Chris Sarandon played a convincing s.o.b
I wanted to kick his butt!!
That is the reaction that people should have, what he did to her and how he did it demonstrates a complete disregard for another persons rights and life.
Then, he came back and did it to her younger sister, very despicable.
Even though he deserved to die, I would've kept his butt alive so he could've gone to prison so he could get everything that he did to Chrissy and her sister coming back to him.
If I were Chrissy, during the scene in the parking lot, I would've shot his tire causing him to lose control of his car. When he gets out of his car after it crashed and flipped over, I would then shoot him in the crotch twice hitting his you know what and one of his balls. He'd go to jail for sure for stagetory rape and like I've said, he would definately get raped in there which would be good punishment for him.
I haven't seen the film but from what I already know of it, the best punishment would be to break his legs, then shove a broken wine bottle up his ass, puncturing his colon and leaving him to bleed to death.
" It is in dying, that we awake to eternal life "- John Rambo
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That would be good punishment too for that sick pervert.share
These punishments are pretty...sadistic for a sadist.share
Well, I'm not sadistic and even though that was just a movie, I take it that you'd actually have feelings for a man who'd beaten and raped a woman and then commits stagetory rape on her sister, a thirteen year old girl.
I'll tell you this much, he needed to go to prison that's for sure. I don't know if you have any sisters or not, but anyway, how would you'd liked it if a real life situation similar to what happened in the movie happened to any of them? Would you still you take up for the rapist or your sisters if you have any?
The way I see it refering to the Gordon Stuart character, he knew the hell what he was doing, he was just an insecure, perverted man who if he can't get his way with a woman or even a little girl, he gets angry an then brutally attacks and rapes them.
IEATWARTS, I think you spelled "thanks" incorrectly.share
If I were Chrissy after he just raped my little sister, I probably would've still ran outside after him with the shotgun but instead of shooting him, I would've just shot the tires on his car and let the police finish dealing with him. Chrissy couldn't get arrested for just shooting someone's tires and Gordon should be found guilty this time for raping a minor(statutory rape) and the people of the court should finally realize that she was telling the truth and he goes to prison. If the court would still find Gordon innocent, they are just as crazy and ignorant as he is.share
The movie ended with Chrissy in court after she was arrested for shooting Gordon to death for raping her little sister and she was found not guilty.share
For Pete's Sakes, its just a movie. You got to separate the character from the actor.share
I was SO glad to see him get shot
Farewell, you sick bastard.
"The movie ended with Chrissy in court after she was arrested for
shooting Gordon to death for raping her little sister and she was
found not guilty."
The movie does NOT end with Chis being found not guilty. The last scene is of Chris in a shocked state after she has killed the rapest and the police are arresting her. As the camera pulls back and the credits start to roll we hear Chris's lawyer telling the jury that justice demands that she be aquited of his murder, but we do NOT know the verdit.
Given the circumstances perhaps she got off with temporary insanity - seeing her little sister raped by the same man who raped her probably put her over the edge - but she did gun him down, when the appropriated thing would have not to taken justice into her own hands, but call the police. So there is a possiblity she could have been found guilty.
You don't know what the hell you're talking about, you smart alek so shut up!! And for your information, I have Lipstick on DVD and I do know how it ended and also it was statutory rape, Cathy was a 13 year old,a minor for crying out loud and Gordon was a grown ass 33 or 34 year old man. He did rape her and she was a minor and when a grown person has sex with a minor it's considered statutory rape no matter what and that's that!!!
Also, I know it was just a movie and they were just acting!!
I'm positive she was found "not guilty", as I've seen that scene several times. Maybe the version you saw has that part cut out.
It used to be when they cut out parts, they would only cut out insignificant scenes (such as two people talking at a table, and not adding much to the plot). But now even very key scenes can be cut out.
Margaux Hemingway acted her head off in this film; I don't know why she was lambasted. Mariel was very good in this too. Anne Bancroft practically stole every scene she was in. Chris Sarandon was good at playing such a hurtful person. He's Susan Sarandon's ex-husband. She didn't go back to her maiden name. Susan Sarandon sounds snappier than Susan Tomalin.
She couldn't bear the thought of his going to trial again and possibly being found not guilty again. Remember, there was no DNA testing back then, so he could have denied he raped Kathy.
"This is the most beautiful shotgun I think I've ever picked up!"
The twisted thing about having Chris Sarandon as the rapist is that he was so handsome and sane seeming as Gordon Stuart. It was as if the jury and his old co workers were practically begging for a reason not to believe he was a rapist. The nun was practically slobbering over the good looking young man when she was telling him how he could get his job back.
Gordon's music was ugly and he was a creep.
[edited to be understandable English]
No two persons ever watch the same movie.share
I think that was in fact part of the idea. That even if a person looks "nice", that doesn't mean he isn't a sadistic bastard. Chrissy would have *never* let him in if she had suspected him, but she didn't. I know that no sane girl would leave a stranger unattended at their home, especially if they don't really know them.share
After re-watching the movie yesterday (for the first time since 1976) the movie actually did a great job of making Sarandon's character believable. Chris Sarandon was stupendously handsome then and I have to wonder if the director and some of the crew thought he was too good-looking to play such a creepy guy. Because this guy with his looks could have gotten any girl he wanted. From the very first scene though, when Sarandon looks so goofy and uncomfortable on the beach, he is very convincing in his role.share
His music SUCKED!!!share
I can't remember if he played the transsexual, Leon, in 'Dog Day Afternoon' before or after this movie, but I saw 'Lipstick' first and then when I saw DDA all I could think is 'that's that creepy rapist in Lipstick.'share
There was no explanation at all to the creeps motives .
Zero background check on him . I found that strange .