4.6/10
14
1 user

Luvrgrl (2004)

Not Rated | | Drama | 21 February 2004 (USA)
A teenage girl has a nervous breakdown and is sent by her parents to a mental hospital at age 16. While she is in the mental hospital her mother passes away of an unspecified illness. At ... See full summary »

Director:

Reviews

Photos

Add Image Add an image

Do you have any images for this title?

Edit

Cast

Cast overview, first billed only:
...
Zoe (as Nicole Benisch)
Thomas Christopher Nieto ...
Ben
...
Professor Mitchell
Katie Terry ...
Shelly
Kelly Ray ...
Mary
Sean Eager ...
Tom
Catherine Siracusa ...
Zoe's Mother
Antonio Tomahawk ...
Drug Dealer
...
Ned
...
Well-Dressed Man
...
Punk Boy (as Mark Alan Brown)
Margaret Lancaster ...
Christine
Fanny Gonzalez ...
Prostitute
Bill Oliver ...
Business Man
...
Man In Store
Edit

Storyline

A teenage girl has a nervous breakdown and is sent by her parents to a mental hospital at age 16. While she is in the mental hospital her mother passes away of an unspecified illness. At age 18 her father takes her out of the hospital and sends her to college. In her first semester of college she takes an abnormal psychology class focussing on sexual addiction. She acts out her inner turmoils in a string of sexual encounters, involving some partial nudity and lots of angst. Her mother appears to her in visions to scold her occasionally. Written by Lars Ericson

Plot Summary | Add Synopsis

Plot Keywords:

abnormal psychology | See All (1) »

Genres:

Drama

Certificate:

Not Rated
Edit

Details

Official Sites:

Country:

Language:

Release Date:

21 February 2004 (USA)  »

Box Office

Budget:

$10,000 (estimated)
 »

Company Credits

Production Co:

 »
Show detailed on  »

Technical Specs

Color:

See  »

Frequently Asked Questions

This FAQ is empty. Add the first question.

User Reviews

 
Worst of the worst
14 September 2006 | by (United States) – See all my reviews

I'm racking my brain to think of a worse movie, but I'm coming up blank.

This movie is pure crap for the following reasons: 1) shot on video tape 2) actors are dreadful, dredged up from a community playhouse 3) writing is horrible, derivative, predictable, boring 4) camera work is awful - overly backlit, dark faced actors are common

I won't say I want the 1.5 hours of my life back, because I didn't hang in for that long. After 5 minutes, I could see what a dog it was, and just fast forwarded and randomly checked out a minute here and there.

The "steamy" scenes are equally disappointing, not half as good as the lamest Cinemax after dark offering.

The people who gave this movie a 10 have to be actors who were in the movie. I notice there are only 5 votes (6 with my 1 star). I gave it 1 star, and that's only because I couldn't give it zero.


1 of 2 people found this review helpful.  Was this review helpful to you?

Contribute to This Page

Create a character page for:
?