User reviews

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

4 August 2010. The focus on juvenile rehabilitation gets a fresh look in this sometimes edgy, raw inside and outside look at juvenile delinquency. The movie hasn't aged particularly well, especially the beginning portion of the movie which seems more like a WEST SIDE STORY (1961)rumble without the love conflict. While the detention center or youth rehabilitation centers has some good moments and in places has an excellent authentic feel without the exaggerated, stereotyping, it nevertheless doesn't follow-through on the actual substance of rehabilitation and the audience gets a tourist version of a visit to your local center inside. Another problem is the title of the movie LOST ANGELS that seem to imply an ensemble movie with a focus a various angels who are lost in Lost Angeles where the movie is taking place, much like THE BREAKFAST CLUB (1985). Donald Sutherland's character seems to have a lot of problems of his own, so much so that the focus on the main theme of the movies gets sideswiped unlike the more focused relational themes between client and therapist and observing how the interaction evolves in a more authentic and meaningful manner as in GOOD WILL HUNTING (1997) between Robin William's therapist identification with Matt Damon's rebellious genius from the poor neighborhood or even PRIME (2000), a comic treatment of a therapeutic relationship starring Oscar award winning Meryl Streep. Cuba Gooding Jr., also had a strong performance as a therapist, but in this case in a prison setting with Anthony Hopkins as an inmate in INSTINCT (1999). Ultimately this movie seems to transform itself into a coming of movie with juvenile rehabilitation more of a setting than an integral part of the movie, as the resolution of this movie seems to come more from outside of the center than within unlike what occurred with 28 DAYS (2000) where Sandra Bullock's character seems to take a lot from her alcohol rehabilitation. GIRL, INTERRUPTED (1999) where Angelina Jolie's character gets a heavy does of theatrical drama in her rehabilitation center is both traditional, yet stylistically more effective than this more low-key version.

Overall, this therapeutic drama as less about rehabilitation from where most movies of this genre derive its strength but from the mean streets of personal experience and the resulting consequences. There is a gritty relationship scenario that occurs in this movie that is particularly effective. But the editing seems unbalanced and somewhat erratic, the voice-over while fascinating but doesn't seem to be used consistently and with as much power of effect as possible such as with THE INFORMANT! (2009) where Matt Damons gets a delicious, running, self-talk through out the movie.

"Lost Angels" is a movie whose sum of the parts is pretty poor...though there are some excellent parts and the film isn't to be totally dismissed.

Tim (Adam Horovitz of 'The Beastie Boys') is a teen with a lot going for him. He has a nice home and his family is middle class. But he also has divorced parents who are idiots...and as a result of this and some very dumb choices, he's running amok and is in legal trouble. Instead of going through the legal system, however, his mother arranges for him to be treated at an expensive teen psychiatric facility. Tim does NOT take to this well despite the efforts of his psychiatrist (Donald Sutherland) and the boy keeps running away and doing incredibly self-destructive things.

Horovitz and Sutherland both act very well in the film...and this is the best thing about the movie. But the script doesn't seem to know where to go with all this and by the end of the film, it's obvious there are no clear answers and the story is left dangling. Does Tim adjust to society or does he continue towards oblivion.... I have no idea nor did the film. A bit frustrating to watch as a result.

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.

The technologist tribe gave you idiots all this leisure time, from the steam engine to the washing machine to the little glow-box spy-tech phones you glue to your heads. And this is what the privileged upper-class white boys to with that leisure time. Not to learn and explore and care and improve, but to just become wastrels. This is not an entertainment movie but more a documentary about the collapse of American greatness. That old saw, "From rags to riches to rags, in three generations" is evident here. I don't know who is worse, the phony grinding strivers, or their juvenile delinquents.

Yeah, the production values are dated, but this is still a well-made flick. When I lived in Silicon Valley I commented how San Jose did not really have a ghetto, like Cleveland and Detroit, cities I had also lived in. A guy I met at traffic school (the second one run like a therapy session) told me the real wastrels were in Mountain View, the rich suburb. He explained the parents did not raise their kids. They just gave 'em 300-dollar shoes and a car, and told them to not bother them. So the kids ran wild. But since mommy and daddy were middle-class, they could buy their kids out of trouble, unlike in the inner city.

I also saw the middle-class kids trying to be bad, whether it was with Mafia wanna-bees in Cleveland or outlaw motorcycle gangs in Cali. One nice thing is that it is not hard to cast this movie in LA. These nepo-baby wastrels are everywhere. Perhaps the whole acting profession is a form of delinquency.

So a whole lot of this movie rang true, though it is a bit '80s dated. If you can apply the principles to today, the story still holds up. After all, going to a party-school college and taking a party major is just a more socially acceptable form of juvenile delinquency. A solid 7, good to kill time until Astrid comes on PBS at 10:00.

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.

4/10

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.

I dunno how the original script looked,but I suspect it was far from what got produced.

What we have her is a choppy movie, about bored rich kids who get into all kind of violent trouble, just cause they are bored.

The main guy is a kid who seem to be more of a background character,kind of guy. He is in a rich kid gang called DAB(you don't ever get told what the acronyms mean). But the problem is he really seem more like a mascot,than a real gang member. He si not all that edgy. nor all that provoking. More the silent nerdy type. Than you have the female lead. The always lovely Amy Locane. But she don't have much to work with here. She is hired cause she is pretty,. She is the gang leaders girlfriend. But he don't really seem to care all that much about her. Kind more like something that is nice to have around.,

After a gang fight gone bad,and a car driven into a swimming pool .They end up in some sort of juvenile mental institution,for troubled kids.

Which is were most of the film take place.

The problem is you don't really feel for these kids. When I watched Where the Day Takes You I had sympathy with them. But watching this movie you don't really feel anything,near sympathy for them.

I think the biggest problem is the movie can't decide if it gonna be a gang movie, a Troubled teen movie,or a poor rich kid with their absent parents drama. I feel the main protagonist would have been played better by someone else.

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

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.