What's with the 4.3 Rating?


What's not to like? With the gorgeous Mary Ann Mobley, Chris Noel, the DC5, the Animals, Stan Getz, Jimmy Smith, and Nancy Sinatra, plus a hundred kids dancing all the time and having fun -- who needs a plot?
A lot better than the contrived, blow-em-up, CGI powered movies these days. Guess I must be getting old.

reply

It was dreadful.

reply

And not just dancing, but dancing with great white-person force.

I mean, just for the pure unapologetic grooviness, it ought to get a 7.0. At least.

reply

Its a perfectly awful movie- so bad thats its fun to watch. Its a classic case of a Hollywood studio's pathetic attempt jump on the 60's bandwagon & put out a "groovy" movie for "the kids". Its so far off the mark its laughable.

reply

It's bad. It's not even so-bad-it's-good bad. It's just bad. Awful. Deplorable. I couldn't even finish it. I rated it a 1, and I still feel like I was too generous.

An absolutely ridiculous story, uneven acting, no humor...the whole thing is insulting. I was feeling pretty good when I sat down to watch this. By the time it was over, it had put me in a bad mood.

The only positive thing was some of the musical performances, but it wasn't enough to save this poop-stain of a movie.

reply

Well-constructed and superbly acted (or just above average) film? This is far from it.

Having said that, I had a good time watching it nonetheless. Beautiful broads, entertaining and funny dance scenes, and of course, groovin' and rockin' tunes. I enjoyed this for what it is.


Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!

reply

i agree - the plot's a silly excuse to string together a series of lip synched performances by hot bands of the day. it's not hard days night by any stretch, but it's really pretty harmless fun.

and we had a fun time playing "didn't i see that actor in....?" there were more recognizable faces than i'd expected.

reply