Lost Angels (1989) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
A lost gem...
brendonm14 February 2002
My mom worked in a mental ward for teenagers, and this movie captures that environment very well (the writer either worked in one or did his research). Amy Locaine is so sweet and screwed up at the same time. Mr. Beasty Boy does a good job as the confused protag, and I especially like how the story and filmmarkers don't judge these kids with speeches about morals from the adult characters -- but instead ask hard questions like: "What do you want [in your life]?" Sutherland is great in his role and totally believable. Worth a rent or watching on cable. Too bad this movie didn't get more attention.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Beastie Boy Ad Rock puts on a surprisingly good performance
Sho Nuff6 February 1999
I only watched this movie because Adam Horovitz of the Beastie Boys was in this movie. What I found is a very realistic (until the end) movie about suburban teenage angst. Horovitz plays the lead, who ends up getting institutionalized because his parents are too busy. Horovitz surprised me by his acting skills as his anger was shown strongly. He is in need of fitting in, and that's where his step-brother comes in and influences him to get out of the institution and wreak havoc with him. His love interest is institutionalized too, but when she is free, she is stuck at home drugged out, with her mom not caring for her. Donald Sutherland plays the institution's only caring person. He says "Yeah, they care. They care for a couple hours because they're paid to care." That's another conflict in this movie is his caring for his patients, but it strains his relationship with his real family. This movie is very strong, and shows the pain of being a rich teen in suburban L.A. with no support of the family. I just feel the ending was a cheap cop out to a very good movie.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
not great, but good - Horowitz does fine work
jnsgrover16 January 2007
Really a sweet movie - yes, VERY formulaic, but that does not disqualify any film. Plot - OK, crap. But Sutherland and Horowitz (yes, the guy from Beastie Boys and son of the famous playwright) do well by the roles they are given.

It is the gentle attention that the director give to the characters that makes the movie for me. The two main characters are cast in a very typical ("Ordinary People") situation, but they transcend it with their performances. Sutherland could easily have coasted through this movie for the paycheck, but doesn't. Adam Horowitz could have just posed and postured - but doesn't.

Or I'm nuts - could be. There is no harm, however, in a feel-good story that doesn't cheat on the difficulties of the characters' situations or their needs. This plot may speed past them, but the performances give them depth.

Honest sentiment is no crime - and I would claim that Sutherland and Horowitz give nuanced performances (not exactly typical for either).
9 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Michael Bolton!
bustercolon22 December 2003
All you really need to know about this movie is that its the first time I ever saw Michael Bolton in a movie. No, not the singer, but the character from Office Space. He plays a minor role as a wise ass in rehab named Carlo. He has some really funny lines and is a good example of the different kind of rebellious teens the 80's produced. You can see how we all became underachievers and slackers by watching this movie. It has a pretty good message about joint income families producing lazy, drug addicted, sex crazed, hyper active, non attentive kids. The movie isnt that great, but the insite into what was going on in the wake of Reaganomics is really important. Its a good capstone for movies like repo man, rad, thrashin, less than zero, and so on. Not that theres much in common here, but the genre is the same. This movie is pretty much an expanded after school special. But the gang and club scenes are great. Theres some decent dialogue and some 80's music. Its worth renting if your from this era, most younger wont get it, most older wont understand. 7 of 10*'s
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Awesome 80s Cult Classic starring Adrock!
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.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A story about growing up in the city with uncaring parents
massic14 January 1999
I was really moved by this movie. I grew up in similar circumstances and was really able to relate to what was happening to the character. Growing up in the city around drugs crime can really wear a kid thin. If you don't make the right choices you'll end up either dead or in jail. This movie portrayed exactly that, but it's happy ending was unnecessary.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not too bad. Teen drama...
smatysia11 July 2005
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.
7 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Adrock gives a good performance, but the film is a dud
reverendtom30 November 2006
Adam Horowitz a.k.a. King AdRock of the Beastie Boys puts in a surprisingly good performance as a troubled teen here, but overall the film is pretty unremarkable. King AdRock and Donald Sutherland? That lineup has cult classic written all over it, but unfortunately, there really ain't a whole lot going on here. There are some great scenes where Adrock gets mad, gets in fights or complains about things, but they are the only high points. Worth watching if you're a Beasties fan, if only to see that Adrock is actually a good actor, but that's it. The film is slow moving and very serious and not even Adrock and Donald Sutherland can save it. Adrock should get back into acting, he's funny as hell, too.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Solid Film
TedMichaelMor18 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"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.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lost Angels
doctorkersey12 March 2006
I found the movie to be very interesting.

It is about the complexities involved with living in the 80's in southern California.

The southern California area, this movie deals with, has those societal dynamics because of the different cultures involved.

Someone that is not a citizen of southern California might find the movie hard to relate to but it is still worth seeing.

If you want a window into what sometimes happens here in southern California you must see the movie.

How do I know? I lived a similar life.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dull and contrived...
The_Core3 March 2002
This movie didn't "work" for me... the situations didn't feel right, the movie didn't feel realistic, and I didn't care a bit for any of the characters. I did sit through the end of the tape to see how it ended (rather a waste of time). The film itself felt lost... with no direction, no particular meaning and no real plot. Contrived, unrealistic situations and a poor screenplay didn't help a bit.

2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Lost kids, Lost Angels, minor gang members with no direction in life.
TxMike27 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Funny how I got to see this movie. I saw in the news currently that Amy Locane is in court regarding a DUI death in 2010, so I looked up her movies and found this one on Netflix streaming movies. It is of teenage angst in Southern California, kids wanting to be tough and members of two-bit gangs.

Adam Horovitz (who went on to an extensive musical career since this movie) was 17-ish Tim 'Chino' Doolan. He gets in trouble, along with a teen girl, and this particular episode ends with the girl's family's car in the pool. They both end up in a juvenile facility. The girl is Amy Locane, really still in her teens, as Cheryl Anderson. This was her first movie role.

Donald Sutherland is one of the 'shrinks', Dr. Charles Loftis, and the only one who really cares about the kids and their potential rehabilitation. He and Chino end up in a love-hate relationship, where he keeps giving Chino chances and Chino fails to keep his word.

Don Bloomfield is the bad half-brother, Andy 'Natas' Doolan, who keeps getting Chino into trouble. Their rivals are the Latino population, they call themselves D.A.B. (dead at birth) Kids, and Loftis notes that it is 'B-A-D' spelled backwards.

It is a movie of teen angst and possible redemption. It kept my interest, and it was nice to see Amy Locane in her first movie role.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A very poor film
nichols_donald18 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews