jterrell
Joined Feb 2000
Badges4
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews13
jterrell's rating
In March 1989, I was on spring break, staying at my dad's house, when I saw a TV commercial for "She's Out of Control." Although I was a guy, I was fascinated by the idea of a geek who miraculously changes and ends up conquering all. It seemed to me like an underdog story, and I've always liked that kind of story. But upon rushing to the theater on opening night--April 14, 1989--I was surprised to discover that the movie was really about the dad and his obsession over protecting his daughter. Still, I found it enjoyable enough, even with the PG rating.
Exactly 25 years later, I find myself typing a review after having watched "She's Out of Control" for the second time--on DVD, and on my Xbox One. What compelled me to revisit a movie so notoriously reviled by Siskel and Ebert? I suppose I just wanted to watch again it 25 years to the day (for the perfect timing), and see it from the perspective of a 42-year-old, as opposed to my 17-year-old self in 1989.
As many others have noted, this movie is really a movie-length sitcom with some mild profanity, and some other PG-rated material. It's mostly harmless, at least for people 10 and older. It doesn't break any new ground or develop its themes in any insightful way, but I found it reasonably entertaining and likable. It's what you call a "family movie," meaning that it tries to appeal to everybody--children, teens, and adults.
Those of you looking for late 80s nostalgia will be bombarded with music video-inspired editing and closeups, Paula Abdul-choreographed dancing, and Aqua Net-assisted hair. The girls' bedroom, with its George Michael poster, oversized Swatch clock, and Apple IIc, particularly encapsulates the final years of the Pastel Decade. Also, look for appearances by Todd Bridges and Dustin Diamond.
So, what do I think of it today? Am I any smarter than I was in 1989, two months before my high school graduation? Nah, I'm still stupid--and had a good time being stupid for the second time.
Exactly 25 years from now--April 14, 2039--I may find myself watching "She's Out of Control" for the THIRD time--in 4K. If IMDb still exists, I'll be sure to let all of you know about it on the review page.
Happy 25th birthday, "She's Out of Control."
Exactly 25 years later, I find myself typing a review after having watched "She's Out of Control" for the second time--on DVD, and on my Xbox One. What compelled me to revisit a movie so notoriously reviled by Siskel and Ebert? I suppose I just wanted to watch again it 25 years to the day (for the perfect timing), and see it from the perspective of a 42-year-old, as opposed to my 17-year-old self in 1989.
As many others have noted, this movie is really a movie-length sitcom with some mild profanity, and some other PG-rated material. It's mostly harmless, at least for people 10 and older. It doesn't break any new ground or develop its themes in any insightful way, but I found it reasonably entertaining and likable. It's what you call a "family movie," meaning that it tries to appeal to everybody--children, teens, and adults.
Those of you looking for late 80s nostalgia will be bombarded with music video-inspired editing and closeups, Paula Abdul-choreographed dancing, and Aqua Net-assisted hair. The girls' bedroom, with its George Michael poster, oversized Swatch clock, and Apple IIc, particularly encapsulates the final years of the Pastel Decade. Also, look for appearances by Todd Bridges and Dustin Diamond.
So, what do I think of it today? Am I any smarter than I was in 1989, two months before my high school graduation? Nah, I'm still stupid--and had a good time being stupid for the second time.
Exactly 25 years from now--April 14, 2039--I may find myself watching "She's Out of Control" for the THIRD time--in 4K. If IMDb still exists, I'll be sure to let all of you know about it on the review page.
Happy 25th birthday, "She's Out of Control."
This movie is pretty much like all the others of its kind, so I won't comment on it in general. Instead, I'll talk about how it falls into the same trap that so many other "nostalgic" movies do.
Too many people believe that a decade is the same all the way through, forgetting that the cultural scene changes all the time, not just at the end of each decade. For example, most of us think of the 60s as the hippie decade, even though the counterculture didn't come along until about '66. Many think of the 70s as the disco decade, even though that music didn't make its debut until '76. The cultural consultants on this movie apparently believe that the mid-80s represent the entire decade, which is, of course completely wrong: 1980 and 1989 may have been in the same decade, but if anybody takes the time to compare the music, clothes, hair, etc. from these two years, he'll quickly discover that they were very different.
As Colette Corr, the previous reviewer, pointed out, this movie doesn't make any distinction between the late 80s (when the film starts out) and the mid-80s. The first thing I'll look at is the music. Rick Springfield was most popular in the mid-80s, and his song "Jessie's Girl" was released in 1981--by 1987, no teenage girls were interested in him (although, as Linda Blair can attest, HE may have been interested in THEM). Michael Jackson? The song "Thriller" was released in '82, and the video was made in '83--YEARS before this movie starts out. During '84, Jackson's _Thriller_ album was so over-hyped and so overexposed that by the following year, NOBODY wanted to listen to him anymore. In fact, it wasn't safe to admit you liked Michael until Fall '87, when the _Bad_ album was released.
Why didn't the producers pick stuff from 1987? If they needed a music video with a bunch of people dancing, they could have used Jackson's "Bad" (okay, so that wasn't released until Fall '87, a few months after Jenna's birthday party takes place, but better to be off a few months than a few years). If they wanted a heartthrob, why not somebody like Tom Cruise or Patrick Swayze (yes, I know _Dirty Dancing_ was released in August '87)? As for the clothes, the producers go with those wink-wink, nudge-nudge pastels. I'm no historian of 1980s teen fashion, but I recall girls in 1987 wearing stuff like Guess? and Forenza. Hey, even _Miami Vice_ lost the pastels after the first one or two seasons. Even the lingo is dated--the expression "totally awesome" is Valley Girl talk and went out of style around 1983.
I suppose they chose to show these things because they're what people remember most from the 80s: people do tend to remember "Thriller" better than they do "Bad." But I really don't think anybody believes the 80s were ALL parachute pants, crimped hair, etc. VH-1 is currently showing a series called "I Love the 80s Strikes Back," which looks at the decade year by year.
The movie does have some songs appropriate to the exact year, such as "Mad About You" (released in 1986, but at least it was recent enough that it was still being regularly played in '87). The 1987 sequence lasts for only about 15 minutes, and for most people, the "80s nostalgia" stuff will be good enough. The only reason it wasn't good enough for me is that my memory's too good, so I tend to remember stuff year by year.
Anyway, don't let these inaccuracies spoil your fun--I just had to rant about them because 1987 was one of my favorite years. Don't screw up my year, guys! ;)
Too many people believe that a decade is the same all the way through, forgetting that the cultural scene changes all the time, not just at the end of each decade. For example, most of us think of the 60s as the hippie decade, even though the counterculture didn't come along until about '66. Many think of the 70s as the disco decade, even though that music didn't make its debut until '76. The cultural consultants on this movie apparently believe that the mid-80s represent the entire decade, which is, of course completely wrong: 1980 and 1989 may have been in the same decade, but if anybody takes the time to compare the music, clothes, hair, etc. from these two years, he'll quickly discover that they were very different.
As Colette Corr, the previous reviewer, pointed out, this movie doesn't make any distinction between the late 80s (when the film starts out) and the mid-80s. The first thing I'll look at is the music. Rick Springfield was most popular in the mid-80s, and his song "Jessie's Girl" was released in 1981--by 1987, no teenage girls were interested in him (although, as Linda Blair can attest, HE may have been interested in THEM). Michael Jackson? The song "Thriller" was released in '82, and the video was made in '83--YEARS before this movie starts out. During '84, Jackson's _Thriller_ album was so over-hyped and so overexposed that by the following year, NOBODY wanted to listen to him anymore. In fact, it wasn't safe to admit you liked Michael until Fall '87, when the _Bad_ album was released.
Why didn't the producers pick stuff from 1987? If they needed a music video with a bunch of people dancing, they could have used Jackson's "Bad" (okay, so that wasn't released until Fall '87, a few months after Jenna's birthday party takes place, but better to be off a few months than a few years). If they wanted a heartthrob, why not somebody like Tom Cruise or Patrick Swayze (yes, I know _Dirty Dancing_ was released in August '87)? As for the clothes, the producers go with those wink-wink, nudge-nudge pastels. I'm no historian of 1980s teen fashion, but I recall girls in 1987 wearing stuff like Guess? and Forenza. Hey, even _Miami Vice_ lost the pastels after the first one or two seasons. Even the lingo is dated--the expression "totally awesome" is Valley Girl talk and went out of style around 1983.
I suppose they chose to show these things because they're what people remember most from the 80s: people do tend to remember "Thriller" better than they do "Bad." But I really don't think anybody believes the 80s were ALL parachute pants, crimped hair, etc. VH-1 is currently showing a series called "I Love the 80s Strikes Back," which looks at the decade year by year.
The movie does have some songs appropriate to the exact year, such as "Mad About You" (released in 1986, but at least it was recent enough that it was still being regularly played in '87). The 1987 sequence lasts for only about 15 minutes, and for most people, the "80s nostalgia" stuff will be good enough. The only reason it wasn't good enough for me is that my memory's too good, so I tend to remember stuff year by year.
Anyway, don't let these inaccuracies spoil your fun--I just had to rant about them because 1987 was one of my favorite years. Don't screw up my year, guys! ;)
When I wrote my review of the _KOR_ OVA series, 11 months ago, I mentioned that although it was RELEASED after the TV series ended, it TAKES PLACE before the last two TV episodes (47 and 48). But it gets even better: since then, I have purchased AnimEigo's excellent boxed DVD set of the OVAs and first movie, and have learned that the OVAs were released not only after the TV series, but AFTER THE FIRST MOVIE as well. This makes utterly no sense, especially if you watch the three things in AnimEigo's "official" order (TV, OVA, first movie). Maybe Studio Pierrot and Toho released the OVAs when they did in order to soothe those fans who were suffering from the outcome of the first movie, but it's still confusing.
Discovering this reminded me that I didn't mention the correct chronological order in my review. So if you want to watch the entire _KOR_ series in the order the story takes place, here it is:
(1) TV series, episodes 1-46 (2) OVA series (3) TV series, episodes 47-48 (4) First movie (_I Want to Return to that Day_) (5) Second movie (_New Kimagure Orange Road: Summer's Beginning_)
Discovering this reminded me that I didn't mention the correct chronological order in my review. So if you want to watch the entire _KOR_ series in the order the story takes place, here it is:
(1) TV series, episodes 1-46 (2) OVA series (3) TV series, episodes 47-48 (4) First movie (_I Want to Return to that Day_) (5) Second movie (_New Kimagure Orange Road: Summer's Beginning_)