Jimmy Reardon

William Richert directed and wrote the novel as a youngster on which A Night In The Life Of Jimmy Reardon is based. Sad to say he failed to capture whatever charm there was in the book for his lead character. As River Phoenix plays him, Jimmy is spoiled, hedonistic, self-indulgent, and a liar. Maybe he should have gone into politics.

Richert wrote the book in the Sixties and that's where the film is set, a rich suburb of Chicago. Phoenix as Jimmy Reardon is spoiled kid who has sex more on his mind than anything else, not atypical for someone his age. He's a chick magnet even when he's not trying.

What this one wants to do is somehow get an airline ticket to Hawaii where he believes he can be a beachcomber and live off tourists. His father, Paul Koslo, wants him to go to school or get a job, the nerve of the man. So Phoenix hatches this scheme to somehow get enough money in the next 24 hours to fly to Hawaii or its either, the street, a job, or school. That is if the women can leave him alone, which apparently they can't.

Including one cougar who is deliciously played by Ann Magnuson, she's the best thing in the film.

River Phoenix's fans usually consider this one of, if not the worst film of his short career. I'm inclined to agree with them. River is certainly sexy enough in this film, but he's so incredibly dislikeable in this part.

This is supposed to be a fun, hip, easy movie portraying the sexcapades of a teenage bad boy. What it does, however, is features grown women having illegal sex with a minor CHILD!

This isn't funny! It isn't enjoyable. It doesn't document the trials of teenage angst. It doesn't demonstrate the pains of teenage love. What this did was tell an entire society that this activity was appropriate and commonly practiced. While the later may be the case, the former is NOT.

I was not amused, nor was I entertained. This movie is a fecal abortion that belongs in the toilet.

No rating. It doesn't rate one.

the Fiend :.

I was only 17. I was expecting a John Hughes film. if this had been an "indie" movie it would have done better, but the movie was Advertised to america like a regular (ie. happy) movie. it does have some spotty acting, slow parts, etc. but the big problem is the only thing I got from the movie (no pleasure, no pay off, no catharsis was):

Jimmy has no heart of gold, he is dross. and the film is good at depicting the story of a man who realizes he will be a cheatin', no good jerk like his father, and that he really does not care. he seems at one with his shallowness. I don't think most teens could accept the idea that they are not good, not bad, just blah with such grace. a real human would not just shrug and accept his loserness..when he seemed to have a glimmer of more. It takes longer for life to beat you down at that.

I walked out of the movie theater at the age of 17 thinking "THIS SUCKED compared to FERRIS BUELLER" and I was right. 15 years later, I am still right.

I watched this movie when I was younger and enjoyed it, now....it just seems boring. There are no likable characters, the script does a poor job of even letting you get to know anyone but jimmy. It isn't funny, not at all so I'm not sure why it is classified as a comedy. Honestly jimmy just doesn't have that much happen to him, other than lots of sex. Watching this now it just falls flat. There is no lesson learned, no great friendships explored, no amazing love story here. Jimmy doesn't seem to really care about anyone but himself. You get the idea ( due to the narration), that jimmy does indeed become a writer...but that's not explored either. His writing is actually just a side note in the story . It's almost as if somewhere in there a good story existed, but they don't finish telling it or something. It's really just a movie about a selfish person, surrounded by selfish people...who is really nave about life and has no clue what he wants to do, other than girls of course. This movie s devoid of purpose and fairly vapid.

"A Night In The Life Of Jimmy Reardon" is a grinless Coming Of Age film which has been mis-packaged as a comedy. It almost seems as if half the film was in the can before someone on high decided to change the genre... either that or Richert forgot to film a lot of scenes.

River Phoenix is said to have been ashamed of his part in the film, but he is actually not bad, considering the material he had to rise above. Reardon gives us a Phoenix who has not yet become hard-eyed, 'though the character he played was nearly graceless. River still had fuzz on his chin and boyish charm. This was a young man on the cusp of greatness.

The adult actors in this film were dreadful and the other young actors were uneven. I hardly recognized Mathew Perry. Talk about a baby face!

Watching Reardon is like watching kids try to play grownup. The script was originally written for older actors and would have been better if older actors were used. Those used seemed hardly past puberty, and had no idea how to play "sexually jaded" at all.

Overall, I prefer Reardon to "Dogfight" as a River Phoenix vehicle and a comparison of the box-office take shows many others did too.

See it if only to see a still innocent River Phoenix playing a young man far removed from himself.