Where the Boys Are '84 is one of those examples of a film that didn't need a remake. The original Where the Boys Are was groundbreaking for its time as it was the first film to suggest, as a young person, you could have premarital sex and it was perfectly okay! That was a big deal in 1960! You could feel the first stirrings of the sexual revolution that was to come later on in the decade. Because the Production Code was in still enforced, everything is pretty restrained. It still had one foot in the 50s when Tuggle (Paula Prentiss) has that cringeworthy line about being a "walking, talking baby factory". The original film's screenplay is like Shakespeare in comparison to the '84 screenplay, which deserved its Razzie nomination for Worst Original Screenplay. The dialogue felt unnatural and not like how people speak in real life with a couple of exceptions.
I think there were so many themes to explore in the '84 remake that were never developed. In the original film we got to know both the guys and the girls characters pretty well. Merritt was the leader of the group, intelligent, down to earth, and on the surface she advocates a feminist point of view of premarital sex. Then she meets Ryder (George Hamilton) and realizes she's not ready for sex. Jennie (Lisa Hartman) comes the closest to this character and there's echoes of this theme when she and Scott (Russell Todd) are on the beach early in the morning. We never really touch upon this subject again, but it's interesting that even in a more "liberated" time, that hasn't changed. Was Jennie from a conservative or religious family? Was she saving it for marriage? Who cares, right? Boobies! Texas S&M! Male blow up doll! (Which I'll get to in a moment. LOL!). The love triangle between Jennie and Camden (Daniel McDonald) could have been stronger. Camden is the kind of "safe" rich guy that would be considered more "appropriate" for her vs. working class "bad boy" Scott. The closest the story comes is when Scott and Camden have a fight at the piano over Jennie. Again, another chance to explore class issues like the original did with Ryder and Merritt, but that was rejected in favor of a predictable vanilla ending.
Sandra (Wendy Schaal) is the spoiled rich girl who lets loose by doing a striptease in a bar. I was kind of surprised her supposedly liberated friend Laurie didn't let her finish taking it all off, but perhaps she was concerned that she would sexually assaulted. Sexual assault is a dramatic theme in the original that the filmmakers narrowly avoided here because I presume it would've been too serious for a lighthearted sex comedy such as this one. I thought it was ironic that she puts down police officers and ends up having a love affair with Ernie, the officer who arrested her and Laurie. I wish there was a love scene between them after they left the party. They could've explored class issues with their relationship. The scene outside Ernie's trailer was one of the strongest scenes in the film because it was honest for once. Too bad the whole movie wasn't like that due to the raunchiness (which I will also get to in a moment).
We never really know why Carol (Lorna Luft) wants a break from her boyfriend Chip (Howard McGillin) (Carol and Chip - haha I just realized how corny their names were LOL). Is she bored with him for some reason? This was right after they had sex (she look like she enjoyed it, but I could be wrong). They could've expanded upon that by showing *why* Chip has become boring. Again, we don't really see it. (Side note: I find it funny that Judy Garland's daughter Lorna was in a film like this, or why any of the actors chose to be in a film like this, for that matter).
Laurie (Lynn-Holly Johnson) is presented as hypersexual and wanting to fulfill her ultimate sexual fantasy with "Conan". In the other strong scene in the film she meets her "Conan" on the beach and makes an "appointment" to hook up with him. But she is thrown for a loop when Conan turns out to be a male escort! I love how she put him in his place about his penis size. She realizes that there's more to a man's attractiveness than his external appearance. At first I thought Laurie was dumb and vapid (she makes a casual racist comment about wanting to be as tanned as Diana Ross, which almost made me turn the film off), but she had more intelligence than I gave her credit for. This kind of female empowerment could've been a big theme in this film (including when Sandra decides to leave Ernie), but there was just not enough of that. They could've made a powerful statement by saying even though the 1980s are a more cynical and progressive decade, how have things changed between the sexes and how have they not? It probably never occurred to the male filmmakers to go in that direction. They wanted to make a raunchy sorority film featuring female lead characters through a male gaze.
Now to the raunchiness. There were times when I thought this film could've had hardcore porn scenes in between the crazy beach scene antics and would've fit right in. We see plenty of topless extras, but none of the female leads got naked. Perhaps they were uncomfortable doing so, although Lorna was in bed with Howard at the beginning of the film (nothing was shown). Oh, there's the infamous Dave, the male blow up sex doll the girls practice foreplay on. It was an attempt at raunchy humor that was kind of strange. What I would've given to be a fly on the wall in those coke fueled production meetings (yeah, you read that right LOL)! This whole movie was like being on one long coke binge. Some of the hair, makeup, fashions, and art direction was dreadful and atrocious! And I usually love 80s style, but not in this film. Perhaps they were on a tight budget and they could only afford certain things. It was just awful. It was like they wrote down every idea they could think of and crammed it all in this film (and not any good ideas). It was the equivalent of throwing food on the wall to see what sticks. They could've still put some racy scenes in it and tell a good story too (because it can't be a movie about college students during Spring Break without a certain degree of wildness). Even in the original film we hear police calls on TV's (Jim Hutton) radio describing the crazy offscreen hijinks of the students. The whole subplot with Sandra's rich aunt was just bizarre. It was nice to see Alana Stewart even though she's not given much to do.
The remake is a desecration of the original one for sure, but it's not totally irredeemable. The cover of "Where the Boys Are" that Lisa Hartman sings isn't bad (but she is no Connie Francis). At least they paid homage to the original song in the end credits. The Rockats were a fun band with some good rockabilly covers of oldies songs (can't believe they're still together! LOL!). I can't fault the actors for their performances. If they were good/decent actors, this was not the film to prove their worth. The four lead actresses were too old to be playing college students, but they were still good looking and attractive, as were the actors who played their love interests. However, the characters they played seemed like caricatures instead of real people for most of the film. They did the best with the poor material they were given. And I can't fault the time period because some of my favorite films are from the 80s. Bad films have been made in every decade and that's the reason why I believe it's a "so bad it's bad" film instead of a "so bad it's good" film that would be worthy of cult status. Even though I saw this film on Tubi for free, I want to rent the DVD to see the extras because I'm such a film geek. LOL
Overall, the potential for an updated good film about how the sexual revolution that came to be in the 60s affected Gen X in the 80s was missed. It serves as an example of how Hollywood has and continues to sacrifice good acting and storytelling in favor of pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Thanks for reading. :-)
I think there were so many themes to explore in the '84 remake that were never developed. In the original film we got to know both the guys and the girls characters pretty well. Merritt was the leader of the group, intelligent, down to earth, and on the surface she advocates a feminist point of view of premarital sex. Then she meets Ryder (George Hamilton) and realizes she's not ready for sex. Jennie (Lisa Hartman) comes the closest to this character and there's echoes of this theme when she and Scott (Russell Todd) are on the beach early in the morning. We never really touch upon this subject again, but it's interesting that even in a more "liberated" time, that hasn't changed. Was Jennie from a conservative or religious family? Was she saving it for marriage? Who cares, right? Boobies! Texas S&M! Male blow up doll! (Which I'll get to in a moment. LOL!). The love triangle between Jennie and Camden (Daniel McDonald) could have been stronger. Camden is the kind of "safe" rich guy that would be considered more "appropriate" for her vs. working class "bad boy" Scott. The closest the story comes is when Scott and Camden have a fight at the piano over Jennie. Again, another chance to explore class issues like the original did with Ryder and Merritt, but that was rejected in favor of a predictable vanilla ending.
Sandra (Wendy Schaal) is the spoiled rich girl who lets loose by doing a striptease in a bar. I was kind of surprised her supposedly liberated friend Laurie didn't let her finish taking it all off, but perhaps she was concerned that she would sexually assaulted. Sexual assault is a dramatic theme in the original that the filmmakers narrowly avoided here because I presume it would've been too serious for a lighthearted sex comedy such as this one. I thought it was ironic that she puts down police officers and ends up having a love affair with Ernie, the officer who arrested her and Laurie. I wish there was a love scene between them after they left the party. They could've explored class issues with their relationship. The scene outside Ernie's trailer was one of the strongest scenes in the film because it was honest for once. Too bad the whole movie wasn't like that due to the raunchiness (which I will also get to in a moment).
We never really know why Carol (Lorna Luft) wants a break from her boyfriend Chip (Howard McGillin) (Carol and Chip - haha I just realized how corny their names were LOL). Is she bored with him for some reason? This was right after they had sex (she look like she enjoyed it, but I could be wrong). They could've expanded upon that by showing *why* Chip has become boring. Again, we don't really see it. (Side note: I find it funny that Judy Garland's daughter Lorna was in a film like this, or why any of the actors chose to be in a film like this, for that matter).
Laurie (Lynn-Holly Johnson) is presented as hypersexual and wanting to fulfill her ultimate sexual fantasy with "Conan". In the other strong scene in the film she meets her "Conan" on the beach and makes an "appointment" to hook up with him. But she is thrown for a loop when Conan turns out to be a male escort! I love how she put him in his place about his penis size. She realizes that there's more to a man's attractiveness than his external appearance. At first I thought Laurie was dumb and vapid (she makes a casual racist comment about wanting to be as tanned as Diana Ross, which almost made me turn the film off), but she had more intelligence than I gave her credit for. This kind of female empowerment could've been a big theme in this film (including when Sandra decides to leave Ernie), but there was just not enough of that. They could've made a powerful statement by saying even though the 1980s are a more cynical and progressive decade, how have things changed between the sexes and how have they not? It probably never occurred to the male filmmakers to go in that direction. They wanted to make a raunchy sorority film featuring female lead characters through a male gaze.
Now to the raunchiness. There were times when I thought this film could've had hardcore porn scenes in between the crazy beach scene antics and would've fit right in. We see plenty of topless extras, but none of the female leads got naked. Perhaps they were uncomfortable doing so, although Lorna was in bed with Howard at the beginning of the film (nothing was shown). Oh, there's the infamous Dave, the male blow up sex doll the girls practice foreplay on. It was an attempt at raunchy humor that was kind of strange. What I would've given to be a fly on the wall in those coke fueled production meetings (yeah, you read that right LOL)! This whole movie was like being on one long coke binge. Some of the hair, makeup, fashions, and art direction was dreadful and atrocious! And I usually love 80s style, but not in this film. Perhaps they were on a tight budget and they could only afford certain things. It was just awful. It was like they wrote down every idea they could think of and crammed it all in this film (and not any good ideas). It was the equivalent of throwing food on the wall to see what sticks. They could've still put some racy scenes in it and tell a good story too (because it can't be a movie about college students during Spring Break without a certain degree of wildness). Even in the original film we hear police calls on TV's (Jim Hutton) radio describing the crazy offscreen hijinks of the students. The whole subplot with Sandra's rich aunt was just bizarre. It was nice to see Alana Stewart even though she's not given much to do.
The remake is a desecration of the original one for sure, but it's not totally irredeemable. The cover of "Where the Boys Are" that Lisa Hartman sings isn't bad (but she is no Connie Francis). At least they paid homage to the original song in the end credits. The Rockats were a fun band with some good rockabilly covers of oldies songs (can't believe they're still together! LOL!). I can't fault the actors for their performances. If they were good/decent actors, this was not the film to prove their worth. The four lead actresses were too old to be playing college students, but they were still good looking and attractive, as were the actors who played their love interests. However, the characters they played seemed like caricatures instead of real people for most of the film. They did the best with the poor material they were given. And I can't fault the time period because some of my favorite films are from the 80s. Bad films have been made in every decade and that's the reason why I believe it's a "so bad it's bad" film instead of a "so bad it's good" film that would be worthy of cult status. Even though I saw this film on Tubi for free, I want to rent the DVD to see the extras because I'm such a film geek. LOL
Overall, the potential for an updated good film about how the sexual revolution that came to be in the 60s affected Gen X in the 80s was missed. It serves as an example of how Hollywood has and continues to sacrifice good acting and storytelling in favor of pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Thanks for reading. :-)