Summer of Sam Review
by Chad Polenz (ChadPolenz AT aol DOT com)July 22nd, 1999
Summer Of Sam
Chad'z rating: **1/2 (out of 4 = okay/average)
1999, R, 122 minutes [2 hours, 22 minutes]
[drama/thriller]
Starring: John Leguizamo (Vinny), Adrien Brody (Ritchie), Mira Sorvino (Dionna), Jennifer Esposito (Ruby); written by Victor Coliccho, Michael Imperioli, Spike Lee; produced by Jon Kilik, Spike Lee; directed by Spike Lee.
Seen July 20, 1999 at 6:10 p.m. at Crossgates Cinema 18 (Guilderland, NY), theater #4, by myself for free using my Hoyts season pass. [Theater rating: ***: excellent sound and seats, picture was slightly blurry]
On the drive home from “Summer Of Sam,” I could sense a major dilemma
going on inside my head (I wonder if the fact it was a movie about a psychotic serial killer had anything to do with it?). I felt as though I had just seen a really powerful film since I was slightly nervous, shaken, even nauseous, but I couldn’t tell if that was good or bad.
I think trying to honestly express my thoughts and fairly review the
film will be a real challenge for me, at least in the usual way I write reviews. But then I remembered Roger Ebert’s review of “The Hudsucker Proxy” in which the entire review was written as a dialogue between an angel and a devil pointing out the good and bad things with the result being a compromise between four stars and none. I feel the same way about this film, although I’ll give it **1/2 which is, what I consider, my “neutral” rating or “your call” rating (which it is if you consider my rating scales goes: 0, *, **, **1/2, ***, ***1/2, and ****. Ebert’s verdict was ** for “Hudsucker,” which means the devil ultimately won).
And so, to pay homage to one of my inspirations, I’ll compose this
review in a similar matter except with “Optimistic Guy” and “Pessimistic Guy,” (I don’t think an angel would like this film). But first a quick synopsis of the plot and whatnot*.
The film takes place in New York City during the summer of 1977 when
the Yankees ruled baseball, young people were divided into camps of disco versus punk, a massive heat wave kept everyone sweating in buckets and a deranged maniac calling himself “Son Of Sam” scared the entire country to death by repeatedly blowing away couples whose only crime was sitting on a stoop or making out in a car. He appeared out of the shadows, blasted his victims with a .44 caliber handgun and just as quickly as he appeared he was gone, with almost no solid leads, clues or witnesses.
The actual story does not involve a police investigation into the
killer (although a pair of detectives on the case do act as minor supporting characters), but instead the effect the paranoia and fear has on the residents of the city, especially in the Bronx where the main characters live and work.
OPTIMISTIC GUY: Spike Lee is really onto something here by making a movie about a serial killer and not making him or the authorities’ attempt to hunt him down the focus of the film. Instead, he just tells, basically, one long character study to show what a challenge it must have been to just live on a day-to-day basis. You really get a sense of the intense heat and the overall uncomfortable feeling.
PESSIMISTIC GUY: I agree that this is an interesting new take on the worn-out serial killer genre, but Lee goes a bit too far by making it too much of a character study. He obviously wants to show what it must be like living in a city of panic, so why concentrate the story on just a handful of main characters? And why make it so melodramatic in the process? All the characters here are difficult to figure out: Vinny (Leguizamo), the hairstylist gigolo who never seems happy and we can’t just chalk that up to the paranoia aspect; Dionna (Sorvino), his wife who is too stupid to realize what a sleazebag he is and leave him, especially considering that she can’t figure out how to please him sexually; Richie (Brody), an old friend of Vinny’s who’s gone punk and sometimes talks in a British accent, but you get the feeling he’s gone punk mostly to spite the world, not because he enjoys it. The semi-major subplot involving his closet homosexuality and his relationship with his girlfriend Ruby (Esposito) is really strange. This should have been explored more, especially considering the mix of the characters - a nihilist punk rocker and his generic slutty girlfriend (what’s her motivation for staying with him?)
OPTIMISTIC GUY: You have to remember that Chad has only seen one other Spike Lee film, so the feeling that this might be new territory for Lee may not be correct. It’s true that the characters’ backgrounds and emotions could have been sketched out more, but this clearly isn’t your run-of-the-mill drama, it’s about a significant time in history about fear of becoming a victim. Considering many of the event going on in the world today - school shootings, gang violence, suburban kids doing drugs and babies having babies, etc., it’s a timeless allegory.
PESSIMISTIC GUY: If it’s really just a human drama, why even bother showing what David Berkowitz must have been like at home and inside his mind while this was all going on? Those shots of the children’s wooden blocks with numbers and letters don’t come off as very thrilling or scary, it just seems like a rip-off of “Se7en” or “Taxi Driver.” In fact, there’s many instances throughout the film where the mood will suddenly change from the dramatic to the surreal without a smooth transition. This is reflective of how the screenplay often loses track of the characters and lets them wander too far without justification. Towards the end they all seem to have fallen off the wagon, but what wagon were they on to begin with?
OPTIMISTIC GUY: If you look at many of the films released in recent years about the 1970s they all have that same theme of decadence; casual, guilt-free sex; the joy of abusing your body, etc. And they all end up with the same message - that there’s always a price to pay. When all the characters do the bad things they do, they all get theirs in the end.
(Final arguments)
OPTIMISTIC GUY: It’s a creative drama about some very interesting characters and is simultaneously a good suspense thriller. The perfomances all are Oscar-worthy, and I’d imagine it must have been a huge challenge for both the actors and the filmmakers to endure making a film of such intesnity on a daily basis. You’ll definitely be moved, shocked and you won’t be the same
afterwards.
PESSIMISTIC GUY: Yes, but that’s not what I or most people want out of their summer entertainment. Although there’s justice in the end, the way the film tries to seduce you with much of its anarchic and lurid subject matter is just gratuitous. There’s way too much sexuality thrown in, seemingly for shock value (for example, that orgy scene which was almost sickening), ditto for the wickedly-profane dialogue (been there, done that). A good edit and a rewrite of the script would have done wonders for the film. The cliché “Less is more” is so true.
In the end, we... err... “I” say “Summer Of Sam” is a flawed
masterpiece - interpret that any way you want.
*another homage, but I think only Ted Prigge will get this reference.
---------------------------------
Please visit <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/ChadPolenz/index.html">Chad'z Movie Page
</A> - over 230 new and old movies reviewed in-depth, not just blind ratings and blather capsules.
Associate member of <A HREF="http://www.ofcs.org/">The O.F.C.S.</A> (Online Film Critics Society)
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
