Skipped Parts (2000) User Reviews

A fine coming of age-story, although sometimes a bit far-fetched

[philip_vanderveken · 7/10 · 11 July 2005]

As a kid, every adult has had a time in his life that he or she was fascinated by the world of the grown-ups, but didn't know much about it. As an adolescent kid you want to know more about love and sex, but the path to adulthood can be a bumpy road. That's also the reason why there have been made so many coming of age-movies. Not all of them were very successful, but some of them sure are worth a watch, like for instance this "Skipped Parts".

When in 1963, a young woman and her 14-year old son Sam from an unknown man, are expelled from North Carolina by her powerful father who runs for governor, they end up in a small town in Wyoming. Here she continues her irresponsible life of partying and having fun, while her son discovers that the biggest part of his new school is made up by retards who don't seem to know what a book looks like from the inside. There is especially one girl, called Maury, who he can't stand at first, but who he gradually starts to like more and more. When she asks him to help her experiment with sex, they get very close and with the help of his mother they get a pretty good idea of what sex is like. But despite the fact that his mother told them to stop as soon as Maury has had her first period, they are too late and pregnancy is the result. While facing the consequences of their experiments and with grandfather's dictatorial shadow over them, Sam and Maury get help from Hank Elkrunner, a Blackfoot Indian who has become Lydia's newest boyfriend...

I guess that it needs some imagination to believe that all what is happening in this movie could actually be true. I'm not saying that it isn't possible, but sometimes it all feels a bit far-fetched. Nevertheless, this is still a very interesting movie and certainly one of the better coming of age-stories that I have ever seen. Especially thanks to the underlying story line of the double moral (sex outside marriage didn't exist, but abortion clinics were available, the totalitarian patriarch who wanted to keep his influence on his family, but didn't want them near him...) and the fine acting in this movie, this is a lot better than average. It's sure worth watching and I gave it a rating of 7/10 which is far from bad for this kind of movies.

Offensive to the Religious Right?

[jonmeta · 7/10 · 16 May 2006]

Phrases like "this movie will drive the Religious Right nuts" get a lot of mileage. A number of reviewers have said it about "Skipped Parts". So I'm wondering what the Religious Right really would think of this film if they examined it seriously.

First, the storyline suggests that sex education for kids is not a good thing and may have unwanted consequences. The women who give the advice, Lydia and Delores, are pretty unsympathetic characters when they're talking to the adolescents. Are we meant to applaud the way they give explicit details (complete with taco shell, like a silly pantomime of a sex ed class) to 14-year-olds, while withholding the key point of where this might lead? I don't think so, because their recklessness is part of a commonplace theme that runs through the film - the kids are more sensible than the adults - and also because we're shown those consequences later. Lydia and Delores might as well give Sam and Maurey a hand grenade and tell them to play carefully. So score a point for Religious Right family values here.

Second, the film doesn't take the view of abortion that the Religious Right might expect from so called "Hollywood liberals". It doesn't present it as a quick and relatively painless way out of a jam, nor does it do any pulpit pounding about the dark days before Roe v Wade. The film could have made Lydia and Delores into proto-feminist heroes, enlightened before their time, but it didn't. In the story, there are two consequences of visiting the abortion clinic and neither one is a guilt free abortion. So score some big points for "family values".

Third, the film ends by affirming the stereotypical woman-man-girl-boy family: the waitress, the Indian, the cheerleader, and the precocious young narrator. Sure, the narrator and the cheerleader have a baby, and the waitress is a grandmother before she's thirty. But unless the Religious Right has recently come out against grandchildren being raised by multi- generational families, I fail to see the problem.

So what's there to offend the RR, other than the portrayal of Wyoming natives as rodeo loving illiterates? (And that's only offensive –probably -if you're from Wyoming.) Well, there's the scene where the two young teens face each other in their underwear, saying something like, "I think this is how it's done." It was uncomfortable and strange. But a lot of reviewers found it creepy, and I'm sure not all are card-carrying members of the 700 Club. And it doesn't change the fundamental themes of the story outlined above.

Lydia's loose morals and rebelliousness are sure to offend the Religious Right, right? Yes, because her actions are *meant* to be offensive: her irresponsible talk, her rambling, self- indulgent rudeness to the welcome lady, her inability to do a stick of work, her cruelty to a man who's much too good for her. The RR is offended and so is everyone else. So maybe, in the movies, actions shouldn't always be judged desirable if they offend conservative Christians. Even the RR is sometimes offended by what's actually offensive.

But I digress. The good news is that, as in all traditional morality tales, Lydia comes round in the end. She gets a job, declares independence (rather than just rebellion) from her father, and settles down with a man who loves her. Sure, she's white and he's Native American, but not even the film's illiterate Wyomians are offended by that.

That leaves just one theme that seems custom made to offend conservative religious types. The film threatens to undermine parental authority and traditional family values by making the kids more sensible and moral than the adults. In fact, the grown ups are mostly first class hypocrites, as revealed especially in the confrontation at the abortion clinic. Sam, on the other hand, is an example of responsibility and kindness. But wait. I think I've read that somewhere before. Something about religious leaders being blind Pharisees and children being the kingdom of heaven. Yes, that definitely sounds like a deliberate attempt to offend the Religious Right.

Not for Everyone

[jimmyjoe583 · 5/10 · 18 December 2019]

This movie had potential. It could have been about a free spirited mother/child of the sixties who was carving a new path for her and her son in the sixties. Instead it's about a bi-polar alcoholic mother who when drunk likes to talk about her sons penis and mate with undesirable males. When not drunk she encourages the grade 7 children to have sex and tastes her sons boy goo when he has a wet dream.. This movie is a mess and does not deserve such a high rating.

Provocative, but credible

[kctexan-1 · 31 August 2003]

After seeing Skipped Parts, and reading all the user reviews, I see why so many are repelled by the movie, but I'm one of the ones fascinated by it. In order to care about a movie, I have to care about at least one character, and in this movie, it definitely was the case, with the Sam Callahan young male part. Although it's true that hardly anyone went through what Sam and his young girlfriend went through, it was captivating to me to see Sam want, so much, to be a real boyfriend to his rather matter-of-fact fellow sexual experimenter. I identified his caring for, and attraction to, girls, with my own young life. As for his mom's character: yes, she was waaayy out there, but I have known women like that, so they *do* exist. I think that, overall, Skipped Parts is one of those movies where you have to give in to the situation a little, and go with it. IF (and this is critical) you have been through at least some of the feelings, if not actual situations, these characters experience, I think you'll agree that the 93 minutes, or so, spent in their world is not wasted time (although I think one time was enough for me...too many other great movies out there to see!).

Why didn't I hear about this great little indie-hearted film before?!

[LouE15 · 6/10 · 5 March 2009]

"Skipped Parts" is good, unusual, challenging "small" film about sex, relationships and growing up. I really enjoyed it and thought it was pretty brave of everyone involved. I'm having fun trying to work out who found it more controversial: the zealots supposed to hate it, or the liberals itching for the zealots to hate it. All I can say is, thank goodness for the internet, without which I'd never have heard about it or seen it.

*spoilers from here* Jennifer Jason Leigh has a great vampy time as peroxided young Lydia, banished to Grovont (couldn't they spell Gros Ventre?) Wyoming from her Daddy's expensive Southern home with her illegitimate son Sam (as a punishment for her bad behaviour and for showing him up: Daddy's running for Governor). What starts as mere time in solitary becomes more interesting – for better and worse – for Lydia and Sam as they both meet their match. Maurey Pearce is one of the local kids "who can read" and is determined, with Sam's help, to know what are the "skipped parts" in all the books about love, marriage and sex. Hank Elkrunner is the Blackfeet cowboy whose steady persistence with the shiftless Lydia is finally rewarded. "Skipped Parts" may not be the most polished and definitive 'coming of age' type drama out there; but it wins my respect for many of the little details that set it apart from teenager and rom-com dross: the presence of Jennifer Jason Leigh, always a flag that something interesting's going on; the nice interaction between the two young leads, Bug Hall (Sam) and Mischa Barton (actually playing her age as Maurey); the quality of the cast, including Michael Greyeyes as Hank and Peggy Lipton as a pretty devastating Laurabel Pearce; the really fantastic sound, costumes, sets and locations.

If you find the idea of underage sex unpalatable, well, I'm sorry for you. It's very much a reality, as any look at any tabloid newspaper in any given month will tell you. And it always was: what an outrageous lie it is, that teen and extra-marital pregnancy didn't occur in more repressed decades. For me this was as much the story of Lydia's growing up as it was of Sam's – in fact, more so. I found Lydia's story by the end of the film more believable than Sam's; she's so like a child herself - so unwilling to do more than play at the drama of life.

Even I must admit that part of the ending did slightly jar on me. I live in a very liberal world: I've seen households made up of very unusual (and unexpectedly successful) combinations of people, and am only too happy with new, non-nuclear family images. But I wouldn't be altogether happy about a young teenager of my acquaintance watching this ending, and, perhaps, drawing the conclusion that if you leap backwards off a flight of steps there will always be someone there to catch you; because that simply isn't true. Conservative moment over. If you liked this film and want similar things, perhaps you'll be interested in the path I took to get here, which went something like this: Eric Schweig in the lovely modern fairytale "Big Eden". That film's director Thomas Bezucha, who also directed "The Family Stone", with its complicated modern family dynamics. Jennifer Jason Leigh, queen of unconventional roles (e.g. as Dorothy Parker and as Catherine Slocum, 'heroine' of "Washington Square"). Michael Greyeyes, an accomplished plains Cree First Nations dancer who I'd thought was pretty impressive in TV historical romance "Stolen Women, Captured Hearts". Films about outcasts, others, the different, the lonely - try "Trust" by Hal Hartley; "The Station Agent" and "Different for Girls".

uncomfortably good

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 8 December 2003]

It's 1963. Lydia Callahan (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is a single mom to 14 year old Sam (Bug Hall). She's an embarrassment to her wealthy father. He exiles them from Greensboro, North Carolina while he runs for governor. Sam has a fantasy life with dream girl (Drew Barrymore). They drive out to Wyoming to start a new life. Sam doesn't get along in school and with opinionated Maurey Pierce (Mischa Barton). He thinks he's in love. He defends her as she grieves for JFK's assassination. They decide to explore sex taking Lydia's advice. Maurey starts dating the jock who bullied him while she sets religious Chuckette Morris (Alison Pill) on him.

Jennifer Jason Leigh has become an expert in the chain smoking, oversexed, white trash characters. Her performance is enough to recommend this movie. The underage sex is probably where all the negativity for the movie is coming from. The fact that the movie has this light quirky way may be even more enraging. Alison Pill is absolutely too funny as Chuckette. This is a charming and tough coming-of-age movie if one doesn't get on one's high horse.

Rated R for sexual situations, some involving young teens

[KuRt-33 · 6/10 · 13 March 2002]

I guess you can be pretty disappointed if you see this movie because the DVD cover boasted in big shiny letters that Jennifer Jason Leigh, Brad Renfro and Drew Barrymore star in it. Renfro and Barrymore only appear in a few scenes, making Jennifer Jason Leigh, with a strong presence throughout the movie, the only person to deserve her name in big letters. The film actually focuses on the lives on Lydia (JJL), her son Sam (Bug Hall) and the girl next door (Mischa Barton). Lydia and son move to Wyoming after her rich and powerful father is tired of her rebellious behaviour.

The main story is interesting: Sam and the girl next door wake up in puberty and have no clue what's going on. They start "practising sex" with each other and ask Lydia for some tips. As you can expect or read in the plot summary, it's not surprising teenage pregnancy is next. No prices for guessing how the decent town will react to that.

Less interesting are the other scenes, the scenes with the other boys and girls in the class or the scenes where Sam in voice-over tells us how he wanted to become a successful writer. These scenes make this film at times hard to watch. What could have been good now is just mediocre.

Then again, the movie Tamra Davis directed next was the Britney Spears vehicle "Crossroads", making "Skipped Parts" look like a masterpiece.

Hollywood is a cesspool (sp warning)

[pageiv · 1/10 · 29 March 2004]

To best review this movie, it is improtant to review what happened in the movie.

A 14-yr old boy has questions about sex, good, most do. He has a nocturnal emissions and asks his mom what happened, ok, I'm sure he was scared, then his mom touches, then smells, then tastes, his emission. That is about the level this movie is on.

Within this movie two 14-yr olds have "exploration" sex. Condoned, and instructed (by use of a taco shell), by the boy's mother and the girl's aunt. The girl gets pregnant, the boy's mom drives her to an abortion clinic, there she sees her mom and history teacher so she leaves.

At the end of the movie the girl's mother is in an insane asylum. Which is where the makers, and writer of this movie belong. The girl moves in with the boy and his mother and her lover, with her baby. The two 14-yr olds are shown as a happy couple raising a baby, he doing his writing, and she cheerleading. Sure, what about the endless crying baby?

The moral of this movie is how "evil" those conservatives are that say "sex should wait" and do evil things like force their kids to act right. By doing what you want things may go bad, like being pregnant at 14, but things will always work out.

i liked it

[van_dijk_anne · 8/10 · 28 January 2006]

I was watching this movie with my roommate on one of those i-have-nothing-better-to-do-evenings. I was really surprised to find out i actually liked this film. Other people have commented on this movie by saying it was to far fetched. But to be honest i don't get that. I know that this film is somewhat surreal, but reality isn't that far behind. I mean teen do get pregnant and when they lack good sex education (so to speak) they do experiment and pregnancy is the logical result. The film is sort of happy go lucky but it didn't bother me. I really liked the fact that it talked openly about pregnancy's among young people. I also thought it was rather sarcastic. Especially the last comment "welcome to the modern American family". I don't think that was serious but really sarcastic. I think it's save to say this movie was really cool. I recommend it to anyone who has an open view on such matters.

Best thing about this movie was...

[jeanineruby-16093 · 6/10 · 14 March 2023]

Michael Greyeyes was the only reason I watched this movie. The premise was really kind of a dumb one - 14 year olds, really? ...come on. But Michael sure did look great!!

I really love watching anything Michael Greyeyes is in even if he's not playing a wild Native American !!! I barely recognized Jennifer Jason Leigh and Drew Barrymore has aged - I was surprised and this movie is already 22 years old - I can't imagine what she looks like now - she's pretty and has been around forever and we all love her, really we do. All in all this movie was worth watching just for the hunk experience of Greyeyes.

WTF On So Many Levels

[EricTheEZ1 · 1/10 · 3 September 2004]

There are just so many things wrong with this movie. It's not abstract enough to survive on story alone so the film maker did rely on the realistic points of the story. Unfortunately, there are none.

This story wouldn't be considered normal by today's standards let alone 1963!! Two 14 year old ENCOURAGED to have sex by their parents. The girl gets pregnant like it's no big deal. She decides to stay with her boyfriend who doesn't seem to care about the fact that she's pregnant AND it's not his baby. Everyone is jumping for joy that she's having this baby... HELLO?!?!? She's 14!! I've NEVER seen anyone happy to have a baby at that age. Everyone that finds out about the baby acts like it's no big deal. In 1963, you would've been run out of town for being that way.

Most of the story isn't fleshed out for the right reasons. Lydia's character is in almost every comedy/drama about the 50's/60's these days. The relationship between her and her son is pretty disgusting and just doesn't make sense. Whose Mom ever licked semen off her son's sock or bathed with her lover in front of her son. That'd get you locked up no matter what century you're in.

I tried to get past these grotesque issues and focus on the characters and their stories but the only thing that makes this movie interesting is all the stuff I just mentioned. Unfortunately, that's the kind of comedy I'd look for in South Park, not some "Sundance Classic".

1/10.

Better than the book

[gkearns · 10/10 · 13 November 2000]

I just saw this movie at the Saint Louis International Film Festival. "Skipped Parts" represents one of those unusual situations where a movie comes across better than the book on which it is based. And the reason is even more unusual: I think the characters in the movie, especially the two young leads, are more real, more true to life than in the book. Unusual because printed narration should allow more time for character exploration. Sure, "Skipped Parts" is a comedy, but even humor gains when played out by people you care for. In the movie, the character of Maury, as portrayed by the fine young actor Mischa Barton, comes across a little nicer, and a little more sensitive to Sam's feelings than in the book. I like to think that Maury and Sam, while at first apparently attracted to each other by their brains - "We're the only ones who can read," Sam explains - are actually more connected by their sensitivity to events in the world around them, as well as to each other. (Possible spoiler) Their moment of truth comes in the scene where Dothan roughs them up. By the way, even Brad Renfro's reading of the part of Dothan gives that character a warmth that's harder to find in the book, which in turn provides us with some reason to accept Maury's being his steady. Director Tamra Davis does an excellent job of bringing the story to life. She treated the characters and their feelings with respect. (Possible Spoiler) Particularly, I think she handled Maury and Sam's bedroom scene with delicacy and good taste, reflecting her sensitivity to and respect for the actors and the roles they played. You'd have to work very hard to be offended by it.

It's a good movie with lots of good fun - interspersed with some deeply poignant moments - and it features some terrific acting turns by Jennifer Jason Leigh, Bug Hall, and Mischa Barton.

skip this movie.

[pogoids · 1/10 · 14 January 2002]

i can safely say that Skipped Parts is without a doubt one of the worst movies i have ever seen. why did Jennifer Jason Leigh stoop? the only answer i can think of is that out of desperation for income she convinced herself that taking on the role of Lydia, a southern nymphomaniac motherly type with nice cleavage and a bad dye job, she would open herself up to a more diverse audience of incest supporters, pregnant adolescents, rodeo enthusiasts, and adulterers.

all the characters are unlikeable and annoying save for sole tolerable performance given by Sam's bible banging steady girlfriend ("...that's not how the Nazarene's kiss!"). the acting - unconvincing, the story - unamusing, and the flattering synopsis on the back of the movie cover - untrue.

Very Good, Very funny, film

[fpf · 3 July 2001]

I saw the trailer for this film a few times when I was renting some movies and I thought it looked very funny. Then today I saw it at the video store. I picked it up and watched it and loved it. I thought Jennifer Jason Leigh was so hilarious in this movie and she truly stood out as Lydia, Sam's mouthy, slutty mother. Another acting standout was Bug Hall, Mischa Barton and Angela Featherstone. I thought they played there part perfectly, especially the young leads and Leigh. I was also suprised to see Drew Barrymore in a very small role as "Dream Girl". Although it deals with pregnancy and sex with 14 year olds...I still found it very entertaining and if you want to see some very good acting and a good comedy, i recommend this movie very highly. 10/10

a masterwork ruined

[hoobama · 2/10 · 5 May 2006]

A book that makes you fall completely head-over-heels for its main character because of his wit and self-deprecating charm should not result in a movie that conjures the same character as an uneven, somewhat arrogant pest. I can accept that the film won't be able to transport the viewer the way the words on the page can, but the sad part is that this movie never even comes close.

In the book, Sam Callahan is heartwarming. He's a kid you want to get to know. You want to reassure him that it's okay to be this awkward when you're 13, and that everyone's adolescence (or most people's, anyway) are miserable. You laugh when he cracks a joke or lets you in on one of his precocious personal witticisms. You're moved when he talks about the Kennedy assassination from an intelligent but still hopelessly naive point of view. He eases the shock of sexual experimentation and of Maury's teenage pregnancy and takes you right into the reality of dealing with the consequences - of kids and adults thrown into circumstances that would make anyone grow up.

But maybe it's too tall an order for film. Maybe the topics are too sensitive and the inner monologue is too hard to convey. Isn't it almost always the case that the movie adaptations of books fall on their faces to some extent? Sure.

The problem is that this movie is still terrible. It hits so far away from what made the book enjoyable that you have to be a little bit irritated at the filmmakers for even trying.

My advice if you're thinking about renting/buying this is to put your money away and read this book. (I got it from Netflix, and I seriously considered scratching the words "read the book" into the back of the DVD before I sent it back.) The book will give you a week of solid enjoyment, and that beats two hours of confusion and nausea pretty much any day.

refreshingly compassionate perspective on sex

[robertedward · 9/10 · 16 April 2008]

I found this film to be a welcome relief from the self-righteous, hypocritical obsession with sex as evil in our confused society. I'm sure that viewers aligned with the extreme religious right are aghast at the sexual frankness of "Skipped Parts". I only wish they were as upset over the war in Iraq, America's obsession with violence and the rampant intolerance still pervading the home of the free. Instead, sex and four-letter words top the list of moral outrages in the minds of far too many of our number.

"Skipped Parts" is a compassionate view of outside-the-mainstream people at odds with the establishment. Granted, unprotected sex among teenagers is impractical and unwise, but hardly a reason to despise and condemn. Especially by those who have, as do some of the characters in the film, plenty of skeletons in their own closets.

Well-written, well-acted and well-directed, "Skipped Parts" is a moral film in which the highest virtues are kindness, forgiveness, and love.

Very, very bad

[ElvisKnievel · 2/10 · 9 July 2003]

This movie is so awful that it is hard to decide where to start when criticizing it, as it fails on so many levels. It doesn't have any likeable characters, it fails to entertain, it fails to provide an accurate portrayal of the early 1960's, and it fails to provide any type of positive message. About the only thing it does well is misrepresent what life was like in America in 1963. The characters are all extreme stereotypes. The viewer is supposed to believe that the children are smarter than all of the adults, but at the same time the children manage to find plenty of trouble by acting foolishly. The sad thing is that the actors turned in good performances, but it was pointless as the movie seemed to be written with the "life sucks so why even try to be decent" mentality. Don't even rent it.

Absolutley Great

[marius_nicolescu · 10/10 · 3 January 2003]

It was one of the best movies I have ever seen, it just made me feel like I did when I was 14. It musn't be spoilt with more than 4 rows. It's just great!!! A must see movie for every one of you who wants to go back to his youth (if he ever had one)

Skipped Plot

[caspian1978 · 4/10 · 2 January 2005]

Skipped Parts is a coming of age drama / comedy that is filmed like it is an after school special for a G rated audience. This is part of the reason why this movie lacks an audience. The subject matter is R rated, then again, there is no nudity and very little scenes of a sexual nature. Playing around with an audience (that doesn't exist) it is hard for this movie to be taken serious or funny. The movie has its moments where you wish there was more to see. Many scenes and situations are created but nothing comes from it. In the end, the movie concludes with a hidden moral. If you don't look hard enough, you are sure to miss it. The movie does not hit the audience in the head with a sledge hammer. This is a cute movie with cute characters but nothing grand or amazing. Some characters are close to perfection while others have nothing to offer their character let alone something for the audience to watch. A nice little movie, nothing more.

Redefining the Family-Skipped Parts a Must See!

[HFenderchick · 15 December 2002]

Jennifer Jason Leigh knows her stuff. After picking up Skipped Parts off the shelf, my choice based solely on the interest in Jennifer Jason Leigh movies, I was not disappointed by Skipped Parts. A coming of age story of the American family. You can call it dysfunctional but through all of the problems and obstacles this family saw, it seemed to have more love and happiness than the stereotypical suburban, white picket fence family we are so used to seeing in every movie. Jennifer Jason Leigh is spectacular, yet again, and anyone who loves off-beat movies with a heartwarming feeling from a different direction (compared to other movies) this is a must see and ace on my list. Watch it twice then buy it (as I will do shortly)

Skip this!

[=G= · 5/10 · 31 August 2002]

"Skipped Parts" takes on the difficult comedy/drama genre and flops. Telling of one boy's coming of sexual age, this film could have been a solid study of teenage sex issues and rites of passage. Instead, it plays as a convoluted, bland, and ill-focused mess of silliness, stiff acting, post card scenery, dream sequences, and out-of-nowhere nonsense lacking the finesse required to weave an engaging story from the comedy and drama components resulting in a marginally entertaining watch and a story with a difficult buy-in. Only for the most easily influenced sentimentalists. (C-)

Hilarious Story about Puberty and the Facts of Life

[dbellmyer · 8/10 · 23 June 2005]

I ran across this quirky little film, and decided to take a chance on it because of the cast: Drew Barrymore, Jennifer Jason Lee, and Michael Greyeyes. I wasn't familiar with the younger actors, Misha Barton, Bug Hall, and Brad Renfro, but they do a great job in the film. Although some of the subject matter is a little uncomfortable, you laugh so much that it doesn't seem to matter. Basically what happens in this movie is that they address some serious life-changing subjects with a lot of humor in order to get their message (sex requires responsibility,etc.) across. At times, the kids seem more mature than the adults. Jennifer Jason Leigh is mind-boggling as the sexy, spoiled, southern single mom. Drew Barrymore's part is small, but she is memorable as a tantalizing temptress. Michael Greyeyes exudes strength and masculinity as a handsome Blackfoot rodeo cowboy. I would advise parents to watch the film before showing it to their kids. However, I also think it would be a good film to use in broaching the subject of sex and its consequences, etc. to family members entering puberty.

Lame Treatment of an Interesting Plot

[chron · 2/10 · 27 January 2008]

In spite of Drew Barrymore's presence in the movie, I was hopeful that she would be the old bad actress. Sadly, the majority of the other actors put in a poor performance as well. Even Jennifer Jason Leigh, who has put in good performances in the past, had trouble with this character.

The dialog is very stilted. I haven't read the book, but the conversations didn't come across as real at all. The direction is quite poor. At times it seems like the actors are waiting for their mark. Some of the fantasy scenes, most with Drew Barrymore, are campy and don't flow well with the rest of the movie.

I would recommend staying away from this turkey.

A great movie to see, interesting and unique.

[Josh_Lover_1978 · 8 July 2002]

I just saw this movie about a week ago, although i am a girl who loves bug hall, i also enjoyed the ways that the movie portrayed life for younger adults in the 1960's. I admit that this movie had a severe consequence to their actions...but in those actions did those teenagers realize the responsibility, and dedication that they had to put forth to be happy. I'm sorry if i make no sense at all. It was a great learning experience for me, i was so awed at the way that Sam didn't want to end up like his father. From the start, he wanted for them to keep the baby. It was a GREAT movie, i give it a hundred and fifty out of ten.