This film was a sequel film to a better comedy: FOUL PLAY which was made in 1976 and co-starred Chevy Chase and Goldie Hawn. In that one the former was a police officer who is trying to protect the Pope on a visit to San Francisco, and the latter is an innocent by-stander who stumbles into the details of an assassination plot. The story worked with the assistance of Dudley Moore as a befuddled not-so-innocent third party who gets dragged into the proceedings by Hawn, Eugene Roche as a conspirator, Billy Barty as an accidental victim of Hawn's fears and hysteria, and Burgess Meredith and Rachel Roberts having an unexpected classic judo face off. Oh, all to the concluding music from Act I of Gilbert and Sullivan's THE MIKADO.

SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES is a remake of sorts of the 1942 film THE TALK OF THE TOWN. That film dealt with Cary Grant as a fugitive being hidden in a house by Jean Arthur, while jurist Ronald Colman (just nominated for the U.S. Supreme Court) is renting the same house from Arthur. Here Chase is the fugitive, hiding in the garage of his first wife Hawn, unbeknown-st to her second husband Charles Grodin (who is being considered for the post of Attorney General of California. The screenplay is by Neil Simon this time, and there is good supporting roles by Robert Guillaume, George Grizzard, and Harold Gould (as an increasingly annoyed local judge). However, TALK OF THE TOWN was dealing with a man accused of an arson murder due to his labor union activities. Grant was an activist in that film. Chase comes across as something of a schmuck here - he is forced at gunpoint to assist two men in a bank robbery, is set up to deliver the note to the teller, gets his face photographed too well by the bank's camera, and is then tossed out of the speeding car on a hillside by the two felons. The audience knows Chase is innocent, and gradually Hawn and Grondin and Guillaume realize it too. But it seems that Chase had a similar bad experience in Mexico regarding being framed for a drug deal - and had spent some time in prison as a result there. He seems to be an unlucky sort.

The weaknesses of Chase's character aside, SEEMS LIKE OLD TIMES is funny, and understandably so - it has a Neil Simon script. In fact, aside from the one-liners that pepper it, there are moments in it that reminded me of other films and plays Simon has written. In some late moments of intimacy between Hawn and Chase I felt that some of Chase's descriptions of Hawn's little idiosyncrasies actually could have been dialog left over from BAREFOOT IN THE PARK, from scenes between Robert Redford and Jane Fonda. And the unwelcome intrusion of Chase into an organized household resembles the situations in THE ODD COUPLE and THE SUNSHINE BOY, where Oscar has to make room for Felix, and Willie Clark has to reunite with Al Lewis.

There are plenty of amusing sections: Chase fighting back fear and hysteria when he is with the kidnapping bank robbers (when he compliments the wording of the bank robbing note, the robber who wrote it thanks him); Hawn's fighting for the underdog legal practice, which results in her having a growing number of clients she is helping to get honest employment for - even in her own household; Gould's judge trying to get to the point of the ridiculous arguments and fact patterns that first Hawn and later Grodin put into his court; Grizzard's governor looking forward to dinner with his future attorney general, and his favorite dish, only to find the state's number one criminal is serving it to him. All in all it is an entertaining film. But it is not as concentrated and unified a script as FOUL PLAY was. You will enjoy the film, but FOUL PLAY is somewhat more memorable.


I have loved this movie since I saw it in the early 80s when I was in Junior High. For 25 years I have liked to quoted this movie. Every actor was wonderful, and I find it difficult to pick one out as the best. T.K. Carter did such a great job, and he developed his character the best, I thought, as "Chester" the klepto-chaeuffer. When "Glenda" told "Nick" to give himself up, she said "If you're innocent they will never send you to jail." Nick responds by asking "Chester" if thats how it works, "Chester" responds, "Not in my neighborhood." Charles Grodin was great as "Glenda's" husband "Ira." I also wasn't that impressed with the scene in the guest room with Chase under the bed while Grodin was sitting on it. I loved that line, however, by Grodin where he said, "oh, he was limping. Then of course he's innocent, limper's never lie, limper's are famous for telling the truth." I highly recommend this. Your time wont be wasted.

Just remembered that part with chevy chase "holding up" the gas station. After he remembers he has a gun he makes the attendent break into the candy machine for him. the attendant asks "uh, how about zagnut?" The gas station attendant says "we don't keep cash at night, only credit cards." and then he says


Get Real is an excellent work and I highly recommend it! The content/subject matter is absolutely timeless. Main characters display an extremely realistic perspective of teen reactions to the situations that face them. Of course, the British "humour" only adds to the overall flavor of this particular flick. Linda and her comments and driving lessons give the work a uplifting life goes on kind of feel. All of the characters were very well developed and actors carefully selected. As far as the "coming of age" and "coming to terms with one's sexuality" films are concerned, this one really captures a realistic view. I would highly recommend it to any teen male who is questioning his identity, as well as to parents, teachers, and other adults who work with teens. It is not in any way pedantic nor does it preach to any topic. It is simply a very well developed and realistic film.


This movie is awesome and definitely worth seeing. But you have to take it for what its worth. It IS an independent film. This film is awesome but you need to be in the right mindset and it surly isn't a Disney film. This film has such a wide range of emotions, one minute your happy for the characters and the next your angry. The acting is great and not to mentions the hot lead characters.(Ben has this face that makes your heart melt) The ending is perfect... well its not the Disney ending we all were hoping for but it fits well. You will want to watch this movie over and over again its so great. This is a movie everyone should see!!!


Deep in the heart of conservative Utah, there lies the best little film festival in the world. In that little film festival, lies some wonderful movies, one of the best being Get Real, a gay dramedy (drama-comedy) with some BRILLIANT acting and a WONDERFUL theme, it was amazing and so well done. Each deep scene was followed by a light hearted part. Matches the brilliance of BEAUTIFUL THING if not surpasses it, depending on whether or not you want a more comedy or not. Get Real is an amazing piece of work that everyone should see. Based after the play "What's Wrong With Angry?" Get Real is sure to be a major hit!


A few years ago, the world's been touched by MacDonald's Beautiful Thing involving Jamie & Ste's love story, they were young, cute... So imagine a film much better than that one, this is Get Real, by genius director Simon Shore (remember "Eton, class of '91"), with a wonderful cast (especially young Ben Silverstone - just GREAT !!!!- already seen in The Browning Version...) The screenplay is so interesting, a lot more than Beautiful Thing's, we can feel Johnny and Steve's emotion, the fear of being "discovered" because of the reactions of all those stupid people... Johnny's difficulty to admit what he's... In my opinion, one of the greatest films ever, even if the reaction of everybody, at the end, is maybe more positive than it would be in reality... but we have to be optimistic... Thank you Simon, Thank you Ben !


I rented this movie by chance without expecting much. But after watching it, I am inspired to write my first review ever!

The movie revolves around Steve's journey from knowing that he is gay to coming out in the open. This is conveyed beautifully through his on-off relationship with the school jock, Johnny. The importance of family and friend's support in such situations is also highlighted.

The acting is first class. Especially, the tension between Steve and Johnny when they bump into each other in a public toilet is so real.

But what sets this movie apart from similar movies is its unique take on the subject. Movies like "Beautiful Thing" portray that society is prejudiced against all gays. But this movie shows that the society treats "elite" people differently proving that it is just another form of discrimination. Despite Johnny's friends knowing about his gay relationship with Steve, they conveniently ignore the fact and instead blame Steve for it. In the end, this only results in Steve becoming free and Johnny remaining closeted.

Must watch for all!!


One of the better gay-themed dramas from recent years, GET REAL follows a well-established formula (identified in some of the other posts here), and thus is a bit short on originality, but does feature some fine performances, and - in subtle ways - does manage to touch upon other issues which help to cut through the rose-colored romance that frames much of the story.

**MINOR SPOILERS**

I was glad to see a self-aware young gay character - there still aren't enough, and found the conflicted boyfriend (John) to be quite an interesting character as well - bringing to life (in many scenes) the connections between homophobia, violence, social pressure and generalized lack of self-awareness. The rather complex ending had its' good and bad points - the coming-out speech could've been sharper (this would've perhaps heightened the emotional tension of the scene), but I found the ending to be otherwise quite satisfactory - Steven, as a self-aware young gay man, possesses a strength and self-assurance that places him far ahead of John, whose cowardly retreats into violence betray a confusion that will only create problems in other people's lives until he gains the strength to work things out for himself. No strong, self-aware human being should ever need to put up with getting literally kicked around, which Steven is smart enough to already know, which his why he can ride off into the sunset loveless but confident - such a liberated ending (while no 'happily-ever-after' romance) more than validates the occasional 'after-school-special' moments that preceded it.

There are many moments here that could form the basis for any number of provocative follow-ups: the contradictions of John, or the relationships - supportive or otherwise - with parents (grossly under-explored in gay drama) or teachers. Overall GET REAL isn't flawless, but it's many perceptive moments of both sweetness and intelligence very much make it worth seeing.


What a surprise! I just turned 43 although it doesn't seem like it. I watched the movie and it transported me back to when I was 17.

The feelings that the young men felt were so real. I was really impressed with the accuracy in the way they portrayed those experiences.

I almost never watch a movie more than once. I watched this movie 4 times in the last 2 weeks.

The ending really sucked though. True, it was realistic I suppose in some ways, but it hurt. Thats why I watched it so many times. I can't understand why I have such a strong feeling of hurt in the ending. It was, after all, just a movie and I don't ever have a lingering reaction such as this.

It really touched me on some deep levels that frankly kind of confuse me. It would be nice to see a sequel. Even if they don't get back together as i am sure in real life the wouldn't. It would still be nice to see some closure to their sweet dating experience and a positive outlook on their individual futures.

Wow, I can't believe I am actually writing this as it is so out of character for me to do. This movie just really touched me in a way that truly surprised me and is now one of my favorites. I would highly recommend seeing "Get Real".


Some time back I was channel surfing and came across this film on satellite. I came in after the beginning and knew that I had missed the prologue. I waited to see it again but I could no longer find it. I now own a DVD of it.

When I was the age of either male stars I did not have those problems. My parents had no control over my wanderings as I told them lies. They left me alone. I had many trysts and enjoyed them. I had many partners in the military but never picked up a trick from being in a communal shower. My partners had to be special. By that I mean he had to be intelligent but not necessarily physically attractive.

I am a senior citizen and the object of my affection is only 27. He is well educated and extremely handsome. On a few occasions he eye kissed me. I pulled away due to our age difference. What can I do?


Having read much of the criticism and praise of others commenting on "Get Real", there really isn't much that I can say that hasn't been said elsewhere.

I would like to comment on the criticism that the dialogue was poor. Teens never talk in most films like they do amongst one another. Here, to a good degree, they do. The actors weave brilliantly between the awkward clumsiness and bold cockiness that most teens display. It isn't tiresome at all, it's refreshing and interesting. There is also a great amount of communication that isn't purely driven by dialogue and it's exceptional between the two main players.

If you'd like to see a super film, with flawless acting all around, this is a delightful portrayal of two boys at very different places where self-acceptance is concerned. It certainly raises the bar on gay genre films to something that should be enjoyable to the general public.

My only criticism is that the music is rather standard fare.


I highly recommend this film to anyone who is not out of the closet yet or is already out. I have been out for 10 years and it still hit heart strings that I didn't think existed anymore. The characters and their tribulations are very well depicted and are very realistic to what a lot of us have gone through or will go through during the struggle to come out to family, friends and loved ones. If you have not yet seen this movie, find it and watch it. You will not be disappointed.


Perhaps it's the film, or just my insanity, but either way "Get Real" gives me the strange urge and unattainable goal of being a gay school boy from Great Britain. This movie is wonderful. At first viewing it's excellent, then after I thought about the film some more I gained appreciation for it. Eventually I became sexually attracted to this film and wished to procreate with it. Melodramatic? Sure. Psychotic? Perhaps. But I know one thing for sure, if you are going to watch a movie about a gay British school boy, "Get Real" is the movie for you.


Absolutely a great movie. I really enjoyed watching Ben play his role as steven carter. I loved the setting where like other teens today, who can confide with a close friend and not their parents. this can be a lesson to all parents out there. Listen to what your child is trying to tell you. Listen and understand.


This film touching the rather trivial (it's the year 2004) theme of coming out, achieves through a fine tune of its elements: plot, dialogs, characters, messages, events storied etc. to offer an exceptional and unique view of it.

 From the beginning it is not to compare with "Beautiful Thing" because it addresses somewhat older characters and its humor and dialogs are less general and more mature. It serves a rather specific goal and end which lacks from the rather simple realistic story-telling of "Edge of Seventeen". It does not transmit as much as exaggeration and irony which would put it aside the reality like "But I'm a Cheerleader".

However, it reserves some purity by not getting into the charming British gay bourgeoisie like "Like it is". It does not suffer of french lyricism like "Presque Rien". The fluctuation of the feelings and events is more breezy than in "It's in the water". Finally, the plot is more self-composed than in "A cause d'un Garcon" and it is not meant to be seen by clueless straight public like "In and Out".

As shortcomings may be considered the lack of "happily ever after..." ending, the somewhat too aggressive, for the spectator, plot development, the discreet appearance of several trivia and the lack of "mouth wide open" laughing humor.


Despite having a hard time understanding the accents during first few minutes of the movie, I really liked this film. It gives you a glimpse of what is like growing up gay, going to school being bullied, and having to hide your relationship. Every scene in the movie is perfect. The scene during the dance where Carter's and Dixon's eyes meet gives me goosebumps, and the scene where Dixon was beating the crap out of Carter to prove he wasn't gay was just disheartening.

Overall, I like this film.


And this is one of the best that I have ever seen...

The portrail of Steven and John are unique and GREAT! I can not think of any better acting for Steven's role as a gay lad who still has to hide from the "bullies" in his school.

I really loved the line from John: "Don't leave me." when he was crying on Steven's shoulder in the bed room (if you do not know you should watch the movie).

The only thing that I find a prob with it is that it is the typical "coming-out" story. Boy meets and falls for boy but does not get to keep him. I think that this standard needs to be changed.

~S


I would have enjoyed this movie much more had I not had "Beautiful Thing" to compare it to. While entertaining at times and with some truly funny situations, it falls short in many respects. The acting seems to suffer as the hunk just isn't believable in some key scenes. And can anyone make a movie without using most or all of the stereotypes? The character who's comfortable being gay is not athletic and gets beat up. The character who doesn't want to be gay is athletic and snubs his gay lover. The girl next door is overweight, wears too much makeup and is dramatic, so of course she is the gay guy's best friend. C'mon, can't we be a little more realistic. I'm giving this movie high marks for being what it is, but it could have been so much more. I think I'll watch "Beautiful Thing" again.


First off, this is NOT as good as the movie "Beautiful Thing"--the other British film about gay teens. But it still works wonderfully on its own terms.

The movie is well-acted by the whole cast and the story is realistic (unfortunately) and true to life. Some people have complained that the interactions between the two boys keep running hot and cold way too often. Well welcome to real life! I know of similar situations with friends and this movie captured them perfectly. Also the isolation and longing of the gay boy was so accurate. There's a sequence at a dance when the two boys are staring longingly at each other while dancing with two women they couldn't care less about. That scene brought tears to my eyes! Also when the gay teen tells off the guy he's in love with and the closing scene (don't want to give it away) were also extremely powerful and honest. The film also ends realistically BUT not depressingly. Also, the film IS funny. It's not a comedy, but it does have its light moments. See it! It's well worth 8 or 9 bucks.


I thought this movie was both moving and funny and more important believable. The characters were well thought about and played with charm. At no point was it a in your face film and thought about its subject with a fresh and likeable understanding. My one disappointment was the thought that the only way for young gay people was to find each other was to go to the toilets or woods, Or that all gay people want is sex Come on lets get a bit more original on that one.


Still wondering if we need to compare this film with "Beautiful Thing".I guess because they're both british and coming of age? Actually Beautiful Thing had some cheesy acting and some dull moments; hey guys remember "Wild Reeds" hu?, that was a coming of age movie too, close to the same plot line as Get Real. Get Real was well directed, very good acting and script adaptation from a play. With some twisted moments and I'm sure that people, especially gay dudes, will find themselves relating and empathizing with the main character; a totally big + in a movie. But, Get Real had a few faults as well. Some of the scores were too contrived, the scene when they were slow dancing and "You are so beautiful to me" song plays; Aretha Franklin singing the words freedom after the coming out scenario, etc. I'm putting myself in the jock's place, and no way this dude will go for a 100 pound, pale, goofy gay guy; another thing is would you cruise a public bathroom for a quickie leaving your private school uniform on? If you want to be so discreet about your sexual preferences, hey get your butt across town, or if you are so in love with the good looking jock, man, you would do anything to keep the relationship. Some of the scenes contradict themselves in such obvious ways that through the flick you find yourself asking, what is going on? However, Get Real with all it's faults, saves itself because it gives you good insight of how others feel being alianated, estranged and how to deal with society for being themselves. A good moral in the end; an all around feel good scene; reminds me of "SLC PUNK", which I found myself totally relating to.


it seems like all the reviews i've skimmed through have highly praised this flick. although i appreciated a lot about it including great performances by silverstone (ah, those brits ...) and charlotte brittain (who as linda has the most hilarious and poignant mini-soliloquy from the point of view of a "fat girl" i have ever heard) and most of its realism including a great ending, i thought there were several elements which were rather contrived, including a "coming out to the entire school" scene which veered dangerously towards cheesiness. the thing i found the hardest to believe was that there was a mutual attraction between the two boys. for one, i felt gorton as dixon, the deeply closeted love interest, was rather old for the part and that the movie didn't spend enough time developing their relationship on screen. that is, we have little to no idea of what they do when they're not horsing about, making out, or talking about how much of a strain their relationship is to the both of them. carter clearly isn't much interested in sports and dixon doesn't seem to be much interested in journalism. although it was an enjoyable movie, i don't rank it among the classics such as -beautiful thing- or john greyson's -lilies-, although they too had similar failings with regard to underdeveloping the nature of the relationship of the protagonists.


Dennis Potter, who passes before these works, "Karaoke and Cold Lazarus" could be produced, asked in his last interview with Melvyn Bragg, "Where will the writers who want to tell stories about life as it truly is, beneath the hype and glitter, get their opportunity as I did in the 60's, in our current world of Rupert Murdoch sensibilities?" Karaoke is a tale of personal responsibility that reaches deeper than "E-network" can imagine in its most profoundly affected moments of easy sanctimony and sentimentality. This play should be at the peak of viewing assignments for all students of what TV can really do and be in a democracy that is real, not just a convenient platitude. Dennis Potter may have been the "Shakespeare" of our times. We will be lucky if such integrity and eloquence graces us again.


This was my first experience of Dennis Potter. Subsequently I find he used similar themes in other works, notably the Singing Detective. Though that work is terrific, I find Karaoke and its sequel Cold Lazarus to be the total package. I am yet to see anything on the small screen which comes close to them. The incomparable Albert Finney leading a strong supporting cast, tight direction and a fascinating story. The characters are so believable, and ironically (as Potter was dying when he wrote this) they are mostly likable despite their many flaws. It is hard to find anyone likable in the Singing Detective My only question is why has the Beeb Beeb Ceeb not released this on DVD?


This is class TV. This production and it's second part Cold Lazarus was paid for by the UK tax payer and co-produced by the BBC and (also publicly funded) Channel 4. Several attempts at trying to find out why these two screen plays haven't been re-shown have met with limp excuses about licensing and the two channels not being able to get their act together to cooperate on a re-release. However, I'm aware both have been shown on recently on other European channels in other countries. Work that one out. The good news is I've recently got a hold of (legally) recorded versions of these shows. That's after almost 10 years of looking. Phew.


Perhaps the least-known Poitier work, certainly of the period; at date of writing only nine IMDb members had voted on this film. This is just over 1% of the votes attained by it's initial prequel, the superb "In The Heat of the Night". Between the two is the awful-yet-lovable "They Call Me MISTER Tibbs!" which took the Virgil Tibbs franchise on a downward slope.

Those that do get to see this movie on it's rare t.v. rescreenings and decide to give it a go after the disappointing "Tibbs" will be justly rewarded. Essentially, the production team is the same as the previous film, though Gil Melle provides a jazz-orientated score instead of Quincy Jone's adequate but inappropriate themes. The domesticity is also played down, with Alan R.Trustman absent as co-writer and James R. Webb taking full control of the screenplay. Most importantly, though, is Don Medford as the well above average director. Apart from a rather crude edit where a car accident occurs in the second half of the picture, the scenes are melded together seamlessly and flow together exceptionally well.

Poitier reprises the role of Tibbs, an arrogant, aloof, bad-tempered, authoritarian, bigoted Lieutenant. As a result, this is probably the most appealing of all Sidney's characters, and he slips back into the role effortlessly. With no star names to support him, such as Rod Steiger or Martin Landau (though Raul Julia did become a star later in life), Sidney stands way above his peers. His ability to project a bad atmosphere every time he walks into a room is flawless. This time he is not let down by the plot, either, which sees Tibbs caught between the Police Department and a vigilante gang that seeks to expose a wide net of heroin dealers. The plot takes on many shifts in loyalty and focus, keeping the attention, while a chase through underground tunnels lends the requisite chase an extra air of tension. The racial motif is again absent, though a rival black cop played by Bernie Hamilton gives off a frisson of resentment.

While predictably not of the calibre of "In Heat of the Night", The Organization stands as the greatest of Sidney's seventies vehicles.


Sydney reprises his Mr. Tibbs moniker in a nicely paced crime drama that has some well orchestrated action sequences, especially the one at the onset of the film. Those first 10 minutes or so reminded me of the heist scene in "Rififi" (1955), in that this scene too was captured with no dialog, letting the viewer see for himself how the action plan was set into motion.

Some reviewers "dissed" the 70's sound track and street jargon, but what do you expect? It's a period piece, a 70's action film and by definition will employ those contemporary motifs. To me, it's both refreshing and amusing to be thrust back into the cultural modes of yesteryear.

The plot line may have had some small weaknesses to it and some of the actors were no Academy Award nominee hopefuls, but the thrust of the film keeps you attentive and anticipatory. Also, it was nice to see Raul Julia, Demond Wilson and Ron O'Neal in one of their earlier films. Sydney, as usual, shines in his rendition of the Tibbs detective. But the plot twists toward the end where Mr. Tibbs puts the pieces together and gets ready to see justice served... Well, see for yourself in this brutally realistic conclusion.


From its suspenseful opening heist scene to its realistic ending,Sidney Poitier's third and final outing as Vigil Tibbs is everything a cop movie should be.Well cast with some great chase scenes.Director Don Medford keeps the fun rolling along at a nice pace.All in all,a great film.


It was wonderful of Fran Drescher to open up her spectacular Malibu home to hold a reunion for the much loved,and never forgotten characters of the hit sitcom The Nanny.Although Fran still has that somewhat annoying,thick Queens accent,her appearance has dramatically changed since the Nanny.However,with long straight black hair,and style still in tact,Fran Drescher makes the 40's look fabulous,and was the gracious host for 'A Nosh to Remember' A must-see for all fans of the Nanny. All actors from the Nanny were present except for Daniel Davis (Niles the Butler) who unfortunately couldn't make it.His absence was noticeable too.The stars had a meal together on the balcony overlooking Malibu beach,as they reflected on memorable moments from the show.It was a real treat to see Maggie,Brighton and Gracie all grown up and it was obvious that the actors truly formed long lasting friendships during the series that remain in their hearts.It was wonderful to see the cast all together again,and great to see hilarious and 'special' Nanny moments relived again.


I really missed Daniel Day. Even if Daniel Day couldn't make it, I think I would have rather spent more time with the original cast than wasting time with Danny Bonaducci (which is not to say he's not a good guy, he just doesn't belong in a Nanny reunion...in fact they could have brought on some of the repeating characters from the show, like Roger Clinton or Fran's psychiatrist). I would have liked the show to concentrate more on the reminiscences of the cast than all the eating and looking at the view. In addition, I would have liked for the cast members to talk a little about what they are doing now. In comparison, I found the "Golden Girls Reunion" to be more informative and more fun for the viewer.


This show was, surprisingly, a huge disappointment to me---the self-proclaimed best "The Nanny" fan this side of the Mississippi! For one, no true mention of why "Niles" was missing was ever mentioned and I truly missed him. I found this distracting wondering throughout the show if there may have been a dispute and he refused to come on or, worse yet, he was suffering from some deadly disease! "Niles" was a huge contributor to the hilarious, unique and inimitable success and humor of the show and it would have been awesome to have seen some interaction in real life with him and "CC". Also, "Mr. Sheffield" barely acknowledged "Brighton" and I cringed when I could visibly see the hurt in his (Brighton's) eyes. I wanted to hear lots more from "Sylvia" who I also adore and, of course, "Val" who was the epitome of "Ethel" from "I Love Lucy". It was nice as always to see Fran's real parents who are a blast. To me, the show was hastily put together with no thought to detail and what the fans wanted. All in all, it should have been longer, more detailed and could have used many more comments from the show's cast members rather than centering on "Mr. & Mrs. Sheffield". Incidentally, where were "the twins"


Similar, yet different, from his other films ("The Brother's McMullen" and `She's the One'), writer/director/producer/actor Edward Burns, with his typical minuscule budget, broaches on Woody Allen territory this time as he explores the ooohs, aaahs and owwwws (mostly the owwwws) of the marriage and dating game. The sights and sounds of New York is in the air as the movie zeroes in on six disparate Manhattanites, all of whom trying their damnest to find the no-real answer to happiness. No belly-laughs here, but a lot of knowing smiles.

This brash, perceptive, ultimately winning cyclical comedy first introduces us to good-looking, nice-guy Tommy (Ed Burns) who has just split up with his girlfriend and has been thrown out of her apartment. Tommy takes a sudden interest in evasive school teacher Maria (Rosario Dawson), whom he meets in a video store. Maria is divorced from small, tough-talking schlmiel Ben (David Krumholtz), a doorman and rock musician wannabe who cheated on her. Ben, still pining for Maria, finds a welcome distraction in edgy student/waitress Ashley (Brittany Murphy), who is having an affair with a much older and married dentist, Griffin (Stanley Tucci), whose suspecting wife Annie (Heather Graham), a real estate agent, has her eye on one of her customers, Tommy (back to Ed Burns again), who is (remember?) looking for a new pad since his girlfriend kicked him out. So much for the Kevin Bacon six degrees of separations and divorces angle.

To punch up the thought processes of our six relationship-minded specimens, Burns has given his film a documentary/reality TV feel. Each of our protagonists express their own individual and personal philosophies on the meaning of love and sex with a `man on the street' interviewer. These telling bits are conveniently spliced here and there into each of their ongoing stories, which are not only a biting commentary on the social scene, but often humorously contradict their actions and intent.

Burns, a native New Yorker, gives us a passionate, authentic, down-to-earth vision of his 'hood. No picaresque postcard images are to be found here. No tourist-like views of Rockefeller Center, the Statue of Liberty, Times Square, etc. And just as dressed-down and down-to-earth is his solid ensemble cast. The stories are evenly laid out with no one performance getting short shrift. Burns, Dawson, Tucci, Murphy, Klumholtz, and Graham all have meaty roles here and each of their stories are well-presented and attention-grabbing. The philandering Tucci character, the least sympathetic of the bunch, still manages to drum up some pity, if not sympathy, for his subsequent actions. What's more, the outside circle, the peripheral friends/instigators/colleagues, etc., add immeasurably to the humor and atmosphere of the piece, particularly Aida Turturro as a worldly wise teacher/friend of Dawson's, Dennis Farina as Burns' overt male chauvinist boss, Michael Leydon Campbell in dual roles as a rocker and male half of a bickering married couple, and Callie Thorne as the bickering wife.

No one treats New York better than Woody Allen. With "Sidewalks of New York" Edward Burns pays tribute to this fair city, and he pays homage to Mr. Allen -- 1992's "Husbands and Wives" in particular. Notice Burns' analytical approach to his characters, the hand-held camera work and jump-cut style of editing (which is actually smoother and less jolting than in Allen's above-mentioned film), the pneumatic jazz score, the reflexive, conversational-like bantering between his characters, the episodic storylines, and, most importantly, the obvious devotion he has for NY. It all but spells out W-O-O-D-Y. But, in this case, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. He's learned well from the master.


Edward Burns latest film shows us the inhabitants of the island of Manhattan in all their splendor. We know a lot of the people that inhabit this movie since, at one time, or another, we have known people just like these. The sidewalk interviews are a lot of fun to watch, as we're always guessing where they were shot. All the interviews pale in comparison with the one where the director, is photographed with the World Trade Center as a background in all its majesty and glory. Stanley Tucci keeps getting better all the time, being the actor, as he is seen here, or the director in his own film. His interpretation of the creepy dentist whose own masculinity is put into question by the same person he is trying to use and won't let go. Heather Graham plays against type and the result is excellent. Rosario Dawson was a revelation. Her character makes a painful and necessary decision, although, perhaps, we are not prepared for it, when she breaks away from a situation that will only bring her unhappiness, in the long run. Brittany Murphy keeps getting better all the time. She's a natural with a winning smile. The only trouble was that Dennis Farina's character doesn't have a bigger role to play.


In a year that has brought much terror to this great city, it is good to see a film that celebrates love and single life in New York- `Sidewalks of New York'. This one is writer-director Edward Burns' new movie. Steady Eddie has done it again! `Sidewalks of New York' is one of the best films of the year! You should `park' yourself to your nearest `central' located theatre, and go see this gem! The film is centered around six characters who are in an 'empire state' of romantic delusion in New York. At various times, an unseen interviewer asks them questions about their romantic lives. This is very effective because it bring us closer to the characters and helps set the scenes with a more direct approach. `Sidewalks of New York' stars Heather Graham, David Krumholtz, Brittany Murphy, Stanley Tucci, Rosario Dawson, Dennis Farina, and Burns. I hope I am not being too `broad' and going out of my `way' when I say that their performances is the best ensemble acting I have seen in a film this year. The acting `queen' here though is Heather Graham. Her work as the romantic free-spirited wife reminded me much of the `Annie Hall' character from Woody Allen's great film of the same name. Also, I think the `stocks are rising' on the chances of Stanley Tucci getting a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination. His performance as the cheating husband who is always in a `sexual new york state of mind' is one of the best of the year. However, the best part of the film is Burns' realistic-witty screenplay. It is about time that academy voters realize that Eddie Burns is one of the most talented screenwriters around. I guarantee you will love this New York film. So be a part of it and go see- `Sidewalks of New York' `Sidewalks of New York'. ***** Excellent


Tommy (Edward Burns) is a television production man in Manhattan. His girlfriend has just given him the heave-ho from their joint apartment, stating she doesn't want kids and sees no future for them. Tommy is miffed because he gave up his own digs to move in with her, at her request. He temporarily bunks with his boss (Dennis Farina). The boss man is womanizer, boasting that he's slept with 500 women and left most of them "baying at the moon". Nevertheless, Tommy wants his own place so he gets in touch with NY realtor, Annie (Heather Graham). They begin at search for a suitable habitat, becoming friends in the process. Annie is married to a dentist named Griffin (Stanley Tucci). Annie wants children but, unknown to her, Griffin is having a fling with a 19 year old transplant from Iowa (Brittany Murphy) and he has been neglecting Annie in a big way. The young lady, Ashley, detests meeting Griffin in hotel rooms but has fallen for Griffin's lying promises. There is an attractive young doorman interested in her, too. Meanwhile, the doorman's beautiful ex-wife, Maria (Rosario Dawson) has met Tommy at the video store. Although she has dated no one since her stinging divorce, she begins a brief affair with Tommy. How will things shake down on the sidewalks of Manhattan? This is a great film and a tour de force for Burns, who wrote and directed it. Certainly, he is one gifted movie maker, as evidenced by his earlier films, including The Brothers McMullen and She's the One. In Sidewalks, he again probes relationships in the modern era, when sex can be around every corner and the more traditional marriage of an earlier age is absent. In doing so, Burns shows his brilliance for a balanced dissection, for he presents differing viewpoints in the course of the flick. All of the players here, from the scumbags Tucci and Farina, to the lovely Dawson to the very attractive Graham, Murphy, and Burns himself, are simply great. Add on a nice NYC setting, some terrific costumes and some great production values and you have a fine looking film as well. The story and direction are faultless, as Burns uses many interesting techniques to tell his tale, including testimonies and flashbacks. Watch out for a bit of rough language and sexual conversation, if that is important to you. However, there are truly no cracks in this Sidewalk, it is one wonderful film. Get your hands on a copy soon, very soon. And, here's hoping Burns will continue to make many more films.


Edward Burns once again shows that he's an excellent writer and this is a pretty good film about the relationships of several people. Each character is well drawn out and the dialogue is especially good. Burns has the characters look into the camera and talk about what's going on with them and what they are feeling like its a documentary. I'm not a big fan of this technique but it does work okay here. Brittany Murphy is very good and shows a lot of natural charm and Rosario Dawson has an interesting role. The only part that doesn't quite ring true is Stanley Tucci as the cheating husband. Why would anyone cheat on Heather Graham? But for the most part its an extremely well written film and all the actors are very good. Nothing elaborate but very honest. You have to appreciate it for that.


The lives and lovees of 6 New Yorkers by writer/director Edward Burns.

Heather Graham plays an unhappily married woman whose husband, Stanley Tucci, is cheating on her with Brittaney Murphy who is 20 years his junior. Meanwhile, David Krumholtz is attracted to Murphy but she can;t dump Tucci. Also Graham is attracted to Edward Burns but won't cheat on her husband. Burns is attracted to her and Rosario Dawson who is Krumholtz's ex-wife. Got all that? Trust me...it plays out very well.

It's all talk about sex, love, sex, relationships, sex, marriage, sex...too much about sex, but it's all interesting and the characters are well-drawn and believable. The acting helps. Graham is just great; Tucci is so-so but OK; Murphy is interesting--she can be really good and really bad, but more good than bad; Burns is VERY handsome and appealing (if a bit whiny); Dawson is wonderful and Krumholtz is interesting. They all work well together (and separately) and really put the script across. Even when a really melodramatic whopper is thrown in towards the end, it works.

Only two complaints--it's too long (Tucci and Murphy complain about the same thing FIVE TIMES!!!) and it's all shot with a hand-held camera which is way too jittery and annoying--I realize Burns used it to keep down costs but still...

Absorbing and realistic...well worth catching.


The situations are conspicuously overdone to drive the underlying story, but the side walk interviews do succeed in neutralizing this potentially myopic trap. Writer/Director Burns illustrates the concept of friendship separated form love which is separated from sex.

He shows how everything is incomplete and even hollow if those three critical elements of a relationship are way out of balance. A sufficient background is developed for the characters to understand their motivations and what led their lives to this point, but there is a reliance on the audience's own knowledge to complete the concept which may make this movie suit the 25 and over crowd.

The web of deceit is spun into a fable where the guilty learn their lessons as they cause the innocent fall from grace. The movie is nearly two hours long, and does feel a little slow, but Burns put in what needs to be there to make his view of neo-post-love sexual relations work.

Stanley Tucci had the busiest role as the two timing dentist with his affair on the side. Even his affair is knocked aside when it is inconvenient. Heather Graham finally gets to display her ability to act. She effectively takes her character through the biggest transformation in the story which could be an allegory for modern society's excuse for love. This will feel slow, but the purpose of that will become more apparent in the end.


Worth watching! It is funny, romantic, and a really good script - New York city's dating game and on location on the streets of NY, great fashion by actresses and actors and Ed Burns 's words and acting are just super! I love the documentary style and narration, 6 people in the city in these interlocking relationships, very captivating, the background photography were great with natural lights in the city, and of course the soundtracks fit the movie very well. I watched this movie many times, the reasons are that the story is very interesting. The interplay between different characters in their witty ways, and also the great acting by all the actors in this movies, of course, the handsome Ed Burns, the pretty Bittany Murphy are the lead actors. In one scene, when Ed is having dinner with his date in the movie with the background music of lush life - such a romantic Jazz tune!


I am a massive fan of Woody Allen's films, such as Annie Hall, Manhattan and Husbands and Wives. They simultaneously amalgamate witty romance with this inevitable melancholy that comes with it all. I must admit, I have never seen an Ed Burns film before, nor have I seen him act much before, except for Saving Private Ryan. So this was a new venture for me.

It's safe to say, I was very surprised by this film. It has a style and form similar to that of Allen's Husbands and Wives. Ed Burns is very likable, and has great charisma as an actor. Graheam really shows her worth as an actor in this film - though I loved her in Boogie Nights and Swingers as well. Tucci, Murphy and Krumholtz are all on top form too.

It's an entertaining piece of cinema, one that didn't take itself too seriously and indulge in those oft-walked streets of New York. It was fresh, young and truthful, with characters that have shades to them, and aren't just two dimensional cut outs.

I highly recommend this film to everyone.


This is a very funny movie. The subject matter is near and dear to everyone's heart: Dating and relationships, marital or otherwise. The story centers around 6 main characters that are made to look like they're just regular people on the streets of New York. Each one is `interviewed' on the street about topics ranging from sex, dating and relationships. Then we see what each person's dating or marital life is like. Each of the 6 people's lives are intertwined somehow throughout the movie. A well done, well acted cross-section of the 6 people's love lives. Also, look for Dennis Farina's character. This guy had me rolling on the floor laughing; everything he said and did was funny to me. An enjoyable hour and a half. Highly recommended.


Edward Burns is kind of like a younger, cooler, clever Woody Allen. Not so much going on satire and art, Edward Burns films are modern art commenting on the condition of dating, especially in NYC.

His films really are just best described as likeable films. I personally believe these films can be liked by everybody because their films that everybody, at some point, will relate to.

Sidwalks of New York was a film I was urging myself to see for a while. After seeing No Looking Back, another great Burns flick, I rented this film and found it charming, true, and honest. I like Edward Burns and personally think if this coast was as stoned as California is we'd be voting him into office right alongside a rapstar.


I saw this film last night (a rainy Tuesday evening - perfect for watching a film like this!) I loved it.

The cast is outstanding. As someone who loves visiting New York City, I enjoyed seeing Manhattan - the neighborhoods, Central Park, etc.

If you like films that focus on the characters and not a whole lot of action, this is an excellent film to see!


Edward Burns likes Woody Allen. Edward Burns is a very clever writer. Woody Allen is a very clever writer. Both Edward Burns & Woody Allen are from New York. Woody Allen does not appear in "Sidewalks of New York." I expected Woody Allen to walk on the set at any time during "Sidewalks of New York," but Woody Allen does not appear in "Sidewalks of New York." Edward Burns stars in "Sidewalks of New York." Imitation is the perfect form of flattery. Flatter yourself, Edward Burns; you have touched graces with a master (on the sidewalks of New York). Good Job!


Movies about relationships are nothing new, but this is one of few I've seen that gives equal time to both the male and female perspectives. I wonder how much of it was scripted and how much of it was ad-libbed, because there was a very natural feel to the way the characters expressed themselves. They seemed like real people. Heather Graham should do more films like this--talky, ad-libbed, grown-up relationship movies, which is what she excels at (Two Girls And A Guy). She doesn't need to play dumb blondes and prostitutes all the time. Brittany Murphy plays another quirky character, but like always, she shows that she can play quirky in a variety of ways (Clueless, Don't Say A Word, Girl Interrupted). The unfolding romance with the at-first unlikable David Krumholtz is surprisingly touching. However, I think less time should have been spent on Stanley Tucci's love triangle and more on the Heather Graham-Edward Burns relationship, and more Rosario Dawson. I wish everybody would stop complaining about how they can't find a decent guy or girl out there, when they really need to examine themselves first to see if they are even "decent" and ready for a real relationship.


Ed Burns scores some funny moments in this sophisticated look at love, sex and relationships. Dawson and Graham both provide excellent performances, and Burns is extremely convincing. A semi-doco style works very well and combines with good camera work to get the viewer involved.

Great to look at - a very enjoyable movie.

3.5 out of 5


Usually one or two light but clever independent comedies are released during the year. Sidewalks of New York is one of those. These are the films that provide alternatives to the often overproduced Hollywood films. I love these films even when they are imperfect.

From the beginning of the film I got the feeling I was watching a Woody Allen film. That feeling faded as the deepness and the dialogue are much inferior to Allen's ingenious work, but Burns can be congratulated on having made a Woody-light film. Even those are rare to come by. The dialogue is still good and witty. This is a smart relationship film and it entertains all the way.

There are many interesting characters in Sidewalks, but the standout scene-stealer is Dennis Farina. Extreme sexists are always funny, and Farina fits the role perfectly. My biggest concern with the casting is that Ed Burns directs himself as the lead character, and in retrospect I realize that he is the only male character in the film who isn't ridiculed. Questionable.

A couple of sidenotes. Sidewalks was postponed after September 11th. I have no idea why people wouldn't want to see this film because of what happened. Also, notice that the trailer for the film contains a scene where Heather Graham asks Burns if he wants to go out to dinner. This scene is absolutely not in the film, and the film takes another twist. Strange how movie trailers are getting more and more manipulative.

Rating: 7/10


Sidewalks of New York, is , as everyone has pointed out, an ersatz Woody Allenish comedy about a group of tangled relationships in New York. The only performances I enjoyed was Britany Murphy whose wonderful guttural voice is always a joy to hear.The movie has the typical Ed Burns slobby vulgarity(lots of talk about applying cologne to ones balls and not showering before dates.. Brothers McMullen had similar talk about defecating in front of other guys.) The movie is murkily photographed with a jittery hand-held camera that succeeds in making New York look as jejune as its unbelievable characters. Most annoying was a long closeup of Mr.

Burns hairy armpit. That shot seemed to go on forever! I guess if you are the star, writer and director no one is gonna tell you where to put the camera and more importantly- no one is gonna tell you that your characters bear little resemblance to flesh and blood New Yorkers. Disappointing.


It was a snowy Sunday and I went to see this film because I am missing New York so much out here in Reno, Nevada. The dialogue is smart and witty. The acting is real, the directing first rate. Ed Burns reminds me of a young Woodie Allen without the neurosis (which I am glad to be rid of). I really didnt want the film to end. On that note I would have made a few editorial choices a bit differently but otherwise, Dennis Farina,Ed Burns, Turturro, and the fabulous women (*especially that beautiful actress whose name escapes me who played Maria). I found myself laughing way too loudly and then the rest of the audience seemed to realize this was funny. It is I suspect a very New York movie with a unique New York humor but it was a little gem. I think it rates an Academy Award Nomination.


In contrast to the user comments posted above, I liked the film. Sure, it was a little talky at times, some characters were just plain unlikable and you truly had to suspend disbelief to follow the film's faux-documentary interviews, which aims to move the story along. But the tangled web of the characters' lives was pretty compelling, especially against the backdrop of New York City. Certainly, it's no Annie Hall or Manhattan--two pictures that this film seems to aspire to--but it's still worth seeing, especially if you like movies with an improvisational feel.


This is one of the best romantic comedies in years. "Sidewalks" is wry, smart, and doesn't wrap everything up in ribbons, as do so many films in its genre. Also, it's one of the few films ever to capture New York's throbbing energy. If you're both intelligent and romantic, see this.


I think I might be one of the few here who actually has nothing negative to say about this "Husbands & Wives" rip-off. (Actually, that's my only quip -- too much like Allen's "Husbands & Wives." Nonetheless, "Husbands & Wives" is a very good film, so whatever.)

The documentary approach worked on many levels; the acting was very good; the story wasn't bad, either -- so good that I held interest for the entire time.

A very fine film, I must say. Burns is the new Allen! Rejoice!

10/10


If you're tired of romantic comedies with happy endings where the two lovers walk off into the sunset, then "Sidewalks of New York" will be a relief. The characters are perfectly realistic, and so are their situations. There's no scenes where characters fall in love in 2 minutes and break up in 2 minutes. The dialogue is very interesting, but it's not flashy. They talk the way real people talk. The movie is a voyeuristic glimpse into the lives of these real New Yorkers (they're really actors, but they seem completely real). The humor is funny, but not forced. There's even a good deal of sex jokes, but they're all done in good taste. The acting is terrific. Rosario Dawson is beautiful. David Krumholtz is the most entertaining of the bunch. Dennis Farina provides great comic relief. Stanley Tucci delivers one of his best performances. And being that I'm an aspiring independent filmmaker, this movie really inspires me. I watch a lot of mainstream films, watch a certain scene or shot and say, "That's really cool!" Yet I think to myself, that's impossible to do on a low-budget. This movie was made on a very low budget and it's absolutely terrific! It's not one of these pretentious, "Blair Witch"-type projects where we're watching a big old mess, but we're supposed to give it acclaim because it costed below a million bucks. The only thing I have to criticize is the overuse of the jump-cuts. I have nothing against the jump-cut, but the jump-cuts in this film get a bit jarring at times. Much Kudos to Edward Burns for writing and directing this wonderful, inspiring little film.

My score: 9 (out of 10)


And I really liked Brothers McMullen too! I was looking forward to another Ed Burns written project after seeing that film he was in with John bonJovi (forgot the title of that one), but this effort was way too bare of any believability. It came across as another neurotic, speedy, male-sided, foul-mouthed, sex crazed "relationship" fighting venue with no real felt treatment of emotion.

It was fodder for amateur acting. I felt like it was a rushed run-through. It reminded me of Woody Allen's latest weak effort "SmallTimeCrooks" with much less charisma.....too bad. But I still respect him (Burns) for trying. Oh well, maybe next time.


Stanley Tucci is the "Woody Allen" in this film, but all the characters reminded me a great deal of the type of films for which Woody is famous.

Not quite as funny as "Little City", but right up there with it.

It has a cast of characters who are speaking individually from time to time to an unseen interviewer - which easily enables us to pick up on who they are, and what they are like, and what their present situation in life is, and how they feel about the messes they keep getting themselves into.

There's adorably cute Tommy, a dark-haired young man, whose first sexual experience was with gorgeous Maria, but then they got married, and he started wanting every woman he saw on the street, and so he and Maria got divorced, and now he's just trying to get a date.

There's Ashley who was seduced quite young by an older man, and now here she is a waitress in a coffee shop, going nowhere fast with her life, and involved with a married man, a dentist named Griffin.

Griffin has a lovely wife, Annie, who is an idealist, whose first love turned out to be gay. Annie is a real estate agent who is showing Tommy apartments, since he's got to find a new place to live.

Meanwhile Tommy is staying with a debonair, dashingly handsome, older man, and expert womanizer, Carpo, who gives him advice from time to time.

Then Tommy meets Maria.........

And it's musical romance chairs.

I totally loved this film, and the characters in it, most of whom were as neurotic as any Woody Allen character ever hoped to be!

I gave it 10 stars out of a possible 10. Delightful film.


When actor/director Edward Burn's The Brothers McMullan was released back in 1995, the critics likened it to a Woody Allen comedy. Now it seems that Mr Burns has brazenly gone one step further and remade Woody Allen's Husbands and Wives (1992) with slight plot changes and a younger cast of characters and of course an alternate title. Somehow this rewrite fails to capture the zany spark of the original, which is an excellent movie (try watching both movies back to back). Perhaps the only noteworthy thing about this movie are the performances: Rosario Dawson is excellent as the teacher who gets pregnant after a one night stand. As a matter a fact, her performance is the only thing that redeems this movie, since all the other characters are caught up in full Woody Allen film mimicry mode, some perhaps unintentionally. It's a shame that Mr Burns didn't run with the pregnant-after-a-one-night-stand plot thread as he might have turned out a movie of more merit and certainly one of more originality. 4/10 for effort minus 2 for borrowing heavily from another director. Shame on you, Edward Burns!


Someone needs to tell Ed Burns that he should stick to what he does so well, playing disaffected young men. He should NEVER be allowed to helm another such self indulgent movie EVER AGAIN. What a waste of so many very, very talented actors, Burns included! This film wobbles from pseudo Alfie "to camera" monologues via badly improvised arguments and painfully drawn self analysis! This is just not the sort of film that it is possible to watch, without squirming in your seat. It is saved only by a touchingly gentle performance from Rosario Dawson, as a jilted wife who becomes pregnant during an in ill-advised liaison with Ed Burns character. If this were a report card it would say CHARACTERIZATION: Absent STORY: Must try harder DIRECTION: Would welcome some!


I hate Ed Burns. I think Rosario Dawson could go back to acting school. I have always felt a nervous twitch come on whenever Brittany Murphy speaks (like fingernails on a chalkboard). Then, alas, Heather Graham is only worth watching when directed by either PT Anderson or by early David Lynch. So, with a line up like this, I thought this would be a simple, and rather disappointing, film to view. I couldn't have been more wrong. Sidewalks of New York captured my attention with its unique storytelling ability, the quickness of the character development, and the underused talent that Stanley Tucci brought to this project. I also believe that what me enjoy this film further than I have other Edward Burns films (i.e. I HATED The Brothers McMullen) is that it wasn't your typical Ed Burns film. It was obvious, from the opening scene that he was the center focus, but it just didn't have the typical Ed Burns feel to it. This film felt fresh, not so "in your New York face" or centered on ethnicity as the others have, but instead about romance, sex, relationships, and personal responsibility. For me, Sidewalks worked because the characters worked together. This wasn't just Ed Burns focusing the camera on himself, but allowing others to speak around him. It felt like a conversation with Ed Burns and his friends, not just Ed Burns. Also, how can you disrespect a film where Stanley Tucci gives a phenomenal performance (completely taking away the Burns spotlight)!

Pulled from an earlier release date because of 9/11, this film couldn't have made you feel more at home in New York than actually being there in person. I mentioned before that Burns fantastically takes the viewer away from you typical New York scenery and plants you IN New York (if that makes sense). He doesn't overpower you with the cliché images of the Empire State building, the Statue of Liberty, or other overblown New York images, but instead makes you feel like you actually live there. Burns, surprisingly, didn't develop the city as I assumed he would, but instead developed our characters. Burns' decision to make this film into a half-documentary, half-feature film was brilliant. New York is a fast pace town, and Burns captures that with his choice of direction. He jumps us quickly between characters, witnessing how fast a relationship can blossom in the city that never sleeps. One would normally think that this would be confusing, but for me, it kept me glued to the screen. Cylindrical story lines? Wasn't this technique so  yesterday? Perhaps, but Burns is able to keep the flow moving and the characters fun, which cannot be found in most of the knock-offs post-Magnolia. I believe that for one of the first times, Burns demonstrated his directing chops extremely well. He went outside of his norm, while keeping with the patented Burns seal of approval.

When I first began this film I was upset with the choice of actors. It was obvious that Burns chose his friends to star in this film. Budget was tight and time was short, so why not. I have no trouble with this. My trouble is that his friends do not appeal to me as a film watcher. I have not seen (outside of Sin City in which Rosario and Brittany were animated) a worth wile film with a majority of our lead characters. Heather Graham flip-flops between decent and poor, while Brittany just seems like she isn't acting, but instead just playing "herself". I wasn't interested in the characters when I started this film, I just wanted to see how Burns would handle mediocre talent. I must admit, he surprised me. While Murphy, Graham, and Dawson were not "jump-for-joy" amazing, they worked well together. The script worked with these characters. There wasn't big shoes to fill, and I think even the low rung of the Hollywood ladder could handle this story, which kept me at ease. What really impressed me was that Tucci was jaw dropping. It was nothing that he would in an award for, but definitely the stand out talent of the film. For some very strange reason, he captivated me in this movie. I wasn't expecting the performance to be that good. I know, many of you think that this was a poor film, how could anyone's talent be that good? My thought is that Tucci stood out because nobody else was reaching the bar. The acting wasn't bad, it just felt sterile, but with Tucci that all changed. He kept Sidewalks of New York from sinking deep into the cinephile lagoon.

Was this a movie about sex or relationships? That is the ultimate question to ask yourself as you watch Burns' comedy/drama. It is a question I asked myself as I watched it, so I want you to ask it as well. Sex is the topic of choice, but I think what makes Burns' film stand aside of the others is that it deals with honest relationships. This isn't just your typical boy falls for girl, but girl doesn't want boy relationships. This film is more about the truthfulness of individuals and the passion they evoke. I liked the stories that Burns wove together for me. This wasn't top shelf cinema, but it did entertain. Burns stories that he wrote were comical, yet exciting at the same time. We felt for these characters (even if they were not played well by the actors  outside of Tucci) and loved the city that they inhabited. This film reminded me of watching Sex & the City. That television program was exciting to me because of the city and because you believe anything can happen in that city. Love can be found in video stores, coffee shops, and real-estate visits.

Call me genuinely sappy, but Sidewalks of New York deserves a second viewing.

Grade: **** out of *****


Being a Rosario Dawson fan it was only a matter of time before I would get around to seeing this film. After being disappointed with "Down With Love," more so with the script than with her character development I was not expecting much from this movie. I got a lot more than I bargined for. This is an excellet film with and excellent cast that really is a joy to watch.

Although this is a great movie, there were a couple of things that I would have changed. The subject matter can get a bit redundant and and also the interviews can to. But that is just nit-picking. This is a great film that is worth renting whether you are a girl or a guy. This film really sparked my interest and even though I did not agree with some choices that were made in the end, I really liked this movie.


Maybe this is an interesting film if you're a New Yorker. If you're not, I'm sorry, but stereotype neurotic behaviors of New Yorkers just does not turn me on. Plus the majority of the lead players are unattractive (but there are some exceptions). If you want neurotic New Yorkers, go see Woody Allen movies, at least these are well made.


Greetings again from the darkness. Picked this up on video and again am impressed with Edward Burns' ("The Brothers McMullen") keen eye and ability to capture everyday frustration. Wonderful ensemble cast including a quirky, tanned, womanizing Dennis Farina. David Krumholtz does his best Woody Allen imitation, but Rosario Dawson and Brittany Murphy ("Don't Say A Word") steal their scenes. The quasi-documentary style is effective most of the time, but we do get way too much Stanley Tucci, although his role plays right into his difficult to like persona. Krumholtz has the best one-liners and makes a nice transition form irritating ex-husband to head-over-heels boyfriend. Director Burns explores how every relationship is driven by sex - even the relationships where no sex exists. This is somewhat of an overstatement but it serves him well in making his point. Burns is a decent actor, but I question is range. As a director, I love his eye.


Prior to seeing this movie, all I had heard suggested that I was better off not watching it unless it was to ridicule. I looked at my uncle dancing round his living room to some of its music and asked myself if anybody expected me to take that seriously. It's got a place in movie history even for the title song alone, though, so I decided I couldn't live with myself unless I gave it a chance. It was definitely worth it.

The style is reminiscent of a whole host of other '80's teen flicks, but only a handful are better. Most of the cast do great things with their roles. Kevin Bacon actually manages to make the clichéd concept seem kinda cool, here showcasing an easy charm that was to become the hallmark of much of his later work. Crucially, the music is actually pretty good too! (Even if I am torn between wanting to cringe and dance when I hear the theme!)

On reflection it's no cheesier than something like "All the Right Moves" (which has a great cast doing their best but suffers from a plodding story) In fact, it's miles better! At least the music in "Footloose" gave the makers a viable way to pep things up whenever the story begins to flag. This film is much, MUCH better than I had been led to believe, so give it a chance if you ain't seen it yet but thought you knew the score. Chances are, you don't...


Teenager Ren (Kevin Bacon) moves to a small mid Western town with his mom after his parents divorce. It seems the Reverend Moore (John Lithgow), of the town's only church, has totally banned rock and roll music from the entire town. He has a daughter named Ariel (Lori Singer) who is basically a hell-raiser--yet loves her father. Rem decides to stop the ban and bring the town back to life.

OK--we're not dealing with reality here at ALL! A town banning rock music entirely is ridiculous and the town only has ONE church? And the game of chicken using tractors was just silly. And don't get me started on how Bacon, Singer, Chris Penn and Sarah Jessica Parker look WAY too old to be high school students--Singer was THIRTY when she did this! And how the heck did all the kids from the town learn how to dance so quickly? But, as a no brain musical, this does work.

The opening sequence alone is great (it shows various feet dancing to the title tune). Also the acting helps a lot. Bacon is just great--he doesn't take the movie too seriously and gives out a very good performance. He also has a big dance number (to a song called "Never") which is him and THREE different stuntman doing the more unrealistic moves. Singer is too old for her role but she tries. Penn is pretty good as Bacon's best friend--his learning how to dance sequence is a highlight. Parker did this before she was known and she's not bad. Lithgow and Wiest are just great as the Reverend and his wife--Wiest has a great scene where she calmly tells him off and Lithgow (wisely) does not play the Reverend as a one-note character. You see him trying to understand his daughter and slowly realizing that music isn't bad.

So--this is no "Singin in the Rain" but for a 1980s teen musical it's lots of fun. Great songs too. Just turn off your brain and enjoy!


OK, maybe I'm giving in to nostalgia here but I rented "Footloose" recently and thought it was great. Yes, it's definitely a teen flick, similar to "Dirty Dancing", and aging a little now.

But the music is great and the plot and themes do as much for me as "Grease" ever did. As teen movies go, it is somewhat original and interesting.

Who should see this film:

-- Teens with nothing better to do on a rainy day

-- People reliving the 1980s, you won't be disappointed to

see this one again

I'll give Footloose a 9 out of 10 because it cheered me up on a day I needed it.


City boy moves to small town and doesn't fit in. A film based on the same old story that follows the same old lines yet somehow manages to make you enjoy. Nothing new happens in this movie but you will watch with a smile on your face (especially during Kev's big drinking/dancing scene.) A great representation of what an 80s flick is all about.


A film of enormous charm. It's about dancing but unlike many films about dancing it doesn't take itself seriously. It's loose-limbed and goofy and it lifts you up. It's set in a high school in a small mid-western town where dancing has been banned; (it reminds me of a joke I heard here in Ulster; 'Why do Free Presbyterians disapprove of making love standing up?' 'It might lead to dancing').

Kevin Bacon is the new kid in town who wants the ban lifted. Indeed, this boy seems to live to dance and he's immensely likable. He uses his killer smile to great effect. In this movie the dancing is integral to the plot and it evolves from it naturally and, for once, the director Herbert Ross takes things easy. As well as Bacon, the film has Lori Singer, (the obligatory love interest), and John Lithgow and Dianne Wiest as her parents. He's the bible-thumper who thinks that dancing is sinful and Wiest, with her wan, other-worldly smile, is the wife who doesn't as well as a very young Chris Penn as the over-weight farm boy Bacon teaches to dance in a wonderful sequence choreographed to Denise Williams' 'Let's hear it for the boy'


EVERYBODY CUT FOOTLOOSE As we all know 1984 produced a lot of great things. One of the best was "Footloose". Here's my thoughts on this timeless masterpiece which I brought on DVD this week

-Most good movies have a great opening and Footloose is no exception. A bunch of feet dancing showcasing the great footwear of the 80's to the soundtrack song "Footloose". Immediately gets you in -Kevin Bacon's character has one of the all-time great movie names: "Ren McCormack" -Funny how this is probably Kevin Bacon's greatest role, maybe only challenged by "Flatliners". It's amazing how so many actors never repeat their efforts of their first breakthrough movie (See Lou Diamond Phillips, Chris Rock and Madonna for starters) -Also starring in this movie is one of Hollywood's greatest lesser known brothers, Sean Penn's brother Christopher. He's way better than Dan Swayze or Charlie Murphy. -Kenny Loggins will go down as one of the greatest contributors to movie hit songs ever. Footloose's "Footloose" and Top Gun's "Danger Zone". -This is another one of those movies built around a town's overzealous pastor's. Reverand Shaw (John Lithgow) is even more intense than that guy in "Chocolat" -Great action scene at the start with Lori Singer car surfing (watch the slightly impossible way she gets back in the car) -Also look for the great David Hasselhoff 2 second cameo -Great scene where the Rev turns off Lor Singer's ghetto-blaster. Everyone stops talking, eating and dancing. Possibly slightly dramatic -Will (Christopher Penn) tells us several other towns have also banned dancing. How wasn't that fact used as the premise for heaps more sequels with Ren going from town to town and reviving dance? Each time he'd face a new obstacle. -Ren mentions his love for "Men at Work" and "The Police", yet he only listens in his car to bad 80's electric rock. Strange. -Weird town. Here a face off equals a tractor fight. -One of the funniest moments is when Chuck gets onto his tractor and puts "I need a hero" on on his ghetto-blaster. That would be awesome to do at a basketball game when you sub in. -Another great Dianne Weist performance. That girl can just capture the whole audience when she wants. Underrated actress. -"Moment I regret now"- Christopher Penn's dance sequence to "Let's Hear It For The Boy" (although it's a great sequence in the movie) -Kevin Bacon's speech to the council was possibly the greatest speech up until that time in cinema history. That is until Sly Stallone raised the bar with his "If I Can Change...." in Rocky 4. Which was then overtaken by Matthew McConaghuey's "Can you see her..." speech in "A Time To Kill"


I used to LOVE this movie, and I remember I got the soundtrack for Easter when I was like, 11 or something. It really is a crummy movie, but oddly engaging... mainly because it is so incredibly surreal and laughable in how it takes itself so seriously.

*Possible Spoilers*

I remember even as a kid, I thought "Holy cow, for a town that didn't allow dancing and music for years, these kids sure can dance well." What are even funnier are the people who are in it - Lithgow did this film two years after Garp. Did he think that this was going to be a meaty role? But then again, he did willingly star in Third Rock from the Sun. And Dianne Wiest - Woody Allen staple and Oscar winner, who has about 4 lines in the movie. Her job is to pretty much look pensive and pious. I don't think I even need to bring up Mr. Kevin Bacon and his goofy dance through the grain mill.

While this film is not as inherently horrible as say, Xanadu, it's also not nearly as hilarious because it takes itself waaaaaaay too seriously. Of course, it has its moments, especially the part where the dance is beginning and no one is dancing. Why? Let's pretend it's not because Kevin Bacon isn't there in his stupid outfit to scream "Let's Daaaaaaaance!!!!!!!!", (rather, is outside getting his ass beat down by the head redneck until he somehow manages to pull out of it and kick said redneck's ass. How the hell did THAT happen?) But in reality because the song playing is the Loverboy guy and Ann Wilson's "Almost Paradise." I think that as kids if we were sexually oppressed and sheltered and that song came on we wouldn't have danced to that crap song either. Yes, this was the 80's, and mid-80's to boot so the clothes, dancing and dialogue are hilariously dated. These kids must have somehow obtained pirate copies of Radio Free Solid Gold Dancers or something, especially the skinny white kid doing "The Robot".

This movie is up there with 80's `classics' like `Flashdance' where we find that while most of us loved the movie as kids, we see it through adult eyes twenty years later and realize what our parents probably thought: `What a crap movie.' The difference being, our nostalgia sometimes compels us to avoid averting our eyes, like a train wreck.

--Shelly


This drama/musical tells the story of young man who moves into a very religious community . The young man is played by Kevin Bacon. He finds out that the local preacher does not allow any music, dancing , fun in his town. Eventually with the help of some friends, he manages to talk the citizens to allow the teens to have a dance. This movie also stars John Lithgow from 3rd Rock from the Sun!!Footloose has awesome sound track , is full of great songs!!!This is one great musical along with Grease in the 1970's!!


Back in 1984, when 'Footloose' came out, dance movies were very popular. After the success of 1970's productions, like 'Saturday Night Fever', everyone was trying to get some in the 1980's. That's where the problem began. Every dance movie that came out, you already knew what was going to happen, what is it about, etc. And with 'Footloose', is no different.

This movie tells the story of Ren McCormack (Kevin Bacon), a boy from Chicago that moves to a small town. There, while falling in love with the Reverend's daughter (Lori Singer), he finds out that there is a law against dancing in this town(!), now he tries to organize a dancing ball for his class and fights against his law. From this, you already know what's going to happen, and it's really boring. The plot is really absurd, if it was set in the 1950's, it would be believable. At least the movie has a few sub-plots, but none of them is interesting or gets your attention, they are all cliché and predictable.

By in the middle of it, I kept thinking "If this a dance movie, why a plot? What about the dancing?". And that's where lies the problem of the movie. A dance movie with no dancing! The soundtrack is excellent with great original songs like 'Footloose' and 'Let's hear it from the boy', but you don't get to see anyone dancing in the most of the movie. Instead, what you get are bad-made dialogs and a non-believable story.

The acting here is ridiculous. Kevin Bacon looks more like a gay alien and nothing else, and Lori Singer isn't beautiful at all. Thankfully, the movie has John Lithgow and Dianne Wiest, and they really saved the movie. They are both excellent as the Reverend and his wife. The other aspects aren't even worth mentioning, but Herbert Ross' directing really bothered me with close-ups of people's feet.

Overral, this is a really bad dance movie. The direction bothers you, and the two leads don't act their ways out. But the nice soundtrack and original songs, as well as John Lithgow and Dianne Wiest made the movie watchable. It's better then 'Flashdance', what doesn't say much, but it's nothing compared to better dance movies, like 'Saturday Night Fever'

3/10


Footloose is a pretty good film. I thought it's better than what people portray this movie to be. I know that this is not Grease, but it's better than Flashdance. I have wanted to see this film since i went on a sixth grade field trip to see a play based on this film.

This film is based on a ridiculous but true story. It's about a town that has banned dancing. But the new kid in town played by an amazing Kevin Bacon is about to defy that rule and get the minister's daughter while he's at it.

My favorite scene in the movie is the very beginning when we see all the shoes dance. The soundtrack is really good. I love Kenny Loggins because he performs great music. Also, RIP Chris Penn! You were good in this movie. I rate this film 8/10.


Kevin Bacon is "Footloose" in this 1984 film which also stars John Lithgow, Dianne Wiest, Lori Singer, and Chris Penn. Bacon is Ren, the new kid in a town that doesn't allow dancing, and he sets out to change that.

That's actually about all there is to the plot, except that Ren gets involved with pretty Ariel, the daughter of the preacher (John Lithgow). Ariel likes to play chicken with things like trains and cars. In fact, all these kids have hormones, impulses, and energy that are in desperate need of an outlet.

"Footloose" has one of the best soundtracks ever, and some wonderful dancing. Despite its serious moments, it has a relentlessly upbeat and exuberant feel to it. Herb Ross directed; originally, it was supposed to be Michael Cimino. It certainly would have been a different film with him directing. Take "Footloose" for what it is, don't ask for "Citizen Kane," and you'll love it.


Like the "Special Collector's Edition" DVD says, "'Footloose' jumps with spirit, dazzling dance numbers, and an electrifying musical score. It portrays the timeless struggle between innocent pleasure and rigid morality, when city-boy Ren McCormack (Kevin Bacon) finds himself in an uptight Midwestern town where dancing has been banned. Ren revolts with best friend Willard (Chris Penn) and the minister's daughter (Lori Singer)." Veteran director Herbert Ross guides everyone's steps well.

"Footloose" makes a few of the mistakes "teen" movies make, but it still kicks up some fun. In a way cool haircut, Mr. Bacon and his stunt doubles perfectly accompany a terrific soundtrack. He and the young supporting cast have, in hindsight, the kind of chemistry casting directors can't manufacture; they're fun and unforced. Introduced like the prerequisite stupid adults, John Lithgow and Dianne Wiest get to add more depth than you'd expect. And, Mr. Penn's dance instruction is topflight.

******* Footloose (2/17/84) Herbert Ross ~ Kevin Bacon, Lori Singer, John Lithgow, Chris Penn


It's easy to take a quick glance at this movie & compare it to other teen flicks or dance flicks like Dirty Dancing, but it's much deeper than that.It's about conflicts such as religion & morality and how a small midwest town can take it too far. It's about the struggle of teens for freedom & the difficulty parents have letting go of their children.

The film centers around a town, which led by its preacher (Lithgow) has banned dancing, music & alcohol. The more the town represses the teens, the more they seem to want to rebel & Ren (Bacon), an outsider becomes their leader.

Most people like this movie because of Kevin Bacon & the great soundtrack. But there's also god acting from Lori Singer & others. It's a great film that will leave you feeling good.


It's a cheesy classic, it's a great soundtrack draped around a fun movie, it's a piece of nostalgia already viewed through rose-tinted glasses. It's . . . it's . . . it's . . . . well, it COULD just be a decent little movie.

Kevin Bacon plays the young lad who moves into a small town and is both disgusted and angered to learn that it doesn't allow any real music or dancing. The reason for this comes out as the story unfolds but, suffice to say, it's up to Bacon and the kids (some of them played by the likes of Chris Penn, Lori Singer and Sarah Jessica Parker) to butt heads with the local enforcers of these rules and to particularly pit themselves against a local preacher (a stellar turn from John Lithgow).

Yes, there are dollops of cheese in this film (especially Lori Singer's bratty, rebellious turn and the likes of Bacon's "angry" dance scene) but you may just be as surprised as I was to find how well most of it has stood the test of time. Whether it's the toe-tapping soundtrack featuring that titular classic from Kenny Loggins, the chicken race, the sight of Chris Penn learning to dance or just great, great scenes between John Lithgow and the superb Dianne Wiest . . you'll find that there's still a LOT here to enjoy.

See this if you like: Kevin Bacon, Hairspray, Flashdance.


my 20 month old son loves footloose he first watched when he was 6 months old and now watches it 2-3 times a day its fantastic and dances every time its on and follows the steps that they perform he knows footloose is about to start as soon as the paramount picture comes up on the screen. i recently had to buy another copy of this movie as he had worn the first one out he also has a copy in his granddads van so he watch it whilst out.if there was ever a remake of this film I'm sure my son would love it just as much a the original one. i think it amazing that a film from the 80's can please a 20 month old baby it amazed me and my family and i hope he will continue to like it a long time yet


I enjoyed it in 1984 when it came out and I enjoyed it 24 years later, watching it on DVD. As soon as I finished watching the movie again, I watched it again with Kevin Bacon's commentary and then again with the commentary of the writer and producer.

Most of the commentary is just of the he/she is really great variety. However, there are a couple of amazing revelations. First, Herbert Ross, the director, had to fight for Kevin Bacon against the studio. Apparently, Tom Cruise was scheduled to star, but there was a scheduling conflict. Ross forced Bacon to do a screen test and showed it to the studio execs. If they hadn't come around, he would have walked off the picture and that would have been the end of it. Fortunately, the screen test worked. The second big revelation is that Ross originally had a very low key ending with no real dancing in the final dance sequence. It was only when test audiences gave the film thumbs down that he finally agreed to shoot the upbeat final dance number. Fortunately, he was flexible enough to make the change, so we get a terrific ending and one of the greatest and most fun dance movies of all time.

The chemistry between Kevin Bacon and Lori Singer is terrific and Chris Penn and Sarah Jessica Parker are both great in their sidekick, comedian roles. Diane Wiest gets lost, but John Lithgow is amazingly effective as the regressive, but intelligent preacher.

Along with Grease and Dirty Dancing, this is one of the three greatest musical/dancing movies of the 1980's.


Aw, come on IMDb'ers, why the low rating? Where's your sense of loyalty? I can't hear that Kenny Loggins title song and see those pairs of dancing feet during the opening credits without sitting down to watch this whole movie. And even if it's largely to make fun of it, I still love it for old times' sake.

Kevin Bacon is the tough city kid stuck in some podunk Midwest town where dancing has been outlawed. John Lithgow is the preacher who serves as Bacon's arch nemesis; Lori Singer is the preacher's daughter who has a hankering for the new dangerous kid. Dianne Wiest is the reasonable mom who acts as referee between dad and daughter. The whole thing is sillier than an episode of "Laugh-In," but many of the actors (particularly Lithgow, Wiest and Bacon) are good enough to actually sell the material. And come on, admit it, you know you like the music.

Grade: B+


I have always like this movie for its upbeat music and Kevin Bacon. But the big mystery is Lori Singer hasn't done anything since about 1995 and really nothing much since this movie. Reading her biography one can understand that she is extremely talented especially in music, but it's a shame that she didn't continue to do more feature films. She is a beautiful woman. Yeah when I watched the movie last night I saw the big snow capped mountains in two scenes and wondered what mid west town is this? Yes you could say that there is some cheese in the movie, but it is entertaining if not predictable. Watching Dirty Dancing twenty years later gives you that same feeling.


Let's first admit that this movie is not some deep drama or social commentary. It may have a good message, but it isn't shoved down your throat. In the end it is just a fun movie to watch.

Having said that, this is one of my favorite movies because of that good message and, more importantly, because of the way in which it is presented. Countless movies and books have been centered on the basic theme of this movie - namely the intergenerational friction between teens and their parents. Unfortunately, most of them fall into the same trap and paint one (or both) sides as stereotypical in the extreme. Frequently this shows up by having kids that are ultra-clever battling against bumbling adults (Breakfast Club or Ferris Bueller's Day Off - both of which are enjoyable - come immediately to mind, but the list is oh so long). Usually, the kids have no apparent concrete reason to be battling the adults and the adults merely want to be obeyed because they are adults - they don't appear to have any desire to actually do what's best for the kids. In the end, these tales usually have the kids triumphing over the adults.

Footloose largely avoids this. At first, it appears that the adults in town are going to turn out to be cardboard cutouts transplanted from all the other movies in the genre, but it quickly turns out that the adults are not evil, nor stupid, nor uncaring. They are genuinely trying to do what they believe is best for their kids - and they realize that they aren't infallible and that they don't have all the answers. In the end they are willing to consider change not because they are convinced the changes are necessarily right, but because they respect and trust their kids.

For their part, the kids aren't rebelling just to rebel, nor are they trying to deny their parent's authority even as they struggle against it. Quite the opposite, they largely work within the bounds of the system their parents have set up in their quest to change it - and their parents. They do so because they respect and trust their parents. Furthermore, they are willing to accept defeat when it appears their best efforts didn't win the day.

What this film portrays so well is that parents and their children may have different outlooks and priorities and they may come into passionate conflict as a result - but they can do so while the mutual love, trust, and respect endures.


I was nine when I saw this movie and fell in love with a then very young Kevin Bacon. Who stars as the lead Ren MacCormack, a Chicago teen who comes to Beaumont where drugs, alcohol, and dancing have been banned and his now divorced mother trying to find a job. Ren doesn't fit in with the "wierdos" of the town except he finds a friend in Willard played by the very missed Chris Penn, who was skinny at the time. A very young and unknown Sarah Jessica Parker and then Fame star Lori Singer stars in the movie. Singer plays Ariel, the rebellous preacher's daughter and her boyfriend is a jerk of a bully. As she wants to escape the town as she tells Ren, she even applied to colleges that her dad doesn't know about either. Great movie but predictable. Kick off those Sunday shoes indeed!!


Footloose is one of the most definite 80's musical/drama movies. came out in 1984 one year after "Flashdance" and became his male answer. Kevin Bacon is responsible to all the "Dirty dancing" in the movie as the leading actor and in a rule that evident gave him his big breakthrough and chance to become the high respected actor that he is right now.

Chris Penn ( R I P ) as "The New Kid At School" Bacon best friend and the one that understand him the most. Sara Jessica Parker from "Sex And The City" in a minor rule in addition to John Lithgow from "3rd Rock From The Sun" as the protected reverend that does everything he can to avoid from Bacon to enter his "Wild" life style habit and ideas into the other teenager and violate the quite in his peaceful town.

the movie also has excellent soundtracks from some of the best songs of the decade like "Holding Out For A Hero" of Bonnie Tyler ,and "Let's Hear It For The Boy" of Deniece Williams .

good acting from all the actors and actress in the cheesy spirit of the 80's.well done very recommended. 8/10.


As those of you who know me from the message boards will know, I will have a place in my heart for this movie. On March 10th of this year, I attended my high school's production of the Broadway musical version of "Footloose", and loved it. It was one of the best nights of this school year so far (for reasons I should not go into too much detail here). Still, it took about five and a half weeks before I could see the movie on which the musical was based.

The plot, for those of you really want it: Ren McCormack (Kevin Bacon) is a Chicago kid who moves to the small Indiana town of Bomont, where the local priest, Shaw Moore (John Lithgow), has outlawed rock music and dancing (due to the death of his son in a car accident). After turning the local kids (including Lori Singer, Chris Penn, and Sarah Jessica Parker) onto the tunes of Kenny Loggins, Ren decides it's time to change the town's rules about dancing. Meanwhile, Moore grows increasingly sympathetic towards Ren, due to his daughter (Singer)'s feelings towards him, and his being the target of abuse by the local bully (Jim Youngs) and the overly-conservative town council. Does Ren win his fight? What do you think?

Overall, this movie conformed to how I thought it would turn out: it was completely silly, but fun and an entertaining waste of a day off from school. The music was great (though certain songs were hardly used, namely my favorite, "Somebody's Eyes"), and is alone worth watching it for. The only excessively silly scene is Ren's gymnastic routine in an empty flour mill, which made me laugh my butt off at how stupid it was. Other than that, however, nothing was wrong with this movie, which was successful at what it set out to do: entertain. Just because it isn't "Doctor Zhivago" or "Lawrence of Arabia" doesn't mean it's a bad film.

The cast was good if unspectacular. Kevin Bacon, Lori Singer, Chris Penn and Sarah Jessica Parker (whom I almost didn't recognize!) were solid and it's easy to see why most of them went on to become stars; they look like they're having fun throughout and are very convincing. But John Lithgow walks away with the acting prize for this film; his character is surprisingly complex and well-developed for a film of this type, and it's to Lithgow's credit that he was able to make Shaw Moore a sympathetic character.

Is "Footloose" a great film? No. Is it one I'll want to watch over and over again? No. Did I enjoy it? Yes. And, as I said, for the sake of all of my friends at school who were in their production of it, I will ALWAYS think fondly of "Footloose".

I'll give "Footloose" a warm seven stars. I don't know what more to say on here, except I hope I get to see the musical version again (and not as the proposed film remake!).


I think that Kevin Bacon was the best Actor to play Ren Mcormick in the movie which now I OWN LOL. But really I love this movie and everybody they picked for the parts for the movie were perfect. The only thing I have to say is that it is so SAD that Chris Penn Died who played Willerd in the movie when I found that out I almost cried because he was found some were in Hollywood and it was i heart attack and he did gained a lot of weight since the movie footloose it you got to his name on this site you will get all the info about his death. When it happened and what exactly what happened. Just so y'all know. But this still is the best movie of almost all time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I saw this movie when I was 9. I've always loved to dance, this movie made me want to do just that. In the scene when Wrenn is teaching Willard to dance, great dancing song. And of course at the end- like one of the best dancing songs of the 80's period. The movie just had great acting, a good storyline, and wonderful dancing and lots of energy! One of Kevin Bacon's best performances as an actor, thats good cuz he was young in this movie. It was just one of my favorite movies of all time. Even now when I watch it on TV, almost everyday I always get up and dance. Its such a fun movie. And its about loving something and being determined to get it. A real classic.


Why did I watch it through four times? First, I wanted to see the movie because I missed it in the 80's. Then I got caught up in all the bonus material, which was better than the movie, and told the exciting story of how the movie was made. I watched through once with Kevin Bacon's commentary and again with the commentary of the producer and the writer. Finally I went back and watched all the dance sequences again with the new knowledge I had acquired. So much fun to learn about the creative process by which this went from being one man's idea to being a cultural phenomenon. So interesting to see all the ways the film was almost scuttled, including the "wrong ending" the otherwise savvy director insisted on giving it, and the studio executive who said she would never, never approve of the casting of Kevin Bacon because he was not ****able enough. Imagine the movie without the final dance sequence!


Although I laughed very much during some of the most gymnastic dance-scenes, I still loved the film. We who grew up in the late 70this and early 80this remember a modern time, but without PCs and play stations.

It was a time of music, video-arcades and fun. The soundtrack from Footloose sucks up memories from the past long forgotten.

Footloose is really about breaking free from conservatism. Dance, and celebrate life. The youth sensed the time. Cold war. The economic developments. Ecological issues. The increasing pressure to succeed. Being allowed to kick loose and just have fun was a way to express ourselves.

For me its a quick trip back to my youth. The only difference is that the actors are much better looking than I was. And I had only my parents to lure,not a reverend to.