Very Cool!!!

Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Absolutely god-awful exploitation film is something of a rape/revenge story with a woeful lack of attention to the "revenge" part. The movie instead focuses on the rape of a lipstick model by a weirdo music teacher and no one believing that she was raped. It holds your attention because you want so badly to see the rapist scumbag get his just desserts. The worst part is that because the victim was a lipstick model who sometimes posed half-naked the rapists' lawyer drags out all these seductive ads she did and badgers her on the witness stand about her "wanting it". It's repulsive. Unfortunately, I'm sure this kind of stuff happens in real life. Chris Sarandon is excellent as the rapist creep (it's hard to believe he also played Al Pacino's transvestite lover in Dog Day Afternoon), Margeaux Hemingway is ok as the victim. Not great. Just passable. Young Mariel Hemingway is excellent playing real-life sister Margeaux's sister in the movie. This is one of those movies that could only have been made in the 1970s, a decade rife with cynicism and a total lack of nostalgia. People would actually go and see movies like this in a theater, which seems extremely odd today.

Chris McCormick (Margaux Hemingway) is a high fashion model. Gordon Stuart (Chris Sarandon) is her little sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway)'s music teacher. Her friend Steve Edison (Perry King) is a fashion photographer. Gordon brutally rapes Chris. Kathy walks in on them. Gordon reports it to the police and he's arrested. The girls stay with their priest brother Martin. Steve advises her to avoid the publicity. Gordon is found not guilty in a trial.The Hemingway sisters have never been mistaken for good actresses. Margaux is a stiff bad actress. Mariel is still young in this and has some promise. The trial concerned me with some very clunky melodramatic dialog. Eventually I put it down to lawyers being overly dramatic for the court. The court section does work but the movie can't overcome Margaux's bad acting.

I saw this film in the cinema when I was young and impressionable. Having watched it again now I am old and cynical I recognise it for what it truly is, a propaganda document. The Nazis were big on this, they made one film that portrayed Jews as rats; of course, none but true believers are ever convinced by such blatant dishonesty, or are they? "Lipstick" uses a slightly - but only slightly - more subtle form of propaganda; a top fashion model is the victim of a brutal rape in her own apartment by a man she has invited in for reasons totally unrelated to sex. The end of the rape is witnessed partially by her younger sister, with whom she lives. She contacts the police immediately after the assault, during which she is also sodomised, in fact she does everything she should, but the jury acquits the perpetrator ostensibly because of her lifestyle.She is warned early on by the cynical prosecutor that in court the defense lawyer will try to terrify, degrade, control and humiliate her, which he does. Furthermore, there are "only" ten thousand rapes reported annually in California out of fifty thousand, and the chance of him doing time is 2%. What a total crock.In case you don't recognise any of the above, it is the feminist rape narrative. How does the DA's office or anyone "know" there are forty thousand unreported rapes in California every year? Furthermore, attacking the character of a victim can be extremely dangerous, especially in a rape case. In 1986, the magazine "Private Eye" lost a libel action to Robert Maxwell, a flamboyant and extremely wealthy individual for whom most juries would have had little sympathy, but he broke down in the witness box - giving evidence rather than under cross-examination - and won a massive judgment. Are the tears of an attractive, violated young woman any less prejudicial to a defendant? A woman who might be your sister or even your daughter?The film has a happy ending of sorts when the victim administers summary justice; the ending is rather abrupt, but the point has been made. Don't forget though, this film is only fiction, or perhaps fantasy would be a better word.

The more I see references to the psychological drama/thriller movies of the 1970's, the more I wish I could see them again.Lipstick (1976) was made during an era that saw thrillers like Duel, Badham County, Hardcore, The Dirty Harry series and politically incorrect teen movies like Animal House. The scripts and characterisations had to be good because this was pre special effects, they actually shot films outdoors in real life settings, not just studio caverns.This is a beautifully made film and we can appreciate the freshness of the Hemingway sisters , as well as understand the difficulties a disturbed young man faces when his desires get the better of him.The revenge aspect would make the viewer feel good as they see justice as being done.Though in the end no one wins, expect viewers who are treated to almost 2 hours of suspense , escapism and possibly voyeurism as the girls are so attractive.I am tired of the franchise films of today, the TV remakes, the special effects-making actors and writers redundant when good scripts and real life locations are needed to help us identify with the situation.