Relation dangereuse

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.

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.

As a longtime fan of Virginia Madsen, I have always felt that she could have done better than playing all of these 'femme-fatales' during that part of her career which includes this.

However, I have since learned that Virginia's influences in her acting were Barbara Stanwyck and Bette Davis, both masters of film noir.

Perhaps this finally explains this phase of her career, and therefore may deserve some sort of reassessment, so I may be back soon and do some editing here and other places on IMDb.

As for this film, she seems to have captured the essence of Carolyn Warmus, and since it is currently being rerun on the Lifetime Movie Network and may finally be on DVD in this country, others may now come to appreciate her work, now that her career seems to be back on track.

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.