Baby It's You

"Baby, It's You" is a love story about a young woman named Jill (Rosanna Arquette), who grows up in New Jersey during the sixties and meets a troubled and troublesome swindler named Sheik (Vincent Spano). They go out together during highschool but once college days come, Jill forgets Sheik and he becomes a Frank Sinatra impersonator for a fancy restaurant in Miami. But after he is booted from the joint and drives all the way back to New Jersey to be with her, she admits she no longer has feelings for him.

Movies like this can be a bit hard to review because on a technical level they are worthless. Sometimes, though, the film itself is fun to watch--I am a sucker for old eighties comedies, the decade of low-budget comedies that disappeared into a vault somewhere and air on television at three o'clock in the morning. "Baby, It's You," however, isn't even that fun to watch, mainly because it goes nowhere for its two-hour running time. Sure, it kept my interest, and there's no doubt that it is a pretty intriguing film, but it's been done before in a better fashion--and all in all, "Baby, It's You" likes to repeat itself. A lot.

Things don't move nearly as quickly as they should. The setup for the movie takes forever--and then we find out the setup wasn't a setup at all. I left wondering, What IS the point of this movie? The core message is pretty simple--a lovebird couple seperate when college comes around and one of them loses the attraction for the other. But "Baby, It's You" doesn't do this like it should--it takes side routes into too many subplots. For example, at first Jill hates Sheik. Then she goes out with him. Then she breaks up with him. Then he kidnaps her, holds a gun to her head and tells her to say she's sorry. Then they're back together. Then Sheik commits a robbery and almost gets caught. Then they seperate. Then...

What is the point? Why the stupid subplots? Why would Jill love a ruthless punk who stalks and kidnaps her? This is a depressing movie, not because of what happens, but simply because it goes nowhere. "Baby, It's You" is strangely intriguing, but as a film it should have gone through a much greater thought process before they decided to put it on the big screen. After all, there is a reason that it is one of the most unknown films of all time.

I did find some things in "Baby, It's You" interesting, such as how Sheik corrupts Jill, but then when he turns around to be with her again, she acts like he did early on in the film. For example: Sheik is a rich playboy criminal in the beginning who cheats on Jill and so on and so forth. Jill doesn't want to "do it" with Sheik. But after college, she turns into the promiscuous one and he turns into the moral one. She becomes a drunk, depressed soul. Is that the point of the movie? That hanging around the wrong crowd can rub off on you? Or is the point that people who fall in love aren't always in love? Or is it just meant to be a depressing love story? Who cares. And I'm not stating that two-word sentence as a question.

2.5/5 stars.

• John Ulmer

Quite a few careers got started in this 1982 Paramount release. Rosanna Arquette and Vincent Spano made their starring debuts, John Sayles landed his first major directing job and the film also features small parts by future stars Robert Downey Jr., Tracy Pollan and Matthew Modine. Set in 1965, a fine period soundtrack helps to propel this story of two mismatched teenagers (Arquette, Spano) whose love affair stems a lot of controversy within their community. The film is OK but time has not served it entirely well as sometimes it seems dated and it still suffers from being as obscure as it was when it was originally released.

I echo the comments of the other review posted here. The movie seems very uneven, and that adds to its lure. The interaction of Spano and Arquette seems all at once real and surreal. Any movie which makes me think of it into the next day, must have significant substance. It is rare to consider "uneven" a positive quality to a movie, but somehow this one pulls it off..

After finally getting a VHS copy of this film, I find it is ranked right up there with my all-time favorites. Perhaps you had to have lived in that time, or attended a big-city high school or just be an incurable romantic to relate.

Even though this film is 23 years old, the emotions, settings and tragedies of young, rudder-less love are universal and timeless. Is there any among we female viewers who has not either had or wanted to have a "Sheik" type pursue you? Dangerous, enigmatic and probably a big no-no, but extremely intriguing.

The film has many subtle nuances that younger audiences my not recognize since the scenes are not thrown at the viewer in quick-time, but the gentle, heart-wrenching moments with the main characters tend to stick in your mind. I will never listen to "Strangers in the Night" again without thinking of the two dance scenes and the emotions they evoke.

Spano and Arquette are outstanding as the two star-crossed leads and the acting is both understated and powerful in the same moment. When Jill tells Shiek she just doesn't love him in the dorm scene and he backs up and with a whipped look on his face asks, "why not?", his character is stripped of all pretenses.

Shop around for this video, as it is film making with heart like you don't find very often in the current film catalogs. Watch and remember and weep a little for what was and never could be.

Unlike other viewers, I didn't really connect with this on any major level. And I don't think their longing for each other was anything more than adolescent infatuation (hey, we've all been there!), made all the more desperate by separation anxiety. A couple of 18-year-olds struggling to find themselves in the world. OK as a romantic comedy drama, but no great shakes.

Performances were all solid. Interesting to see Matthew Modine pop up briefly as the college boyfriend. And it looked great -- nice and moody -- seemed like something out of the 1960s.

One thing bothered me: The use of Bruce Springsteen songs from the 1970s in a movie that was to have taken place in 1967 (not 1965, as another reviewer said -- the signs at Rosanna Arquette's prom clearly said, "Class of 1967"). Anyway, those Springsteen songs from the soundtrack wouldn't have been out yet. But I guess it was done to add a "Jersey feel" to the movie.