Decent film


I didnt think this film was that bad. Compared to the other films it comes with, it was actually pretty enjoyable. I liked the direction it went in the end and actually felt tense. The begining drags but overall its good. What did you think?

reply

I thnk the women needed more time in their underwear... but past that I liked the flick. I really got pulled in by the whole thing. especially once Pat started lying and whatnot to get rid of the girls .. i really got caught up in it.. just cuz I wanted to see how far he'd go

reply

This film was more about guys in their underwear than girls. I expected it to end in tragedy, but I'm very pleased with how it (sort of) resolved itself. The character of Pat is sort of sweet, sort of creepy, but that's part of the charm of this quirky forgotten film. 7/10 stars.

reply

[deleted]

Doug Chapin really held his own (so to speak) against Richard Hatch here. I also remember him in his late '70s and early '80s television appearances.

It's too bad he didn't make a bigger name for himself, but I guess he had his hands full managing Matthew Perry.

And to me, there will only be one Richard Hatch, and he's in this film.

reply

[deleted]

Interesting that he produced "When a Stranger Calls" and "What's Love Got to Do With It" in addition to forgettable flicks like "American Anthem" and "Love! Valour! Compassion!" Really, I'm not sure what producers do other than make sure the director gets the film made on time and on budget, and even then that leaves a lot of leeway.

I'd love to see him team up with Richard Hatch again for an update on this film. Probably be more than a few failed marriages to catch up on.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I love that rugged look, sort of like the guys from the Winston ads (which I always preferred to the Marlboro ads). I wonder if he'd have a chance in today's Hollywood? Seems to be a lot of pretty, vacuous boys.

reply

[deleted]

Frankly, I have trouble telling the two apart these days, and the names don't help.

reply

[deleted]

In many respects, I think we get the stars we deserve. I never bought the Gary Coleman schtick and found "Diff'rent Strokes" unwatchable even as a child. I don't think most folks who were drawn to Gary Coleman and Dana Plato were in it for the talent.

Jodie Foster and Ron Howard, on the other hand, were and continue to be multifaceted artists who didn't go for the cute catchphrase or facial tic. They learned both to work sides of the camera, continued their educations, and developed marketable skills that are still relevant today. And I'd venture to say that many if not most of their old fans continue to support them.

reply

[deleted]