Ehi... ci stai?

One plot device that the movie turns on is absolutely unbelievable. I won't spoil it, but it stands out like a sore thumb. The opening twenty minutes or so are nicely done as the two leads get to know one another, sort of. After their lives are revealed to each other things get very dull and I can't get past the inanity of this plot point.

I thought Molly Ringwald was good in her role, what there was of it. The script is awful and that's a good deal of the problem, but there's no chemistry here, either.

Robert Downey Jr. is husky and young and wiry as a streetwise ladies' man who does more striking-out than scoring, but his attempts are colorful (you can sense he turns women on just by attempting); Molly Ringwald is a good screen-match for Downey playing sassy tour guide whose alcoholic father is in trouble with the mob. So far, so good--and early on director James Toback displays a sweet, screwball side that was never apparent in his works prior to this--but, unfortunately, the convoluted script gets all gummed-up by the second-half, and the leads go back and forth with each other so much that it all becomes fairly ridiculous. Some pre-release dubbing was obviously done to cover the saltier dialogue passages; it looks sloppy, but that's nothing compared to listening to Downey and Ringwald having sex (what was she in real-life, 17?). These two look good together but are far too young for this scenario, which is by turns cartoonishly sordid and melodramatically soapy. *1/2 from ****

I saw a preview for this movie and happened to find it on an old VHS while glancing the thrift stores. When I first saw the trailer with Molly Ringwald and Robert Downey Jr., I figured the movie had to be pretty good. I love Ringwald's work in the John Hughes films, and just like Downey in general so I thought I was in for a really funny, warm treat. Add to the cast Dennis Hopper, fresh off of an Oscar nod from the previous year's Hoosier's as well as Danny Aiello, Bob Gunton (warden Norton from my all time fave "The Shawshank Redemption) and Harvey Keitel, and you got what seems like a really fun comedy with a powerhouse cast.

And it starts off that way, but it takes some seriously wrong turns after the first half-hour and just gets progressively worse to the point where I wanted to take my eyes off the TV set. The so called "story" is very lame once the premise is established. Downey plays his usual sarcastic, self-centered character, who happens to be a womanizer here, who tries to put all of his smooth moves on Ringwald (what guy in the 80's wouldn't have tried though?). She at first is uninterested but he is her only saving grace when gangster Keitel and his hit men, kidnap Hopper playing Ringwald's father, and Downey is forced to come up with the ransom money to save Hopper and ultimately Ringwald's lives.

The problem here is with this fantastic cast, the story and characters should be much more interesting and likable, not bland and generic like it is here. The movie would have been better with Downey's character being the same and leaving more room for character development getting to know both he Ringwald's characters better and taking them on another crazy adventure rather than the stupid mob sub-plot that is the focus here. Ringwald also seems like she's trying too hard to be an adult actress here, and not be typecast-ed with her typical teen roles from her tenure with Hughes. Taking this approach however is not successful, as her character here is bland and unlikable. The movie would have been much better here, if she would have played a character similar to the ones she did in "The Breakfast Club," or "Pretty in Pink." When actors try hard to be different than their usual persona, they come across as unlikable and that's definitely the case with Ringwald here. Maybe if John Hughes would have directed this, it would have been a different, and certainly much better movie.

Also, the supporting cast is entirely wasted and all characters are underdeveloped. Hopper seems like he is doing a much more comical version of his character from "Hoosiers" here, and it gets rather annoying quite quickly, especially considering he played the same character exactly a year before and did it much better then. He is also given very little to do, and the fact he receives screen credit is ridiculous, this could have easily been an extended cameo, and a bad one at that. What a waste of Hopper's fine talent. Fortunately we have better movies in his career before and after this to remember him by like "Easy Rider," "Hoosiers", "Blue Velvet" and "Speed".

Keitel is also annoying here, playing his usual tough-guy role, and he forces it so much that after a while it just becomes plain laughable. That role works for other movies but doesn't cut it here. He is wasted here, and given a bad role. Even Joe Pesci or Danny De Vito would have been better suited for this part, and could have brought some humor and originality to the character. Keitel plays it so straight that it's just painful to watch. The character is irritating and extremely one-dimensional. Didn't the director tell him this was a comedy before he signed on?

Gunton, a fine character actor is also wasted here and given nothing to do, same for Aiello. And then of course, there's Downey who puts a lot of effort into his character, but acts as if he knows the script stinks and aims to do his best with it. Downey does a generally good job, and gives the movie some saving grace, but this character would be suited better with another script and in another movie.

All in all the movie is very forgettable and wastes it's fine cast, who deserved a much better script, story and direction than what they got.

What a lesson in film-making!

Let me report that among date movies, very few age well. This one has improved remarkably with age.

Part of the reason is the two main actors. Molly is her most striking here. She's absolutely at her peak in what she does, which is a sort of sassy, deliberately fostered innocent/wise cuteness. No one can do this today, and the attempts are depressing. Kate Hudson? We all die a little when she tries.

And then we have Downey. He's already heavy into drugs and he doesn't have the drugged discipline he had in "Chaplin." But he has an energy that is so appealing. Undisciplined, druggy energy would usually be just dispersed effort, but this is a date movie, something that depends on misregistration of self.

And look who surrounds them: Aiello doing his working class avuncular bit. Keitel being such a movie gangster they bleeped his every speech. And Dennis Hopper! That man who is a permanent token of intoxicated risktaking. Three solid marks in film characters, all portrayed by their inventors.

You can see that the filmmaker is a writer. The script is actually very good. Very good indeed for what it is and the assets that are available. The direction is so inadequate it hurts. But it hurts in exactly the right way. This is a film about stretching, about yearning without touching. Its all about inadequacy in love, a sort of reality-tinged inadequacy overlain on the romantic comedy template.

Because the camera is always in the wrong place, is always too tentative, is always unsure of itself, but still goes, still goes...

It puts us in the thing as one of these kids, clumsy, bold without cause.

I recommend this. I do. Its problems work for it.

Molly has faded as a presence now. But that's inevitable because of how we all exploited her youth. We shouldn't think that she is a flake, like say Meg Ryan or Julia Roberts. This very year she starred in one of the most intellectually ambitious movies of all time, Godards "King Lear." And more recently, she was in a Greenaway film. No stupid actor would do that.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

The good things first (sing this): Summer in the city!, and the city, New York, the one star in this movie that looks good 'til the very end, is just beautiful. And because it is summer, and because the city looks as good as the women that populate it, we do not ask that whatever Robert Downey is up to in the beginning is in any way "realistic", as long as it is carefree, funny, and playfully energetic. But from then on...

I do not ask of a movie that it be literally truthful, however, there should be some inner truth, a veracity in the characters or a thoughtful comment on life or something--and this movie does not have any of it. It seems that most of the characters are caricatures, such as the alcoholic gambling father, the mafia bad guy and his entourage (a whole armada with Italian accents), the corrupt policeman, and the Columbian rich man; nobody is in any way real, not even three-dimensional. (I did like the bad guy's girlfriend though, probably also a caricature, but at least flirty, lively, and refreshing.) On top of that, our romantic couple has no chemistry (at least not any I can detect), always deadly for a romantic comedy. The philosophic sentences about life and relationships that come out of our protagonists' mouths are, well let's say, completely beside the point. They are probably supposed to show that our characters are "serious", and maybe if I was 16 again, I would find these parts of the movie "deep", but at my age, I just find them false and somewhat annoying.

So, if you have seen this movie already, I hope you enjoyed the city, the summer, Robert Downey... and maybe some thing or other that I have missed.