[after his parents have left, thinking he is ill] "They bought it. Incredible! One of the worst performances of my…
She is 15. He is 17. The Love Every Parent Fears.
Two young kids fall in love with each other. But the passion is too consuming for the parents of Jade. The parents try to stop them from seeing each other. But when this doesn't work, David burns down the house and is sent away. This doesn't stop him from seeing her. When he gets out he goes to look for her. But the passion for his first love is too strong and she has to leave.
This movie is SUPER CREEPY! It's marketed as a romantic love story but when did making love in the living room as her mom watches and burning down her house qualify as romantic?
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
This is a big ball of ridiculousness from Franco Zefferelli. Oh. My. God. Is this movie silly and overblown or what??
So, there's this boy David who falls in love with this girl Jade. Now, they're both supposed to be 15, but Brooke Shields is actually 15, and the guy who plays David is 22.
Anyways, they fall in love and have sex at her house in front of a fireplace after a party...while her mom watches from the stairs. Then he starts banging her every night, and the mom knows, commenting that he comes in after the parents are asleep and leaves at sunrise, and compares it to living with bats.
When Jade's grades start to slip, she says…
An absolute disgrace to the excellent Scott Spencer novel it's based on, Franco Zeffirelli's Endless Love is undoubtedly one of the worst love stories ever put to film, with laughably godawful performances (except for the always great James Spader), horrible writing, and an unbelievably creepy lead protagonist.
I'm really surprised by the hate for this movie. I saw this as a cautionary tale, not a romance. Which, I'm pretty sure, was the intention. Was it creepy? Of course! Did shit go too far? Of course! But I'm 90% positive that was the point of this whole thing. Like, I don't think they made this whole movie to say "This is who you should emulate!" - but rather "Don't be this fucking weirdo!".
Anyway, it's a good movie, I thought. Just go into it understanding that the "protagonist" is not that. He's obsessive, creepy, deranged, and above all, fucked up. It's like any other movie with a creepy dude as the main character (like Patrick Bateman,…
Brooke Shields has one or two good performances, there's two minutes of Tom Cruise, and James Spader is amazing as always, but that's about it. This movie was cringe worthy. Truly cringe worthy.
That was all kinds of strange and gross. And not in a feel-good David Lynch kinda way.
More like teenagers testing out their "O" faces while their parents watch kinda way.
A predictable fiasco-still it's considerably worse than you might have expected. Directed by Franco Zeffirelli, from Judith Rascoe's adaptation of Scott Spencer's novel about a teenage boy's single- minded love for his young girlfriend, the movie is an icky, shapeless mess. The novel was a purplish glorification of the hero's masochism, and it was purplish in a violent way. The love that was endless was a physical addiction. The two kids fornicated furiously and just about constantly; they went at each other like battle-scarred veterans of the sex wars. And the boy's passionate love resulted in his being sent to an insane asylum. Even in the 50s when movies were full of misunderstood young heroes, no boy ever suffered so…
Oh boy. Not a great way to start a Tom Cruise retrospective. He was only in it for a total of like one-and-a-half minutes. He looked super young of course, but he was pretty jacked as well. I think he might have had a sex scene, but it was filmed so poorly and his character was so undeveloped but also kind of important that I couldn't tell if it was supposed to be him or not. In terms of the movie itself, it was not great. The two main kids (adults?) are not interesting and at some points largely unlikeable, especially David. Considering that they are both in high school, and since the Netflix DVD cover thing said that Brooke…
"What would you do if I died?"
"Well, I'd die too."
God I hoped so just so this film would end sooner.
"I don't know what I'm talking about, and it feels good." Yep, that about sums it up.
Off the top of my head, it's difficult to think of a film with such disparate first and second halves. I'm a first-half-of-Full-Metal-Jacket kind of guy, but even those halves seem complementary compared to the soap opera that Endless Love devolves into after a stirring beginning.
The first hour is a perfect study of bohemians reckoning with the values they've instilled in their children. You mean to tell me that if you throw a party on a school night (!), feed wine to your fifteen-year-old (!!), watch that fifteen-year-old have sex (!!!), and let people smoke cigarettes in your house (!!!!), you can't be surprised when your daughter's boyfriend stays over? The hippies had a slim generational divide from their…
Aïe ! Ça fait mal. C'est à se demander pourquoi ce film a un tel culte. La mise en scène titube, les personnages sont pour la majorité exécrables avec des motivations ridicules, les péripéties sont ronflantes, le rythme est inexistant...
Décidément, c'est à éviter de tout coeur !
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
Since director Franco Zeffirelli brought the world his swoonily romantic version of Romeo and Juliet, an adaptation that's almost certainly never going to be topped, it seemed purely logical that he would be the right man to adapt Scott Spencer's torrid novel, also a tragic teen love story, to the big screen. Whatever magic Zeffirelli brought to Romeo and Juliet is completely missing from Endless Love.
To be fair, I don't think any director could have made Endless Love work simply because of the disastrous decision to have the leads cast with Brooke Shields and Martin Hewitt. With Shields, we expect a lame performance, and we get (another) one, but scene for scene, Hewitt is her equal in the talent-free…
Lord help me -- I really enjoyed this! I know it has a horrible reputation and the book is critically acclaimed and beloved, but I felt like the director and cast created their own interesting film that stood on its own. The glossy cinematography and prototypical early 80s production design (lots of ferns, ha) were outstanding, and although the two leads were undoubtedly chosen for the looks instead of their acting talent, the supporting cast (including four Oscar nominees/winners) really sold the material well. There were plenty of moments when it felt like a trashy 50s Douglas Sirk melodrama, but its underlying serious themes were given a chance to shine through, too. I'm really glad I gave this one a chance.
Wow, first since I actually saw the remake awhile back, that film has nothing to do with this one at all. So they actually just took the basic idea of hesitant parents and this title and made their own story.
And this film was creepy as all hell. The lead guy is a straight up stalker. He stalks Shields when their parents want them to take a break, burns down their house, kind of gets her father killed and has a weird Mrs. Robinson moment with her mother.
They are playing 15 year old teens, yet are having sex openly at the parents house. Like the mother even watches them at one point. So creepy.
Yeah, it has that famous…
Letterboxd's most controversial films, ranked by the variance in their ratings.
B-movies. Exploitation. Outsider art ("art"). Live-action adaptations. Romantic comedies.…
Every film that has ever been nominated for an Academy Award in any category. Enjoy!