A Date with Darkness: The Trial and Capture of Andrew Luster (TV Movie 2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
9 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
He Tough His Wealthy Made Him Above the Laws
claudio_carvalho7 September 2006
On 14 July 2000, in Ventura County, California, the young Connie (Marla Sokoloff) is raped by the Max Factor heir Andrew Luster (Jason Gedrick) after ingesting a drug called Liquid X in a glass of water offered by him in a night-club. With the support of her father, she reluctantly decides to go to the police and tells her snapshots of the occurrence. Connie and the police collects evidences to send Andrew to the jury and during the investigation, two other victims of Andrew, Sarah (Sarah Carter) and Teri (Stefanie von Pfetten), are found and join the accusation. After almost three years, Andrew is sentenced to 124 years in prison for his 86 counts, but he escapes to Mexico, where he is finally arrested by the Mexican authorities and deported to USA on 24 June 2003.

"A Date with Darkness: The Trial and Capture of Andrew Luster" is a great TV movie based on a true story. I liked the way the story is disclosed and the performance of the cast, specially the cynical face of Jason Gedrick, who is perfect in the role of a manipulative sociopath. Although being a made-for-TV movie, this movie has a good screenplay, direction and acting. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Líquido X" ("Liquid X")
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good movie, but don't expect too much explanation
marbleann9 July 2005
This incident reminds me of the Alex Kelly case in Ct. Rich boy rapes young girls and finally 3 of them have the courage to come out and accuse him only to him to leave the country while on trial. Both get convicted in absentia. This was a pretty straight forward movie. I found it very scary that the women had no idea they were drugged. Only because the nut taped everything were they able to find out what had happened to them. THere are things that were not explained. Why was the Max Factor heir doing this, what was reason? As I understand he was raised by his mother and she was a regular type of person, who was not into the the rich and famous crowd. Oh well. Another thing is that they never touched on how old he was. This was older guy, hanging out with a bunch of 17 year olds. I am normally not a fan of the the female star, who IMO was part of the downfall of the Practice, but she is very good in this movie. there was a scene in this movie in which one of the women are hesitant to testify because she is afraid he might get away with it. Normally I would not understand her fear, there were tapes of him raping these women. But we are talking about California, a place wherre you can kill Natalie Wood and get way with it. I do feel there is a culture in California that does idolize the rich more then anywhere in this country. So I felt for her.

I also want to know why the Judge seemed so taken with Luster? He seemed very hostile to the Prosecution. Which once again might be California thing, because most places the judge is usually pro prosecution. THe movie was suppose to end before he was caught. But DOG the Bounty Hunter took care of business and found him sunning down in Mexico. Apparently not really acting like he was in hiding. I remember when that happened and the FBI seemed very embarrassed that they did not catch the guy and even had Dog kept in jail. I that would of been a interesting story in itself. This is a good movie to waste a rainy day with. THe performances are all very good and it is a swift moving movie.
10 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Is she asleep?
sol-kay18 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** Ture story of the notorious "Max Factor Rapist" Andrew Luster, Jason Gedrick, who used his good looks money charm and the date drug GHB better known as "Liquid X" to get unsuspecting young girls to go to bed with him.

Andrew went a bit too far with the cute and shapely Connie-not her real last name-Doe played by Maria Sokoloff whom he met at Vantura night club and slipped a dose of GHB into her drinking water. Together with her boyfriend Daniel, Shane Meier, Andrew drove the two to his ocean front pad where he repeatedly raped Connie while she was unconscious. This slime ball even had the innocent, in having a totally platonic relationship with Connie, Daniel participate in raping Connie while he was under the influence of GHB!

What in the end screwed Andrew up is his arrogance in thinking he could get away with his crime or, as it later turned out, crimes because money, which he or his family had loads of, could buy him his freedom. It was also Andrew's habit of video taping his crimes that gave the local police and D.A all the rope that they needed to hang the creep. That's by having him admit to Connie what he did to her in a court authorized wire tap of his phone conversation with her. Besides having raped Connie it soon became evident that Andrew did the same to both Sarah & Teri Doe-not their real last names-played by Sarah Carter & Stefanie Van Pfetten who's rapes he video taped. In the case of Sarah she suffered a miscarriage when she found out from the D.A's office that Andrew raped her which she,in being drugged by him, had no memory of.

As thing started to get hot for Andrew at his trial he just skipped town and took off for Mexico that just about sealed his fate with the jury. Convicted on 86 of the 87 charges against him Andrew was now a fugitive from the law and with no access to his millions ended up being a bum or beachcomber drinking cheap booze, where did he get the cash to pay or it, and getting himself drunk all day and night while passing out cold on the beach. Andrew's freedom didn't last too long when in June 2003 he was spotted by American famed bounty hunter "Dog" Chapman, James Ralph, and his crew who after a violent struggle finally put the cuffs on him!

P.S There didn't need to be a second trial this time around for Andrew Luster in that he already was convected on 86 charges of rape and imprisonment. Sent to the California Mule Creek Correctional Center for 124 years Andrew will be eligible for parole in 2108 at the earliest! Which will make him 145 years old if in fact he's still alive to be released!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
not a bad show
akm799813 August 2003
The other user comment is obviously for another movie. This TV-movie is about how Luster drugged three women and did things to them while on video. During the trial, Luster runs away. It's pretty entertaining for a true crime movie, but the viewer doesn't see any of Luster's motivation, and what led him to commit these crimes. We never see the psychology behind his actions. An explanation and motive would have made it so much better.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A bit disturbing, but quite good
Daria_198812 August 2003
"A Date with Darkness" is not entirely what you would call, easy to watch. Some of the scenes in this movie are very explicit.

However, it's not like those explicit scenes would at all ruin the story.

I would give this movie a 10/10
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Disturbing Real Story: Caution Tale For All Women
FloatingOpera728 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
This film aired on Lifetime summer of 2003. At the time of its production, Andrew Luster, heir to the Max Factor fortune, was arrested in Mexico by the bounty hunter "Mad Dog", charged with counts of rape and intoxicating his victims. This film is pure reality, no hold bars. The scenes are graphic and even disturbing- such as the rape in the shower scene and other "rape" scenes. Andre Luster, a spoiled rich man, got away with rape because he drugged his hapless victims with Liquid X. This is a date rape drug that can easily be slipped into an unattended drink at a bar. The biggest warning in this story is not to leave an alcoholic drink unattended. Andrew Luster frequented the bars of Southern California. The three women in this film (one played by Marla Sokoloff) finally summon the courage to tell the truth in court. Not even with all his money could this man-devil get away with his horrific crimes. Lifetime is known for such graphic cautionary tales about predators and women victims, but this is used so that women can wake up and put a stop to it, empowering them to take a stand, to call the authorities/police, to take defense classes, to put rapists behind bar. In the case of Andrew Luster, no one suspected he was a rapist. He came off as charming, he was even sexy. Jason Gedrick, an actor best known for his role in Boomtown the TV series, gets into the criminal character effectively. This is my final word on this. Since the material is R rated, young children should not watch this. Teenage girls who are interested in the bar/club scene..(and yes even underage girls drink, since todays' girls mature so quickly they already look like they are 21 and older) should watch this movie with their girlfriends, talk about the movie afterward and take more care next time they go to a club. Also, mothers with teenage daughters or who are ages 18-21, should watch this film together to discuss the potential dangers of leaving a drink unattended. Thank goodness for the heroic efforts of Mad Dog and of Lifetime in the final capture of Andrew Luster, who I hope rots in jail and gets raped himself while in there!!!
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
VERY good!
dolesdonnell15 August 2003
I was a big fan of "The Practice" until recently (due to the cast cuts, including Marla), which is one of the main reasons why I wanted to watch this film - loved Marla's work on the show and her character Lucy. Another reason is just because it looked so good - and it WAS! I'd have to agree with the above poster that states some of the content is explicit, but all in all it was great! The ladies gave wonderful performances. If you missed it, don't worry - Lifetime repeats like crazy. If you get the chance, you should definately sit down and watch. Two thumbs up!
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Truth is stranger, and scarier than fiction....
MarieGabrielle22 November 2007
This film is based on Max Factor heir, Andrew Luster, a resident of Ventura County and fan of dosing unwary females with GHB (a sometimes lethal anesthesia drug, which has no taste or odor), and then committing serial rape and abuse.

This film falls into a positive LMN category as it is something every young girl should watch along with any mother. It is sometimes incomprehensible to realize what sociopaths are capable of. Until we read the true horrific headlines in the local news, we think it can never happen in our neighborhood, or to us. So untrue. A false sense of security is what sociopaths prey on. Many of the victims here were educated, decent people, who simply fell into a relationship or meeting with the culprit, Andrew Luster. Jason Gedrick is excellent, looks the part; an arrogant, privileged sociopath who laughs at the police detective, saying the police will never jail him: he is a Max Factor heir, he is above the law. (How many times have we seen this attitude in the national news, this year alone.) Lisa Edelstein as State Prosecutor also deserves credit for a good performance. Disgusted by Luster, she makes it her mission to prosecute him for crimes inflicted upon victims Connie, Sara, and Teri. Marla Sokoloff as Connie, and her father (well-portrayed by Robert Wisden) reflect the tragedy and outrage a father and daughter endure together, I can only hope the actual victims received ample family support.

Overall an important true story. Anyone interested in the psychology of sociopaths behavior may also be interested in DTMS/Times Discovery Channel, esteemed forensic psychiatrist Dr. Stone has a show entitled "Absolute Evil" wherein he dissects true crimes by sociopaths and murderers. 8/10.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Movie of The Week !
elshikh430 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
OK, it's unique case, so why to miss the opportunity. But was this movie really as important as its event?

It is a good script when it comes only to "show", and its best element was the dialogue (He needed fair trail. / I think he had one.) so other lines, and its best moment was the triple testimony of the 3 Doe victims at the end. However, you have to hate a lot of things.

First of all, the police found all the tapes at the start of the movie, so where's the drama?! Moreover, what is the most weird motive of this eccentric wealthy brat to commit all what he did? Obviously he got all the money in the world, so why to drug girls, rape them, and film the rape?, or his unspoken-about-obsessive to collect wristwatches??, or his mother's true point of view? In fact, what could possibly make him the freak that he was is a tempting question, but apparently not for this movie's scriptwriter. It might've given the movie something to fill in its drama, beside the empty predictable cycles of (I'll witness, I'll not), or the naivety of the women's same scary reveries, and to make it live longer than the traditional age of the TV news, or the dramatic documentary that we watched!

It seemed wholly tasteless as if a repetition for what was written about the case yet in brief. Originally, this plot with its ordinary sequences created cold conflict, and languid time. Its main issue was the boldness of these 3 victims to avow their hidden shameful pain. Though, the whole meaning finally shrank into message such as: don't talk to strangers, or drink from them. Ironically, its intentional flatness made it look like the revenge on one rich man, exactly as the criminal said in the movie, more than a study of rich monster, or even a presenting for slightly logical reasons.

Well, there was the Blaxploitation movie, the Sexploitation movie, and now it's the Trailploitation one. And look at the movie's funny long title, as well as its time of release, to catch on that right. Actually they were shooting the movie before the real criminal was captured in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. And the ending was immediately re-written to incorporate that; so do you feel the accelerated sense?! By all means, it's not the ideal script for (Oliver Stone) when he takes on (Andrew Luster)!

As for the acting, (Sarah Carter) excelled everybody with non-television, too sensitive performance. On the contrary, (Jason Gedrick) was totally lifeless or confused, you can't know while the trail whether he's blaming himself, or dealing with it indifferently, or not understanding his doings (most likely as the scriptwriter!).

The shower scenes are shockingly showy and deliberately long, it's where the movie gets purely exploitative. And I'll never elaborate about the direction, but who can forget the strange use of lens?! What is the need to deform the court, the lower, the prosecutor, even the judge (!) while declaring the escape of the accused, or during else scenes?!!

Regrettably, it's nothing but "the movie of the week", with nearly all the negativities of the term. So, it was unusual case in usual movie. Too usual is the word.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed