SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

I have a good feeling that most (if not all) the few people who saw this movie during its brief theatrical release felt ripped off. Despite having the title "Sweet Revenge", and involving a female car thief, there is almost nothing that could be labelled exploitation. The title refers to a character's car with that name instead of a character's ambition. Also, there is no sex, just two (brief) scenes of nudity, and the only action there is turns out to be a car chase that lasts only forty or so seconds. As it turns out, the movie is more of a character study than having a B movie spirit. Despite being disappointed that the movie wasn't typical drive-in fodder, I was open to the movie being a serious drama... as long as it was good. Unfortunately, that is not the case. It's a real slow-moving story, for one thing, and the constant spinning of its wheels eventually grows tiresome and had me wishing that the characters would just get on with it. Also, the central character played by Stockard Channing is neither sympathetic nor an interesting flawed character. It's hard to figure out what's going on in this character's head. In the end, the movie's only seeming worth is to answer why Hollywood movie studio Metro Goldwyn Mayer was having a real tough time connecting with audiences in the 1970s. Though the question as to why someone thought that Stockard Channing doing a nude scene was a good idea remains unanswered.

A young woman with a long rap sheet who steals cars for a living is befriended by a public defender who tries to steer her straight. But her goal is to steal and subsequently sell enough cars (sometimes the same car more than once) to buy a new Ferrari.Just like everyone else, I had never heard of this film until it was shown on Turner Classic Movies. And I can understand why it faded away. There is little that stands out about it, and the two stars are not anywhere near A-list (with all due respect). So it makes sense that this would be buried.But it is not a bad movie by any means, and a fun film. Since it was apparently made by MGM, I would suspect the rights to distribute it are fairly cheap right now (2017) and it might be the kind of title that a specialty Blu-ray label would pick up.

Stockard Channing is a young woman who decides to steal the same car again and again, so she can get her dream ride. Sam Waterston is her court-appointed lawyer -- of course -- who finds her low-rent free spirit irresistibly challenging.This is the 1970s, and in the aftermath of the 1960s, the free spirit, bursting from the bonds of conventionality, is no longer seen as a personal choice, of how an individual kook's defiance of convention can make her happier and give those near to her a new and valid view of the world. We don't get Katherine Hepburn gushing about Cary Grant: "You've got no faith in Johnny, have you, Julia? His little dream may fall flat, you think. Well, so it may, what if it should? There'll be another. Oh, I've got all the faith in the world in Johnny. Whatever he does is all right with me. If he wants to dream for a while, he can dream for a while, and if he wants to come back and sell peanuts, oh, how I'll believe in those peanuts!" The downside is no longer just the people making bad choices; we get to see the elderly couple talking about how much they love their son, and imagine how they feel when they find out what has actually. Choices have consequences for other people.

If you're looking for a movie with meaning, this isn't it. But, if you're looking for about 2 hours of car-stealing fun, this is the movie for you. The plot is easy to follow (she steals cars to buy her dream car) and the acting is wonderful. I'm surprised at how much chemistry Stockard Channing and Sam Waterston have together (of course, you could put Stockard Channing opposite a hot dog and she would have find a way to make the scene work.) I'd never heard of this movie before and didn't know what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised by it. I wonder why this film wasn't considered good when it came out. It really isn't a bad little film. If you need only one reason to see this movie, watch it to see the development of Stockard Channing's acting technique. This woman should have a mantle full of Academy Awards. She slips into Vurrla and her different aliases so easily that you wonder (at least I did) if she has some type of personality disorder. I don't mean that in a cruel way, but her transformation into the character is so complete that you forget you're watching Stockard Channing playing a character and feel as if you're peeping in on Vurrla. When you're so engrossed in a movie that you forget that you're watching a movie, that is the hallmark of a great acting (think Olivier in "Othello" or Davis in "The Little Foxes).