SnoopyStyle Chris McCormick (Margaux Hemingway) is a high fashion model. Gordon Stuart (Chris Sarandon) is her little sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway)'s music teacher. Her friend Steve Edison (Perry King) is a fashion photographer. Gordon brutally rapes Chris. Kathy walks in on them. Gordon reports it to the police and he's arrested. The girls stay with their priest brother Martin. Steve advises her to avoid the publicity. Gordon is found not guilty in a trial.The Hemingway sisters have never been mistaken for good actresses. Margaux is a stiff bad actress. Mariel is still young in this and has some promise. The trial concerned me with some very clunky melodramatic dialog. Eventually I put it down to lawyers being overly dramatic for the court. The court section does work but the movie can't overcome Margaux's bad acting.

preppy-3 Model Chris McCormack (Margaux Hemingway) is brutally raped by a teacher (Chris Sarandon) of her sister Kathy (Mariel Hemingway). He is brought to trial but goes totally free. He then rapes Kathy!Objectionable and sick rape film. This movie was advertised as an important drama dealing with rape. What it is is a badly written and (for the most part) badly acted drama. It purports to be sympathetic to the victim of the rape but shoves the scene in our face. To be totally honest however, Hemingway's acting is so bad in that sequence that it loses any real impact it might have had. The trial scenes were boring and predictable. And the movie just went too far when 15 year old Mariel is raped (thankfully that wasn't shown). I do admit though that it did lead to a great ending when Margaux grabs a gun and shoots Sarandon dead. But seriously--having a young girl raped is just revolting.Acting doesn't help. For instance, Margaux was no actress. She was certainly a beautiful woman (and an actual model I believe) but her acting left a lot to be desired. It lessens the film. Mariel was just OK but this was one of her first films. Sarandon does what he can as the rapist. He wasn't bad but the terrible script worked against him.I do remember hearing that at a screening of this back in 1976 some women stood up and cheered when Sarandon was killed so maybe this works for some people. I found this boring, simplistic and REALLY sick. A 1 all the way.

Andy Ethell The more I see references to the psychological drama/thriller movies of the 1970's, the more I wish I could see them again.Lipstick (1976) was made during an era that saw thrillers like Duel, Badham County, Hardcore, The Dirty Harry series and politically incorrect teen movies like Animal House. The scripts and characterisations had to be good because this was pre special effects, they actually shot films outdoors in real life settings, not just studio caverns.This is a beautifully made film and we can appreciate the freshness of the Hemingway sisters , as well as understand the difficulties a disturbed young man faces when his desires get the better of him.The revenge aspect would make the viewer feel good as they see justice as being done.Though in the end no one wins, expect viewers who are treated to almost 2 hours of suspense , escapism and possibly voyeurism as the girls are so attractive.I am tired of the franchise films of today, the TV remakes, the special effects-making actors and writers redundant when good scripts and real life locations are needed to help us identify with the situation.

harry-76 There is a significant social statement contained within the body of this harrowing tale. Just where does consensual sensuality leave off and blatant assault begin?The meager stats for court convictions of males in rape cases speaks to the futility of provable evidence to bring about justice. It's one thing for a woman to experience a violation, yet another to prove it to a jury. With clever defense attorneys twisting facts around to suggest enticement, women face an uphill battle to overcome reasonable doubt. "Lipstick" dramatizes such a scenario in graphic terms--possibly so much so that its potent social commentary might become blurred. Just as there can be a fine line between consent and assault, so can there be also between legitimate expose and sleazy exploitation. The cast, headed by Margeaux and Mariel Hemingway, Chris Sarandon and Anne Bancroft, all invest deep emotion into their roles. It's certainly a sobering enterprise, with little in the way of character background, particularly as to the accused. Other than that he creates what some might consider "weird" art, there's nothing to suggest his rationale for physical abuses of not one, but two, sisters. All we know of him is that he's a respected educator and dance theater professional. Further, casting handsome Sarandon in the role begs the question, "Why do things the hard way?"By not addressing character background the scriptor left a decided void, suggesting an interest more on surface than substance. Nor does the film's slick title or glossy production design help raise the product's standard.When originally shown on the large screen in 1976, it apparently was too much for some audiences, and the film gained a poor rep. Viewed today, while it's still a rough enterprise, it does raise awareness as to the painful plight of abused women. In that regard, the film has relevance--for it does indeed affect us all.