Pazzie di gioventù

do rather well with the subject matter- albeit limited, and as a previous review mentioned, ("Pretty In Pink, Redux")...sometimes there is fault with pop culture trying to seem clever; just ask Stephen King.

Ringwald is a decent actor, and was unfortunately pegged into these type roles for awhile- I will have to watch her later films to compare, as it seem she has not been given enough range. Since this film was made in the late 80's; there needs to be a twist; Andrew McCarthy provides a sympathetic character-trying to do the right thing. (Was there a "right thing" in 1988?). I seem to remember films like "American Psycho" reflecting , more accurately, the political and social climate of the times.

What the audience does see, is interesting and expository. For example; why do the Ben Stiller and McCarthy character have to visit their college girlfriends at their indoor/outdoor swimming pool?; this is a gross exaggeration. Unless their parents owned a software company; being well-to-do does not necessitate an Olympic sized/Mariott Hotel swimming pool.(Wow-the parents went to St. Martin-not exactly a world cruise). But, yes, this is the 80's. So we will excuse that. I can remember films like "Soul Man" (1989) and "Who's That Girl" (Madonna- throw-away trash film) The Ringwald character could have been better developed, she is a townie; married too young; the speech when she explains her childhood could have been more nuanced, more true to life. Ben Stiller is realistic, except when he delivers the title phrase to McCarthy- ..."drop the old nag and get a new one"... when referring to Jewel(Ringwald). Also the final deus ex machina- where Ringwald is assaulted, yet stays with Green (Viggo Mortenson) is contrived and convenient. Andrew McCarthy is a good actor, without the luxury of a story-line.

In the late 80's, there were some films with social merit. This was one of them, but you may have to block out some of the more ridiculous polarizations. The fact is that there will always be college, college preppies, and townies, who drive 1979 Camaros. The writer must show the audience why we should care, and learn about the many conflicts and psychological issues.

I just wanted to add a few more thoughts to the comment that I left last year, which a few people have cited to. Again, I will say that this is by no means a great film. Much of what happens is, at least to me, unrealistic and unconvincing. Molly's speech in the cabin to McCarthy and his friends, about her childhood, is also somewhat laughable. But the movie has quite a few elements which make it worth watching. Many scenes are memorable. Ones that stick out in my mind are the pool party and the conversation afterwards, the scene where Ben Stiller talks to McCarthy about how difficult it is to make friends at their age, and the strange scenes where McCarthy goes to the house in the woods and meets Jewel and her female friend. I am still uncertain as to what exactly was going on out there, as to why these kids were hanging out at such a remote location. The film looks visually stunning and makes you want to visit these places. As for the title, I believe that at one point Stiller compares Molly to a worn out nag and says that McCarthy needs a "fresh horse" to ride, or something like that. I agree, the title makes little sense. But I recommend the movie.

I'm not sure why I've watched this movie 4 or 5 times. The plot isn't particularly believable or intriguing. What has always hooked me is the eerie winter landscape seen throughout, the barren woods of Ohio and Kentucky. It's definitely atmospheric, and at times even haunting. The final scene at the ice skating rink is kind of sad, too.

I saw this movie in the theater when it first came out. I was in love with Ringwald at the time as she was(and is still if the laws of physics still apply) about 5 years older than me. I really liked it then, and have been trying to get this on DVD for years.

I was afraid that the film wouldn't be as good as I remembered, and it wasn't in the WAY that I remembered, but it was BETTER in ways that I didn't have the experience or maturity to appreciate at the time.

While aspects of the film are dated, namely the syrupy, St. Elmo's Fire-ish theme song in the opening/closing credits, it held up surprisingly well. The only thing that keeps me from giving this higher marks is the unfortunate 80's gloss that works so well for the John Hughes films, but keeps this one from transcending the rat-pack genre.

If this film were made today, it would never be filmed or sold as a "box-office" film, but would rather go through Sundance, IFC, etc., and the style would be more raw, more gritty. By and large though, that just didn't happen with "Teen Stars" in the 80's, and I'm amazed they got this film made at all! Also, for the people who don't seem to get the "Fresh Horses" reference, my take on it is not definitive, but there is a line where Ben Stiller is talking to Matt (McCarthy) and says something to the effect of letting a tired horse go, and getting a "fresh horse" in reference to dropping Jewel.

It seemed to me that the metaphor was that while the characters all cared about each other, each relationship("horse") had more selfish/cynical motivations behind them. In effect, the relationships were being used to move themselves from one-point to another towards their goals/desires, whether or not they themselves understood or acknowledged them.

Ringwald uses McCarthy to get out of her marriage, McCarthy uses Ringwald to get out of his engagement, Stiller seems to use his friendship with McCarthy to avoid growing up and getting serious, McCarthy seems to be trying to fulfill an image of himself as a white-knight, though he finds that he doesn't have the character, he also seems to need the superiority he feels over Jewel due to her lack of education and so on....

Unfortunately for most(it seems!), the movie required you to do a little thinking, and probably drew the wrong crowd due to its co-stars, who were maybe expecting Pretty in Pink II, or Pretty In Pink "for adults", but I do not agree with that view of the movie.

If you haven't seen it, give it a shot. Just go in with a blank slate and take it as it comes....

This movie is really only for those who were/are serious fans of either Molly Ringwald or Andrew McCarthy. The storyline is implausible and the characters are woefully underdeveloped. McCarthy stars as a young man named Matt who is engaged to marry his socialite girlfriend, but scraps those plans when he meets Jewel(Ringwald). The film follows Matt as he tries to figure out who exactly Jewel is and what secrets she might be hiding. For her part, Ringwald does a decent job. Her southern accent isn't overdone or ridiculous, though it is a bit odd. To her credit, she believably portrays a character that is totally unlike any of those in her previous movies. McCarthy, on the other hand, seems like a reincarnation of every part I've ever had the displeasure of seeing him in. He wanders through the film aimlessly and seems totally disinterested the whole way through. Overall, not a bad effort on Ringwald's part, but I would only recommend watching this movie if you happen to catch it on cable.