ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

GazerRise Fantastic!

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Bill Phillips Most of this movie seems a bit dated, and, on the boys' parts, overacted. As well, after 45 years, seeing it again, I realize that Jennifer O'Neill is not that great an actress, well, until the awesome ending. And, what a shock to discover that now at 70, she has been married nine times. What does that matter? Nothing really, but I had lived most of my life imagining her as she was in this movie, young, beautiful, and mesmerizing. In spite of all the above, the last episode of the movie is so powerful and so well acted by both O'neill and the kid that it will forever remain a classic movie. And, what a coda to discover that it really happened to the writer, and the letter read at the end was the real letter the writer had read as a kid. Can't forget as well that this movie would probably never been as successful without Michel Legrand's musical theme. Of course, this movie could never be made today, just as Pretty Baby could never be made (Hollywood has yet to do a total "mea culpa" on its child exploitation,) Call it what you want, this is still a story of a wiser, older woman taking advantage of a younger clueless 15 year old. In the true story the kid (the screenwriter) was actually 14. It doesn't matter that half the 15 yr old boys in American would gladly be exploited in this manner. But, if you're honest, that's also part of the problem. In spite of this, the movie is still one of my guilty pleasures, and is, I suspect, the same for most men. I have no idea what women think of it. As an aside, it has some outstanding comedy. The drugstore scene is a stand alone vignette. And to add to its credentials, this film was directed by Robert Mulligan of To Kill a Mockingbird.

John T. Ryan WELL NOW, HERE'S one that we hadn't seen in some time; even ever since its original release in 1971. We really hadn't given it much thought at all and therefore, weren't planning on screening it. This is, after all, a "women's picture", a "chick flick" and certainly not the sort of fare that would show up on the male oriented cable channel, SPIKE. (Conversely we don't see COPS being screened on THE HALLMARK CHANNEL, right Schultz ?) IF WE SEEM to be just a tad harsh and unfair on THE SUMMER OF '42, we beg your forgiveness. In actuality, it has a much broader base of varying types whose grading of it would be surprisingly high. When views are taken from all angles, we find it to be a much more complex a film with (believe it or not) a very masculine, if adolescent, bias. The story is, after all, centered on the sighting of a beautiful, young bride on this summer vacation community, by a threesome of healthy, red-blooded American teen-aged boys.WHILE WE SEE that the point of view is that of some middle class Jewish kids, that is not a limiting factor. The socio-economic stratum as well as the ethnicity represented would not have mattered in the story's rendering. We just don't see that the kids of Blue Collar, proletariat families would be spending the whole Summer at the Oceanside. A week maybe or even ten days, but certainly it wouldn't be longer.BUT AS WE said before, the reactions and basic nature of the beast (the Male Animal) is universal, hereditary, genetic and unmistakably masculine.WHAT SEEMS TO be the sealing ingredient here is that it is the telling of a story from author Herman Raucher's own life. In recent years, the story came out that he was contacted by the real life "Dorothy", who then just as quickly returned to her desired anonymity.IF YOU HAVEN'T seen it do it. Isn't that right, Schultz ?

dougdoepke Hats off to writer Raucher and crew. They've managed to overcome a lack of plot, action, and pizazz with a coming-of-age movie that's about as sensitively told and captivating as any on record. Those coastal vistas and wooden structures reach near poetic levels of time past. Having been young in the late 1940's, there's a lot of nostalgia in the radio programming and ads of the time. And I can certainly testify to the restrictive sexual norms of the period. Going into a drugstore and risking a dressing down was like a rite of passage for many teenage boys. Otherwise, hope lay in some obliging gas station with a coin operated dispenser in the men's room.Grimes really registers as the sexually naïve Hermie, while O'Neill shines as any boy's dream girl. For Hermie, conflicting signals from his hormones, buddies, and society have left him achingly confused. (Here actor Grimes's subtle staring into the distance speaks volumes.) But instead of Hermie easing his way along with the plain-faced Aggie, he's obsessed with an older woman, Dorothy (O'Neill). Trouble is she's already emotionally wedded to her overseas army boyfriend. So he pines at the same time he manages a helpful relationship with her at her seaside cabin. Just what he's hoping for, we can't be sure. On top of that, his two buddies are no help to his dilemma. Seldom have older movies conveyed the foolish antics of teenage boys as effectively as this, as they push each other around both physically and mentally. More importantly, it's a realistic background on which to frame Hermie's sensitive instincts. At the same time, kudos should go to Houser and Conant as Hermie's unhelpful buddies.I guess my only reservation's with the seduction scene. I can't figure out Dorothy's motivation coming on top of the heart-wrenching telegram. I would think sex with another guy would be furthest from her mind. But there we are. Maybe if they'd had her tipsy drunk that would have helped. But that would also have compromised the ambiguity of her act. Is she just using Hermie as a comfort object; is she tenderly inducting him into adulthood in a selfless act; or is she just escaping anguish in any way she can. Perhaps it's a mix of them all in some kind of foggy way. But, since the story's factually based, we have to assume the circumstances really happened in some private manner.(Several minor points- Judging from poor plain Aggie, there's likely a story behind her dilemma as touching as Hermie's. Dorothy's long straight 1970's hair style is definitely not 1940's. Women coiffed their hair in those days. Note that the iconic old movies referenced are all Warner Bros. 40's features. Not surprising since this production is from the same studio.) Anyway, the film remains a superbly wrought remembrance of a time gone by, as poignantly relevant now as it was then. A big salute to all involved.

joy-106-307514 Warning! Spoilers in this review. I was young and naive when I saw this film. About 15 years old I think. It truly both educated me, and changed my life. This was the first time I became aware that others had feelings comparable to the ones that I had. The scene where Hermie has to buy the rubbers is hilarious. The druggist was perfectly casted. It's hard to imagine nowadays that it used to be against the law to sell condoms to people under a certain age. Anyway, I strongly suggest reading the book before seeing the movie. It allows you to know what thoughts are going through Hermie's head throughout the film. For instance, there is one scene where he is holding the ladder as she puts items in the attic. In the film you simply see him smiling and appearing nervous. In the book there are probably two full pages of description of what he is thinking at that moment.