A Murderous Affair: The Carolyn Warmus Story (1992 TV Movie) User Reviews

A little better than the other version

[blanche-2 · 6/10 · 20 March 2007]

There are two versions of Carolyn Warmus' story - this one and another 1992 version starring Jenny Robertson and Joe Penny. So Carolyn doesn't beat out Amy Fisher, of whom it was said, "Jesus Christ didn't have that many movies made of his life."

This TV movie, starring Virginia Madsen and Chris Sarandon, is superior to the other, which isn't saying too awfully much. The cast is definitely better. Though I am a fan of Joe Penny's, I never considered Robertson much of an actress; however, in recent years, now that she is more in the leading lady stage of her career, she is much better. Both films portray Carolyn as a man magnet with a great body and loads of sex appeal. In both versions, much is made of her grand, electric entrance into the courtroom on the first day of her trial. This film has one thing the other lacked - the real-life character of Vincent Parco, the detective who sold Carolyn the murder weapon (with a silencer). For an important figure in the case, it's strange that he isn't a character in the Robertson-Penny movie. I actually have spoken with Vincent Parco, so I admit to finding this version more interesting.

Without going into enormous detail, Warmus is the woman suspected of killing her boyfriend's wife, Betty Jean Solomon. At first, her boyfriend is the chief suspect. Eventually the focus falls on Carolyn.

I thought Madsen was great showing how unstable and obsessive Carolyn was, trashing a room and stalking Carlin and his wife in Puerto Rico (in flashback). Chris Sarandon, as Michael Carlin, the guilt-ridden, overwrought, cheating husband, is very good.

Peter Haskell, another favorite of mine, plays Carolyn's father in flashback. He's uncredited. Ned Eisenberg, another favorite and a good actor is the detective assigned to the case.

So for me, the dice are loaded in favor of this version. Both are routine, and as we know, the beautiful and talented Madsen has gone on to much better.

Another waste of time (I think)

[pizzawarrior1956-1 · 5/10 · 8 April 2006]

As a longtime fan of Virginia Madsen, I have always felt that she could have done better than playing all of these 'femme-fatales' during that part of her career which includes this.

However, I have since learned that Virginia's influences in her acting were Barbara Stanwyck and Bette Davis, both masters of film noir.

Perhaps this finally explains this phase of her career, and therefore may deserve some sort of reassessment, so I may be back soon and do some editing here and other places on IMDb.

As for this film, she seems to have captured the essence of Carolyn Warmus, and since it is currently being rerun on the Lifetime Movie Network and may finally be on DVD in this country, others may now come to appreciate her work, now that her career seems to be back on track.

Direction is sloppy; story is fragmented...

[MarieGabrielle · 4/10 · 13 November 2006]

This film was made in the early 90's and it seems that was a time (before reality TV glutted the market) and when subject matter was scarce, so audiences were treated with "ripped from the headlines" type Lifetime movies. Some were okay, some not. A few (though not many) were memorable.

This falls into the forgettable category. Virginia Madsen is worth watching, although the little "get-up" costumes she wears are blatantly obvious and one-dimensional. Surely the director must know of other ways to portray a flirtatious and narcissistic woman other than the little tennis dress and obsession with stuffed animals - silly.

Chris Sarandon is in a thankless role, Lenore Kasdorf as the executed wife. Basically the story does not reveal Warmus' motives, (other than the flat notion that she was jealous). A tired idea, unless the audience is shown WHY she is the way she is; perhaps it was based in childhood?. There is a brief clip of Warmus' childhood, but no depth, no inference. We do not care about the characters.

By the time we get to the courtroom scene, we have lost interest. William H. Macy as prosecutor does nothing to redeem the film. This film with the material, could have been interesting. First we need to care about the characters. Many films may not be masterpieces but if we CARE about the outcome, the story becomes worthwhile. Not so in this case.

the title is an unintentional pun on the product

[petershelleyau · 20 April 2003]

Director Martin Davidson has to be congratulated for being one of the few who has made Virginia Madsen look bad, and for presenting a story supposedly centred on a true life woman, with frustrating ambiguity and a general lack of skill.

Madsen plays Carolyn Warmus, a Greenville Springs New York school teacher who is accused of the murder of Betty Jean Solomon (Lenore Kasdorf), the wife of her lover and fellow school teacher Paul Solomon (Chris Sarandon).

The teleplay makes Paul the prime suspect until the narrative skips to Carolyn's stalking of him once he stops seeing her after Betty Jean is killed. Making Paul a womaniser is an interesting plot development, however writers Earl & Pamela Wallace and Davidson never add enough depth or characterisation to Carolyn to suggest that she is the murderer she goes on trial for being. Flashback memory is used clumsily in response to police interrogation of various people for the backstory, and the touches of Carolyn's relationship with her father in a pre-credit sequence and via his appearance at her 2nd trial are slight. This seeming unmotivated entrapment of Carolyn by the police is also highlighted by their insensitive ridicule of her during a search of her home. Paul is given a speech to Carolyn's defence attorney that no judge would ordinarily allow, and Betty Jean is shown to sleep whilst a war movie plays loudly on her television.

Matters aren't helped by Davidson's plodding direction, and cliched use of black & white, slow motion, tilted camera, lighting for flashbacks, and the overuse of saxophone to represent Carolyn's sexuality. Although he does use an interesting stylisation for Carolyn's hearing pleas and sentencing, otherwise Davidson paints her in the broadest possible strokes, where Madsen overplays being a femme fatale, and is particularly ridiculous in a montage of her being photographed. She only manages subtlety when looking at herself in the mirror on 2 occasions, where her sultriness is not forced, in a scene of anger and in some of her silent reactions at the trial. Davidson also strangely provides a lot of footage of Sarandon's bare and sweaty torso, though once works against an expectation, as the water splash from a pool where he sunbakes comes from a fat lady.

Passable

[jonsid57 · 5/10 · 2 February 2021]

Passable film with a great performance by Virginia Madsen as the femme fatale . The film has its moments but otherwise most of the characters are rather dull and the film is slow at times . The court cases could have been portrayed in a more interesting way .

Poor take on interesting true-life story

[highwaytourist · 2/10 · 27 December 2007]

The case of Carolyn Warmus, a beautiful teacher who was accused of murdering the wife of her boyfriend, a co-worker, resulted in a three-year, two-trial case. In fact, Warmus maintains her innocence to this day, and there were some weaknesses in the prosecution's case. But none of this gets noticed. Virginia Madsen gives a respectable performance as Warmus, but the script is of the tabloid trash variety. The scene where she comes on to him is so ludicrous, it would embarrass a first-time screenwriter. I didn't watch the whole film, it was so dull. In fact, even though it was based on a real life case, it plays like fourth-rate crime fiction. All one can do after watching this is to wonder what really happened. Too bad.

Tedious film and performances

[guilfisher-1 · 1/10 · 14 October 2006]

I disliked this 1992 melodrama for its writing, direction and performances by almost everyone in the cast. I'm not a Virginia Madsen fan, what else has she done, and this movie is an example of her work. First of all she should stop trying to be a Sharon Stone imitation, for Stone certainly has more appeal in the looks department. And she should learn to act, other than gyrating and posturing all over the place. Her entrance in the tennis outfit had to be a joke, right? Then we have an equally bad performance from Chris Sarandon, who plays a better vampire, as a weakling of a husband who doesn't seem to have any guts at all. He whines and cries throughout the film. I had wished the dame had knocked him off instead, he was that annoying. Two redeeming factors however remain in the film. William H. Macy, who I usually don't like, does well as the prosecuting attorney and Herb Mitchell, as the Judge at the trial, was excellent. I cheered when he told the dame to shut up and sit down in court. This is a bad bad movie and a waste of time, believe me.

A Murderous Affair

[HorrorFan1984 · 5/10 · 19 April 2020]

A Murderous Affair is an early 90's Made-For-TV movie which depicts the true story involving Caroylin Warmus and her crime of passion.

We see man named Paul leaving his wife late at night to go out bowling. During his night out, his wife is shot to death by an unknown assailant. After we see that, Paul meets Carolyn at a bar to continue in an affair with her that he's been carrying on with for a while. The film eventually takes us into how the affair started and how Carolyn got herself integrated into Paul's family by having dinner with them for example. Police begin to gather evidence against her and that's when they put her on trial for the murder of Jeanne Solomon.

A Murderous Affair is such an early 90's made for TV movie. We get the sax solos and jazz numbers playing as background music, smoky bars/rooms, etc. Aside from that, it made Carolyn Warmus look like a needy self-absorbed woman desperate for men's attention. I don't know enough about the true story and what came out in court, but that is the direction this movie wanted to take us in. That she was a devious woman and Paul was an innocent man taken in by her charms and sexuality.

The acting was good enough. Virginia Madsen was a very sexual and sensual Carolyn Warmus, which seems to be a fit from what I read of the true story. Chris Sarandon was solid in a role that didn't have much to do. William H. Macy played the prosecutor and was good as well, but nothing to write home about. The character development is what lacked here. I wanted to learn more about Carolyn Warmus and her family life and background. We got very little of that which made me wonder why she was the way she was.

A Murderous Affair started well, but fell apart in the later half leading up to the trial. We got nothing in terms of character development and as to why Carolyn would commit such a crime other than she was jealous of Paul's wife. There was definitely more to uncover, but this depiction stuck to the basics and followed the trail of murder scene, police investigation, and trial.

5/10

Unconvincing, badly acted heap of tripe

[nicholas.rhodes · 3/10 · 30 September 2007]

I am a great fan of USA TV films and notably courtroom dramas. Saw this one a couple of years ago on DVD in the UK and on paper the plot sounded interesting so I went ahead and bought it. Do not know whether it is fictional or based on some true life court case. Whatever the outcome, the name Caroline Warmus is totally unknown here in Europe. I was very disappointed by this film. There is a murder and two possible suspects. Either the dead woman's husband or his lover. There is no evidence to support either one more than the other. The acting in the film is atrocious, be it the main actors or even worse, those playing the roles of the police. The dialogues just did not ring true and you felt that the director was just doing this to earn a few extra dollars. The only redeeming quality is the sexiness of the actress Madsen who plays Warmus. Both of the other actors ( man and assasinated wife ) are most unattractive and man's dialogue totally unconvincing. Who is this actor ?? I have played the film three times, hoping to like it more on successive viewings but my opinion remains unchanged. At the end of the film we learn that Warmus was condemned for the murder but I could not find a single shred of evidence justifying this. I thought that tangible proof was needed to condemn someone, but in this case it seems to have been done on intuition or flair - which in my opinion is pushing it !Anyway, all this is too much and too perverted for my natural logic and whilst I appreciate that others like me may find Warmus sexy and attractive, the film itself is actually a total waste of time.

Decent (at least for me) version of the story

[bellino-angelo2014 · 8/10 · 21 July 2023]

Before you read the following text, I have to warn you that I have never heard about Carolyn Warmus before seeing this movie. After reading about the facts on Wikipedia, I saw it and I think that it was enough accurate for giving a higher score than most of the reviews for it.

Carolyn Warmus (Virginia Madsen) is a school teacher that one day meets Paul Solomon (Chris Sarandon) and he becomes so enticed by her that they start an affair. Not for long, as Solomon's wife Kristen (Olivia Burnette) discovers the affair and wants it over. So one night Kristen goes to Carolyn for beating her but Carolyn shots Kristen in the head just in time and then she is convicted for murder although she states that she did it in self defense. What follows is then the story told in flashbacks about what led to the killing and then the trial that bought to her conviction (which, according to Wikipedia, lasted until 17 June 2019, so 27 years after this movie).

The acting was good by Madsen's sister, Sarandon's former husband and William Macy as the attorney. And after reading the entire story on Wikipedia, this version is as accurate as it can be about the fact. I highly recommend it also for the music that there is at a certain point when Carolyn checks into a resort... it made me think about flamingos flying!

No real info here, B film at best

[OneAnjel · 2/10 · 14 April 2021]

I recall the headlines somewhat, & recall knowing there was a significant amount of evidence against Warmus, including that she had stalked previous lovers and tried to run over one of their girlfriends. But in watching this film in 2021, I was expecting to have my memory refreshed on the actual facts of the case. This film doesn't do that, really, except to link the murder weapon to Warmus and show her femme fatal persona -- which is a bit hard to believe looking at actual photos of her. So, while the film shows her as a siren I think the attraction men may have had to her was much more basic and looks like a dollar sign. I will assume the actress was just following direction in trying to show how self-engrossed Warmus was and how highly she thought of herself; but Virginia Madsen is said to have been influenced by people like Betty Davis, Katherine Hepburn, and Marilyn Monroe which I think gives more background on how she played the role than anything related to Carolyn. I remember Madsen from a great tv series called The Witches at East End. The film also does nothing to provide any back story on Warmus such as that her daddy was a wealthy businessman, making us wonder how a teacher could afford her lavish style and spur of the moment travel. There is a very vague insinuation that she had daddy issues but the vague innuendo is based on the viewer having a solid background on the case via the media. Maybe at the time the film was made it was relevant to those who had some prior knowledge of the case and anti-social behavior of Warmus. But this film, imo, is poorly done using romantic jazz music every time Warmus is shown, and seems to be more a vehicle to plant doubt. What actually turned the tables on the 2nd trial was the additional evidence where they matched an expensive bloody glove found at the scene to gloves in Warmus' closet (also not in the film). And apparently Warmus has a legal fund-me type site open that her own father has never contributed to. The film also doesn't tell us that Mrs. Solomon knew about the affair and that Warmus had sent her notes that could be construed as threatening. The fact is, though, not everyone who stalks and has the financial means to try to control others is capable of murder. But in this case, Warmus was proven to be the killer and I feel this film tries to leave that open. All in all, this film overplays the seductive abilities of Warmus, downplays the stupidity of Solomon (and his family who all accepted financial favors and gifts from Warmus), and fails to show us even 50% of what the jury was shown. It's just a way to fill airspace and take advantage of headlines.

I live near the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility where Warmus is imprisoned!

[BreanneB · 14 May 2005]

Actually, I don't live near it, but I live in the same exact state, N.Y. I saw this movie on Lifetime and taped it. I like Virginia Madsen and thought she did a great job performing as Carolyn Warmus. Carolyn Warmus, was a spoiled, self-centered, rotten person who did whatever she wanted whenever she wanted, thought whatever she wanted, said whatever she wanted and thought of no one except herself. I think she should have been sentenced to death for her crime. She is obviously someone who needs to grow up and accept no for an answer. I saw the other movie about her too, The Dangers of Love: The Carolyn Warmus Story, and Fatal Attraction. I also read the book Crimes of Passion which has her featured in it and Fatal Attraction Murder: The Case of Carolyn Warmus.

It does not get better as at goes!

[tracyhenson-53575 · 1/10 · 23 December 2023]

They really need to make zero stars an option! Everything about this movie is a zero! Anything someone might consider ok about this is ruined by the bad acting and the ridiculous smoky haze. I was disappointed and surprised at how bad Chris Sarandon's acting was. I liked him in "Fright Night". The look on his face when he looked at his hands with all the blood on them was one of the absolute worst acting scenes ever....ever!

Virginia Madsen was the wrong choice for this film, but a good actress would have known to pass it over. This is one of those movies that could damage an actor's career . There is nothing than could have saved it.

***I strongly suggest you do not waste your time watching this if you haven't seen it. Only recommend this movie to someone you want to punish.*** I'm trying to think what could have made it better but it is so bad that it should have never been done in the first place. The next time I start a movie and realize early on it is terrible, I'm going to stop watching and save myself from wasting the time on it. I strongly suggest you do the same. Anyone who gave this movie 3 or more stars was just being nice.