MovieChat Forums > Eddie and the Cruisers II: Eddie Lives! (1989) Discussion > A Hard Pill to Swallow

A Hard Pill to Swallow

posted 14 years ago by Lincbond442
8 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this movie and found it to be a stretch, even for a movie. My biggest problem with it is the time period in which Eddie and the Cruisers were supposedly popular. There are many flash-back scenes that take place in 1962 and 63. None of the music depicted in the movie sounds remotely like anything that was being recorded in 62-63. The music is total early 80's Springsteen.

My second gripe is that all of the band members look the same 20 years later. How can a guy that looked 25 in 1962 still look like he's only 35 in 1982?

My third problem with this movie is the over-inflated interest in the band by seemingly the entire world. If people were really that interested, why did nobody recognize him? Even the hardcore fans and musicians in his band do not recognize him. I know it is just a movie, but I feel that the creators of this flick really underestimated the intelligence of their audience IMHO.

[–] iluvcards 14 years ago

If you had seen the 1st movie, you'd know the songs sounded much like the innocent early 60's. Sal definetly looked 20 years older, And Eddie looked a little older. Not everybody in their early 40's looks like they are 60. Perhaps he aged well. With all the fervor about Eddie and the new tapes, there were a lot of look alike contests, and people claiming to be Eddie. The guys in his new band ( except for the sax player, who did indeed know he was Eddie Wilson), were too young to know much about the Cruisers, were surely not going to recognize Joe as the real Eddie. When Sal 1st sees him on the beach, he knows instantly. When the record producer sees him up close, he knows instantly, so your observations are not correct. It's a sequel made 7 years after the original, and Frank, Doc, & Joann are not in the sequel. It isn;t that odd that the facts and continuity are a bit off........it's to be expected.

And now, Anna Kournikova being spanked. (Whack) Bad Anna (whack) Bad Anna.

[–] Lincbond442 14 years ago

I saw the first movie many years ago so my recollections are not too fresh. My comments were based on what I saw in part 2. I know that part 2 is set in the 80's so the current music they were playing did reflect the times. The fashback music, though, does not sound like the innocent early 60's. Tom Hanks showed that it can be done when he did "That Thing You Do". That movie was set around 64 or 65 and the original music sounded like something that could have been recorded in that era.

As far as Sal looking older, 7 years can really age a person, especially when male pattern baldness takes hold. Of course he recognized Eddie on the beach, Eddie had shaved his mustache and restyled his hair to look the way he had in the past.

I still can't figure how the band was so popular 20 years later when they only released 1 studio album and had recorded 1 unreleased album. There were many great bands in the 60's that released 1 or 2 albums who were for the most part forgotten by the 80's. I know certain bands are always going to have a cult-like following with dedicated fans, but this movie made it seem like the entire country was on board. I just found it too far fetched, even for a movie.

[–] iluvcards 14 years ago

Yeah, I agree. It is a bit far fetched. However, if you re-watch the 1st movie, or listen to the soundtrack, those songs do have an early 60's feel. The lost tapes, were rejected by the record company, because Eddie was going for a harder sound........more along the late 60's type of rock. So, the idea is, that he was a visonary. The finding of the lost tapes are the reason for the band's re-emergence. But, again, I would agree with you. Fans of the band might be a little excited, but teenagers, or young adults are unlikely to care. The idea of the movie ( at the time), speculation was that Eddie was supposed to be somewhat like Jim Morrison. Now, if Jim Morrison suddenly re-emerged 20 years after his death......that would be cause for a lot of excitement. With only 1 album, but a mysterious death ( or not), Eddie Wilson is a bit of a rock legend. I liked to movie, but it certainly was lacking of facts, and realism. I'd say watch the 1st one, and perhaps forget this one.....unless you are a big fan of the Eddie Wilson story, as I am.

And now, Anna Kournikova being spanked. (Whack) Bad Anna (whack) Bad Anna.

[–] Lincbond442 14 years ago

Thanks for your insights on this movie. Your Jim Morrison example helped clarify why people would have been so excited. I saw this movie again the other day and didn't think it was so bad. The only scene that made me crindge was that last flash-back scene in 63 when they are all jamming in the old building. You might agree that it did not look like 1963. I guess I am just a stickler for authenticity since I am such a big fan of the 60's. Oh yeah, and that Martha Quinn looking tv reporter also made me crindge. Simply horrid!!! The young guy in the band is good in his role as a typical 80's wannabe rocker. I have not seen the original movie since the 80's but I would like to see it again. I remember thinking it was really cool through my teenage eyes. I'll try to catch it the next time it is on.

[–] iluvcards 14 years ago

We must be close to the same age. Eddie & The Cruisers came out when I was 18. I didn't see it until it came out on HBO, but I had seen the ads for it and thought it looked cool. It was a flop in the theatres, so it may not have even made it to my area. After seeing it on HBO, I was hooked and went out to find the soundtrack. It was hard to fins, but I did find it on cassette, and it was actually billed as Eddie & The Cruisers ( with music performed by John Cafferty & The Beaver Brown Band in small print). Well, the movie was a hit on HBO, and "Dark Side" was released to radio and became a huge hit. I'd been listening to the soundtrack for 6 months before the public grasped onto it, and made it a huge hit. Thanks to HBO, the movie became a cult hit, and that spawned the sequel. Interesting, though, isn't it, that at the end of the movie, Eddie sees a report about the lost tapes on a TV in a store window. But, in the sequel, he hears about it in Montreal. Well, sequels are rarely known for accurate continuity. I, too, am a stickler for authenticity, and as a lover oll all things 60's, can easily spot historical inaccuracies, and it drives me crazy! Anyway, that WAS Martha Quinn in the movie. It's not really a great movie, but, I enjoyed it for what it was........a wrap-up from the 1st movie. I also have the soundtrack from that movie......the music is good.

And now, Anna Kournikova being spanked. (Whack) Bad Anna (whack) Bad Anna.

[–] Lincbond442 14 years ago

I was 13 when the first movie came out but I did not see it until about 84 or 85. My uncle rented it for us back when the whole video rental craze was in it's infancy. I remember really liking the movie and the music. I never bought the soundtrack but now I'm going to look for it on vinyl, of course! I remember seeing "Streets of Fire" back then, also with Michael Pare. It was fun seeing Willem Dafoe get slapped around!

I am surprised that Martha Quinn looked so stiff and monotone in her performance. See just didn't seem to be that into the whole Eddie thing.

I guess that the only way to get accurate depictions of the 60's in movies is to watch movies from that era. Thankfully, there are loads of them in all genres! I plan to check out Eddie and the Cruisers the next chance I get. Thanks for all the comments.

[–] chris_patx 11 years ago

In the early '80s, there were several movies along this same line of having a setting long ago ('50s, '60s) but with a much more modern (i.e., '80s) soundtrack. The Second British Invasion was going on with the New Wave and Punk sounds so the '50s sounding music was far too tame and many looked at that music and associated (qv)Grease(qv) with it immediately.

Michael Pare was hot at the time, a gritty character that represented a bad boy who actually had a good heart. Look at him in (qv)The Greatest American Hero(qv), (qv)Streets of Fire (1984)(qv), and (qv)The Philadelphia Experiment(qv).

This same type of character was in other movies that often had the same types of success. Some worked, others didn't.

This was the beginning of cable on a widespread basis. There were lots of cheap movies made to fill spots.

Accurate? No. Cheap entertainment that might make a buck? Yes.

[–] gluserty (605) 7 years ago

I don't really think Eddie's "disguise" was much, like the moustache made much of a difference; with all the hoopla, a few trained eyes should've spotted him, especially since I think those Eddie lookalikes looked nothing like Eddie Wilson. Otherwise, I found this film watchable.