"There's this boy. He wants to go out with this girl he doesn't know and seems to already be hopelessly in love with"
Very common for teenagers to "fall hopelessly" in love with someone they do not know. Of course it is most likely infatuation, but still the feelings can be some of the most intense of your life. In the case of Dianne and Lloyd I would say it was love and not infatuation, they were perhaps not destined for a long term relationship, but it was still nonetheless love.
"He is unrealistically only friends with these two girls who he has nothing in common with"
Why is it unrealistic for him to be only friends with the two girls. The concept of friends with benefits was not done so much back then, plus they were still teens. Nothing in common with? They were school chums and all three not part of the cool or popular crowd, they enjoyed just hanging out.
"One of them had sex with a guy and writes songs about it and then confronts him but what happened is never explained and the whole scene is unnecessary. But that doesn't matter because they never touch on it again."
That plot line was done for two reasons, firstly for comedic value, and second to highlight how overwrought and angsty teens can be over unrequited love.
"Then Lloyd and Diane go on about two more dates. Then fall madly in love for some reason and have sex."
Uhmm, many people (especially pre WW2) fell in love by the 2nd date, got married and it lasted for 60-70 years. Plus teenagers do fall in "love" quickly AND have sex quickly.
"She tells her dad and he doesn't care. She walks into her house at 8 in the morning and he doesn't care".
He did care, they just had a very open relationship. Getting in at 8AM, well it was Grad Party night, it was VERY common even for honor roll students to stay out all night.
"She's super smart and "ONLY HAS 16 weeks before she leaves" to go to England for her scholarship. Why is she so hesitant to start hanging out with a guy she just met? Does she really think from that point that seeing him will make her have to commit for more than four months? 16 months is a long time."
"They fall in love way too fast and I don't buy it at all. And it's supposed to be some destined undying love. But it's just a snoozefest."
You are being too cynical. Again teenagers do have a habit of falling in "love" very fast, and while most likely not true love, there are many many cases of high school sweethearts falling in love after 1-2 dates and who stayed married for 70-80 years.
"Scene after scene of meaningless irrelevance. How dare Roger Ebert say in his review that they must've studied teenagers when writing this film."
Meaningless to you maybe, but not to the storyline and/or fans of the film. Roger Ebert is a great movie critic and nailed it regarding Say Anything.
"The two main teenagers seem to know a whole lot more about love than the average kid and the other secondary teenagers are mindless stereotypes. The party scene was embarrassing. I'm sorry about that mindless rant, but that movie just seemed equally mindless. It had no aim. No direction. I'm not saying it was badly written... just badly put together."
You are being a bit anal and over analyzing what is after-all still a comedy.
The secondary characters were not fleshed out, as they are not in most comedies, and stereotyping is involved in 99% of teen comedies. This does not effect the film though, as it is primarily about Dianne and Lloyd, and Dianne and her Father. Its aim was to tell a charming tale of first love interspersed with some teen comedy, and for that it achieved its goal.
"The response to this movie confuses me so much. It's a love story with no reason behind the love and no depth behind the story. It's just an unrealistic look into the love lives of some really unrealistic kids"
Again I believe you are WAY over analyzing this film. "Its a love story with no reason beyond love" WTH!!!! When you are 18-19 years old it can often seem like their is no reason beyond love, so I guess the film nailed it perfectly.
Your "no depth behind the story" comment is very pretentious, again it just a small movie about teenage love, with a bit of a teen comedy backdrop. It sounds like you could not relate to the main characters, but is that the films fault?
"I love movies that capture the audience, make them live through the characters. I couldn't relate to anything in this movie and I couldn't understand while watching it
This movie did capture the audience (or at least most who watched it), and the fact you could not relate to anything in this movie, again is that really the films fault? No film is relatable to 100% of the people who watch it, the fact that Say Anything is held in such high regard by MOST viewers means the director was successful in telling his tale of first love.
"HOW I was supposed to feel what any of the characters were feeling when no reason was ever given to show WHY they felt that way."
You either intuitively got it, or in your case, did not. For those that did get it (most people), no reason or explanation was needed. they just got it, in that they could relate. For some reason you could not.
"Isn't this movie considered "overlooked" or something? I can see why a lot of people overlooked it."
The film was never a mainstream film tailored for mass market, it had no big stars, and did not appeal to the typical young movie goer (no crude humor, explosions and car chase scenes). Nor was it high brow drama like Pride and Prejudice. It was more of a niche film that was enjoyed by the vast majority of its audience. Only a small percentage of people that watched it, hated it. You are in that small percentage, which is obviously your prerogative.
reply
share