Wordiezett So much average

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

blandiovision-432-271942 Being a teenager in the 80s and growing up in the Los Angeles area myself, this movie appealed to me because of the obvious relate-ability to it. Adrock sure did a stupendous job, especially being that it was his debut in a film. We always think of him as the crazy, funny and party-animal beastie boy, but here he was a dramatic, lost and frustrated protagonist looking to find his way amongst a myriad of issues. This film depicts the consequences of Reaganomics and how the 80s culture-especially amongst white Americans-worshiped greed and money. In this quest to have all the better things in life-which often was because of both the father and mother having careers-the kids become lost and bored and turned to things like drugs, sex, booze, partying non-stop, recklessness, gangs etc. It is interesting how a motif is the Latino gang lifestyle (his nickname was "chino") and how many young white males succumbed to that, especially in Southern California, in their quest to want to feel apart of something and seem important. Little did they know, but the filmmakers foreshadowed a major theme of the 1990s by doing this. The plot was mediocre, but it was the superb acting by Sutherland and Horovitz, and their chemistry along with how the film captured the end result of what happens when greed is god (this film was made in 89) and a seque into the the problems that these lost kids continued on with in the 90s. By that token, it is now a cult classic. I hear many people complain about the ending; I do not think the ending was too bad. Sure, it seems sugarcoated, but the protagonist found himself through the feeling he was able to care for someone else--the Donald Sutherland character. Because of this, he found his way back home.

TedMichaelMor "Lost Angels" may well be director David Hudson's best film. Perhaps, the first-rate script by Michael Weller is the strongest aspect to this work. Well composed cinematography by Juan Anchia and editing by David Gladwell cover some deficiencies in acting by Adam Horvitz, who seems a bit overwhelmed by his role as one of two protagonists. Amy Locaine is a fine young actress on this work. As always, Donald Sutherland provides an excellent foundation for the film. He provides a strong sense of reality, as he does in "Ordinary People." Still, this is not the quality film that "Less Than Zero" or "Say Anything", excellent movies that it resembles, are. Most certainly, this is not "Ordinary People", another related film.Location shooting in San Antonio hurts because that city does not resemble Los Angeles, the setting for the film. I worked for a psychiatric hospital that treated adolescents. This film depicts that ambiance well. It is accurate. This is an excellent choice for viewing.

nichols_donald This has to rate as a Hugh Hudson "turkey". As one of the electricians who worked on the San Antonio location shooting, this film lacked the same "Chariots of Fire" quality one would expect from Hudson. The script (directed by Tom Baer of Ninth Street Pictures) lacked in continuity and concept. The cast was for the most part seasoned veterans from film and television. Donald Sutherland played the Psych part (filmed at the San Antonio State Hospital) with the same characteristic deadpan wit shown most evident in M.A.S.H. Kevin Tighe's character was an extreme departure from his days on "Emergency". Amy Locane showed definite promise as a film newcomer, where Adam Horovitz should have stuck to music. Don't waste your money.

smatysia Not too bad. It's about these "mental" institutions for teens that were popular in the '80's. I remember seeing the advertisements for these sorts of places back then. "Spring Shadows Glen" and whatnot. As I recall they collapsed in a wave of scandals around the time this movie came out. It's also about alienated teen-agers who have no clue about how fortunate they are, and revel in misery and violence for no apparent reason. And it's also about how a kid can be influenced by older bad kids. Gotta seem tough, you know. The film explored the intersections of these phenomena pretty well, at least until the ending which seemed to belong to a different movie. Donald Sutherland turned in his usual top-notch work. The main character was somebody named Adam Horovitz, who I understand was a member of one of those boy bands that were so popular back then. He does a pretty creditable job with his "tortured teen" role. So many singers and athletes appear in movies that you've got to wonder how hard dramatic acting really is. Anyway this film is OK. Check it out.