User Reviews

Movie was entertaining, and the acting better than I had expected from everyone in the film. Leads young but I thought they played their characters well. The 16 / 17 year old lead was naive and made some poor choices, but to me that is well in character for who she was. Her friend Tenaya seemed to have more common sense & offer some good advice. The cast was impressive, I know I've seen most of them in other roles on TV or movies but the acting was good & everyone was believable in their character for this film.

The big let down was the ending - the first time I saw it I thought someone at the network had screwed up & cut off the last 5 minutes of the film to start the next one on time. So I watched the last half again when it came on later that night - same thing! Just a close up on the baby & flashbacks her stalker boyfriend was having - presumably as his life ebbed away? After becoming interested in the storyline & the characters I sure wanted more than this vague half baked ending.

Is it only in USA that guy being 21 and girl being 17 somehow is supposed to make audience feel that there is something wrong? That 17 is really not all that much different from 21. You don't know all that much more unless you are undergoing extreme experiences. Most people spend those years mostly in school, and not all that much changes.

I don't believe I ever met 17 year old that was as stupid as main character was in this movie.

This movie was badly written. They should have had psychologist/psychiatrist with actual field experience as consultant.Instead script reads like it was written by somebody utterly clueless about regular people that age.

To top that off, casting was just horrible. Main actress cant act and should look for different career. So should most of the rest of the cast.

I find that if script was better written, and if acting was better, perhaps this could have been a tragic story, where we could feel bad for both people. Instead, I felt nothing at all for any character in this movie, and found myself fast forwarding a lot.

Give this one a pass, your time should be worth more to you.

This is not going to win any awards, but it passes time. The girl, played by Taylor somebody, is not a good actress, but seems to have improved some since her time on Days of our lives as Mia, a pregnant teen who was with a boy named Chad. That's strange, since she plays a pregnant teen here and the father's name is...Chad. Jamie Luner is totally wasted in this movie. She doesn't get a chance to do anything, and I'm used to her having the lead in TV movies. She was pretty much a zombie here. I didn't like how the girl seemed to be leading Chad on at points. You either don't want him around or you do. If you don't, stop letting him talk you into listening to him and following him places, just don't bother with him if he shows up at your school. What does she think following him around the corner for a little talk is going to do? Honestly, the girl just didn't seem upset at Chad in a realistic way, it was like she was only being slightly annoyed.

Taylor Spreitler, as Angela Curson, is a high school girl of seventeen and is pregnant. But that's not where the problem lies. A few words of admonishment from her parents -- nice performance from Amy Pietz as the concerned mother -- and the middle-class Curson family happily sets about buying baby doo-dads and fixing up the spare room for a nursery, little pink figures in the wall paper and whatnot. Oh, the family presumably still wishes that their little girl hadn't gotten knocked up at sixteen, but let's put that behind us. Everything is hunky-dory.

Except for one thing. The young college student, Chuck Hittinger as Chad Bruning, the father-to-be. The writers have no intention of challenging the viewer. They spill the beans about who's right and who's wrong right off the bat with those names. Now, I ask you, the experienced viewer, the perspicacious assessor, who is good and who is bad -- someone named "Angela Curson" or someone named "Chad Bruning"?

Actually Hittinger looks a little like the late Patrick Swayze, and he's all enthusiastic about the pregnancy. Apparently a nice young man, he tries to pressure Spreitler into marrying him so they can live together happily. But by this time the young girl and her family have rethought things. Hittinger is just not their type. So they tell him to bug off. Little did they know that tragedy lay just around the corner.

Hittinger had been adopted as a somewhat wayward child by the morally upright Linda Purl. Hittinger's real mother had been a junkie and had wound up in the Crowbar Hotel, but she'd been Purl's housekeeper and, out of kindness, Purl accepted the orphaned Hittinger. (I hope you're following all this.) Now the real mother shows up and begs Purl for her old job back. She's clean and ready. Purl rudely throws her out for no discernible reason.

Hittinger's miscreant mother is played by Jamie Luner. She's the most impressive performer in the movie. Deglamorized to the point of homeliness, she exudes pathos and passion. The scene in which Luner politely begs Purl for her old job, while Purl folds her arms across her chest and frowns down at this wreck of a woman may be the only moving moment in the entire story.

I think the rest is predictable enough not to need too much description. Hittinger becomes obsessed with "his" child. His importunings become more obvious and more demanding. There is a fist fight with Spreitler's father in a parking lot. Her father is a middle-aged white collar professional but has little trouble decking a larger and younger college student. Finally, with the help of his real mother, Hittinger kidnaps Spreitler and the baby. Tragedy ensues.

It's a terrible movie. I watched it fascinated, to see how low it would stoop, how fantastic the plot had to become, to end the way it did. Poor Taylor Spreitler. She's a cute blond but cannot act. And when she's supposed to be pregnant, waddling around wearing that prosthesis under her jersey, the sight is preposterous.

The movie embodies two not entirely unpleasant fantasies: (1) Being made a victim so everyone is on your side, and (2) being so desirable that a man would be willing to kill for you. Watch it if you're really curious about this genre.

For the first time, I agree with the current rating of which I gave a 7 mainly because of the lead actor(Chuck Hittinger) in the role of Chad. I felt despite the poor casting of Jamie Luner & Linda Purl, two of the finest actresses in Hollywood, Hittinger's performance "saved" what otherwise is weak writing and casting, especially Taylor Spreitler. Hittinger, one of the best young actors, as with "Bad Tutor", again was worth watching. His acting skills shine through and was well cast in the role, the type of which he's best suited. I always enjoy watching his movies, most of which tend to be full of suspense and thrilling! He is very capable of "carrying" any movie as a lead!!

"Stalked at 17" features one of the most sleazy mother-son relationships of any Lifetime film. The mom Toni Marshall has served a long prison sentence for robbery. Her son Chad was adopted, raised, and nurtured by a kind woman who rose to become city councilwoman. But the son would appear to have inherited the genes from his birth mother that have given him the predisposition of a sociopath. Toni and Chad make quite the pair!

The most interesting character in the film is without a doubt young Angela Curson. No character has been more aptly named than the angelic young woman who becomes pregnant with Chad's baby. Despite the opportunity to run off and live with Chad, Angela has the good sense to respect the wisdom of her parents and "take time off" from the relationship with Chad until the baby is born. This makes Chad livid with rage, and he begins stalking Angela even through a restraining order.

There were moments when one started to feel empathy for Chad and his attempt to pull himself up by his bootstraps and rise above the level of his slovenly mother. But at every key juncture, Chad is a backslider, falling back into his pattern of wild and uncontrollable possessiveness.

A beautiful baby, little Josh, is delivered by Angela, and Chad makes a beeline to the boy, running right through his restraining order. Abetted by the uncouth mother, Chad kidnaps Angela and Josh at gunpoint and takes them on a journey to Big Bear. It is only through the efforts of the quick-thinking Angela that human decency will supersede the sordid machinations of the unhinged, ex-con Toni and her vile progeny Chad. In such a universe, good must triumph over evil!

Out of Lifetime's "at 17" movies, this is probably the best one or at least one of the best.

The girl from Melissa & Joey and the guy from Pretty Little Liars and American Reunion do a good job in this flick. Jamie Luner is also in here and gives a great performance as sort of a maniac, out-of-prison mother.

As with all the other movies before that dealt with similar material, this is meant for older teenager and probably their parents, if they can watch it together. If not, the teenage audience this is aimed for should watch it, and I believe they will be pleased.

Appropriate subject matter, decent script, entertaining movie for the most part.

She just turned 17 and after a brief encounter with a 21 year old, she finds herself pregnant, but certainly not alone.

The oddity of this story is that the father of the baby persists that he wants to handle everything. The problems begin when her parents totally reject him and he begins stalking our young lady.

His real mother, a convicted felon, adds plenty to the story with those evil eyes that she possesses. She is very scary and intimidating. However, she does know the score. A sidebar to this story is that when she went to prison, the woman whose house she cleaned, a councilwoman who went on to divorce, adopted the young boy as her own.

It just shows you the heredity factor here in that the young man is so emotionally unbalanced to say the least.

Some spoilers..

But first of all, I don't know why people were bashing about the lead actress' acting, I thought she did just fine. If anything, NONE of the acting of the entire cast was that good. Especially the actor who played the boyfriend, I thought he was the worst of the group as far as acting goes. And the actress who played the bio mom wasn't that great either.

But I don't think the film makers were looking for top professionals exactly, I think they just wanted regular actors/people who would make the story more natural and real. And especially if this was a low budget film, it probably would be difficult and costly to get top actors in. But I thought the leading actress sold it just fine.

The thing that had me concerned/puzzled about the story is that, there seemed to be no safety measures or precautions in keeping Angela and the baby safe other than the restraining order, which obviously wasn't enough. I would think that the parents would have sent her far away to live with a relative or friend that the bf didn't know about, talked to the school about transferring her. Or just took her out of school for the time being until they could figure out how to keep her safe.

They also kept her in their house with no security system in place or anything, after he violated the restraining order. And they left her and the baby in the house alone. That part seemed careless to me. If I had a daughter who's baby daddy was coming to my work and calling me a hundred times at work, and then coming to my house to try to get to her. Then going to the school to see her after the restraining order, I'd be really concerned about keeping her in town. And especially in my own home where he's bound to know or find out from someone where I live. Even if my daughter had never told him. So as dangerous as this guy was, Angela's parents needed security for themselves. And not just their daughter and grandson.

At the beginning it makes you think the guy was just a robber or kidnapper. And then it goes back to explain that he's the ex boyfriend and why he's kidnapping them. But I think it was too predictable, too random and It's almost like it's meant to confuse you, but not in a good way, like most good quality films.

The way they wrote things to be figured out by the audience/or fall into place. It was kinda weird, so I don't think the writing was that good. But good enough to keep the attention and keep you interested, I thought. Yes I would watch it again. Yes I would recommend it to a friend.

So overall it was a pretty good movie for me.

I think that it was pretty good. I think that this was a pretty good story line, i wish they did more with ending and told us what happened after he got shot like did he survive did he go to jail? Did she go to college like i needed more of an ending but i think that it was a good way that you should stand up if you think that someone is about to hurt you. I love how brave she was and that she had to go through with all that. But i know some of you have some opinions on how she should have stood up for herself and should have done more for herself but she probably couldn't do certain things because she didn't want to upset him ad hurt. I have been in a very bad relationship where it was hard to leave them. But anyways good movie.

There's a lot of fluff in the media right now, stuff which is just meant to entertain and nothing more. Is there anything wrong with that? No. But we often lose sight of what the media, film in this case, can do -- be entertaining and provide a good, strong message to a relevant audience. Stalked at 17 does a fantastic job of driving home very important points and relevant subject matter to its target audience.

The actors' portrayals of their characters (Taylor Spreitler and Chuck Hittinger, who you'll recognize from Melissa & Joey and Pretty Little Liars, respectively) are spot on, something young women and men can identify with.

The actors' who played the parents are also fantastic, driving home just how much turmoil can be stirred up in the situations of teenage pregnancy and, in a case such as this, a crazy boyfriend.

Speaking of which -- crazy he is. Really crazy. But the interesting aspect of the character as written in this script, and as portrayed by Mr. Hittinger, is that he is also relatable. Relatable in kidnapping and stalking? Not to a majority of the audience, of course. Relatable in that he is obsessive? Yes. Relatable in that he had a bad childhood and desperately wants to make up for it? Yes. Relatable that he is going about everything all wrong? Yes. A lot of young men do. There is a reason for his madness, one many people have dealt with in their own ways. And for this reason, he stays away from the moustache-twirling douche bag one might expect.

The ending of the movie leaves a little to be desired, but one of the last scenes if of the girl holding her baby, who will now grow up without its real father in most of its life. Sad. But not exactly fantasy.