When the Party's Over

Yes, this is an ensemble piece, and a "year in the life of" type of film -- but a fine example of what can be accomplished in this area, for those who appreciate these works. Bullock does act well here -- she's not especially likeable, for several reasons -- but she's believable, and it's one of a handful of roles she's done exceptionally well. Fisher Stevens steals this show, however. And how! He's an entirely winning character -- among a bunch of twenty-somethings who haven't quite figured themselves out, let alone what they want or what makes living worth all the fuss. Many of them are interesting or quite appealing, all the same. Without Stevens setting the counterpoint, a person who wins at life whether he gets what he wants or not, someone who doesn't decide ahead of time what's supposed to happen and how people are supposed to respond to him -- without him in this role, it would be just another story of searching and/or alienation. Not that there haven't been some fine films of just that sort, but this is something more. "When the Party's Over" stands up well alongside such films as "Bob & Ted & Carol & Alice" and the Australian film "Bob's Party" (if I'm remembering the latter's title correctly here). Those films are superficially more entertaining, clearly more commercial, even more conventional -- and more about actual parties and sexual games than this one. But all of them share the same group spirit. In the long run, a decade or more later, it is Fisher Stevens' role as Alexander which lives on in my mind and heart more than any of the others. Nor will I forget Bullock or Rae Dawn Chong and their characters in this film. The story builds slowly, doesn't go where you expect it to or hope it will, but rewards those who are patient and observant.

Good movie, easy to follow, but enough depth to stay focused. There's no clearly outlined story here, just a glimpse of the life of a group of friends finding their way in a big and individualistic world. The characters are believable, and the sketch of the absurdity of Hollywood wannabee life is entertaining and over the right top. Bullock is OK, but I cannot see real exquisite marvel in her eyes. Chong and Berridge are very good and the parts of Mr. Midnight and the little brother serve as welcome optimistic counter figures.

All in all this movie can be seen as a high-quality soap opera in that it manages to plant an entire season's drama in just 110 minutes and the emotional perceptions are almost authentic. To top that we receive some profound glances of the whims and fancies of human personality and the attitude on life.

Being a part of Gen X thought I'd check this out since I never seen this movie. It's remnants of the 80s decadence. I couldn't stomach how frivolous this movie was. It was a waste of my time. Perhaps if I was in my 20s decades ago watching this movie I would appreciate it more. I ended up not being able to finish this movie to even appreciate it for what it was. The story was about the young free selfish group of people who struggle through young adulthood. The ensemble of stars where solid, but the story lacked & didn't transcend time to curreny social climate of 2025.

I didn't finish it to even find out if there was a lesson learned from the interaction. I might give it another chance if I get into the right mindset to watch it. I'm rating it 50% since I only put it 50% & only watched 50%.

Watching "When the Party's Over", early on I thought I might be witnessing a great, unsung film. But after several tedious later reels the serious mistakes here, in both script revision and casting, became obvious and suitable as a learning set.

The ensemble piece, most notably remembered in "The Big Chill" (and of course its template "Return of the Secaucus Seven") is a difficult film to pull off because it lacks the obvious hook of genre films (which seem more popular than ever with new generations of film buffs) and the immediacy and topicality of a "serious" subject movie (see: earlier Oliver Stone or recent Aaron Sorkin films for example).

This commendable attempt by Matthew Irmas and his writer & producer collaborators falters for important structural reasons, one of which is of my own devise and will likely elicit ridicule from you gentle readers of my critique, so I will save it for last. Fundamentally, an ensemble follows the principle of "a chain is no stronger than its weakest link", that memorable line spoken by Richard Loo as one of the stereotyped bad guys in the WW II propaganda film "The Purple Heart".

Irmas's casting is quite deficient in this regard: his female leads number future superstar Sandra Bullock, in the lead role the iconic Rae Dawn Chong, an all-time favorite for film buffs after "Quest for Fire", and the very talented but failed to make the big time Elizabeth Berridge (peaked almost immediately with "Amadeus"). The guys in the lead roles all do a fine acting job but are comparative nonentities in the shadow of their women.

Exception is actually the main problem: Fisher Stevens cast as free spirit Alexander Midnight, who commandeers Bullock's attention (and that of the audience) with an outlandish, tour de force performance. He sticks out in this film the way that Crispin Glover does in all his movies (and Brad Dourif does in many of his) - seemingly a foreign element that dominates all else on view. For an ensemble this is deadly -equivalent to injecting a ham-bone like Jim Carrey into an otherwise well-cast, straightforward drama (imagine Jim showing up prominently in "A Few Good Men" and watching that stagey opus fall apart under his weight).

So Act II of this movie is ruined by Stevens' casting -his performance is worth preserving for posterity on its own in perhaps a 30-minute short subject starring him and Bullock.

Act III ends up seeming trite and tedious as a result of the Fisher injection, as Irmas & company explode all the carefully established plot time bombs: inevitable Chong/Berridge conflict over their common lover-man; title-implicit breakup of the group with folks moving out of the house and on with their lives; hokey tragedy as in the death of Berridge's Latino protégé.

But the sharp dialog, interpersonal insights and excellent acting of the first few, pre-Fisher reels are impressive and could have led to something more. That brings up my final, basically unwarranted personal criticism. I have been campaigning for decades now on a continuum approach to cinema, breaking down the artificial barriers (many of them created by the archaic delivers of content known as video stores and cable channels -both soon to be quite extinct) that pigeonhole movies into types and genres.

Principal of these ghetto genres is Adult Entertainment, or porn. At the time "When the Party's Over" was made (it bears a 1991 copyright), the great porn actor/director Paul Thomas was routinely cranking out wonderful interpersonal dramas like his most famous "The Masseuse", but they were rated XXX. Irmas's film is fundamentally about sex, but its presentation is squeaky clean, even avoiding several Chong nude scenes in a silly, prudish manner. In an ecumenical cinema world he could have shot XXX just like P.T. did, without destroying his script or premise, and not only fleshed out Chong's character but given the world Sandra Bullock in all her glory at an early age. In our practical world this is impossible, but the movie (plus excising Stevens' role) could have been a terrific one minus self-censorship or any other kind of censorship.

I don't like movies about relationships, so I didn't like this one. The main reason for watching this movie was Sandra Bullock. But she's not seen much. If you expect to see Sandra Bullock in an R movie, keep in mind, there are some sexual scenes, but absolutely no nudity.