, hardly any plot, waste of time. Did I mention terrible acting?

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.

The person who picks these clunkers probably had the same job at Cinemax. Terrible show but no a waste of time at 3AM. Insomnia busster.

Being a sugar daddy is more than just fun and sex. It requires a certain temperament, one that Grant Zager, the sugar daddy lacks. He is pushy, possessive, and arrogant. It gives cause to wonder why anyone would want to have anything to do with him. Yet he attracts young women who are willing to cats aside all pretensions of morality to make a quick buck. It is uncertain who's is morally more repugnant, the young ladies who are opportunistic whores or the sugar daddy who pays them. Now, this moral dilemma notwithstanding, this is an entertaining movie. The plot is simple, comprehensible, and most importantly, plausible. There is nothing contrived. People are acting act their selfish desires, and, of course, gets them all into trouble. The moral of the story: if you wish to be a successful sugar daddy, treat your "girls" nicely. In turn, they will treat you nicely too, as long as you pay up. After all, call girls don't work for free.

Poor acting,poor plot and poor nude scenes😅 Should have included hardcore ones..😄 Boring and predictable..

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,

I love trashy dramatic lifetime movies, so I can't complain about this. Standard, cheesy etc and all that but it kept me amused & entertained. I have to say though (and do not always or hardly ever leave reviews etc) but I cannot stand the lead actress!!!!! If I was a sugar daddy I would have done the same thing by ripping the check up in front of her!!! What a prude ,annoying, selfish & entitled brat!!!!!

AND yeah, I guess Kudos to the actress for doing a good job acting like this (but can't stand her stuck up "better than you" face and attitude) I can clearly see through the character and real person. Worst portrayal of a sugar baby (and sugar daddy) ever though!!!

Like I said, even though I tolerate this movie it definitely annoys me and think the other movie on lifetime "sugar babies" is way better casted, acted etc!!!

:)

Look this is a tv, streaming sort of movie so I would evaluate it compared to other similar movies. Similar to would not go to McDonalds and then compare McDonalds with a high end Burger Joint spending time, money(much more) to get on the Michelin top star list.

A TV, streaming sort of movie, that can get one to think.

The overall subject is transactional sex relationship(s) entwined with older and younger people. There are not always deeper psychological issues in one using sex for money and wanting a younger (of age) person for sex. Sure, sometimes there are issues. Really, most of the issue in this movie was with Kara by Taylor Black in deceiving her boyfriend: she wanted both the money and the attention of an older wealthy man, Grant by Peter Strauss, but then the love and relationship with a guy her age, Justin, by Griffin Freeman. When we spin webs of deceit, well, watch the movie.

The cast was solid above, as were others in the movie: Parents of Kara by Isabella Hoffman and James C Burns were solid. Samantha Robinson as Lea and Ashley McCarthy as Shawna (really nailed an example of when one looses herself by doing things such as transactional sex via excellent acting, showing someone who thinks material things buy happiness, but her life showed her spiraling out of control as she was not happy). Thus, things are not always purely business transactions and can have ramifications. Timothy Brennen was Peter and Grant's hunchman, showing how using money to "open up things" can work as well as how money "can allow us to bury a lot of things, including crimes".

I don't have any issue with transactional sex between consenting adults and among people only. Sex is a need, primal and is distinguished from love. Really, people who marry (which is supposedly for love)for marry offend me more than "hey you want sex with me, it costs this much". Yet the character Grant showed how an older, more experienced person can manipulate to some degree younger, less experienced person(s), yet on flip I've seen movies where the younger person is much more predatory. With regard to transactional sex, it needs to be taxed if allowed in areas.

A lot of sub-issues going that won't go on, but it is worth a watch if into TV sort of movies, which, by the way, are a good thing too. Allow a lot of people to work and can be a fun ride.

FYI pre-law is not that HARD, wait to post-grad or law school--so Kara using that as an excuse for what she choice to do is a COP out!