Review: 17 Again
by John NolteThere have been photos zipping across the web of Zac Efron and Leonardo DiCaprio hanging out together — the angle being some sort of passing of the heartthrob torch. Well, that must be all it is because obviously DiCaprio isn’t passing on acting tips, or if he is, Efron’s smart enough not to listen.
Yeah, you read that right.
Zac Efron is marvelous in “17 Again.” He’s everything DiCaprio is not: natural, at ease, funny, and not trying to impress anyone with that showy, actory catnip elitists adore but only breaks the spell for the rest of us. Leo hasn’t given a believable performance since his work in “Catch Me If You Can” seven years ago. Efron, however, has the makings of a bona fide movie star. He may never do Shakespeare in the park, but I bought every second of his performance. He has presence, a masculinity that belies his appearance and he carries himself with an impressive confidence.
But that’s not the film’s biggest surprise. “17 Again” is openly and sincerely in favor of teenage abstinence.
It’s 1987. Hair is poofy, Boy George jokes fly and Mike O’Donnell (Efron) is the high school basketball star with only a bright future ahead of him. Then… In an utterly contrived moment, he makes a fateful decision that sets the course for the rest of his life, a life that twenty years later finds him looking like Matthew Perry and deeply unhappy with his wife, two kids, and dead end job. He’s bitter over that fateful decision and that bitterness poisoned his perspective and blinded him to all the good right in front of him.
In the middle of a divorce, Mike lives with his best friend from high school Ned (scene-stealer Thomas Lennon), a lonely Dungeons and Dragons/Lord of the Rings millionaire geek who lives in fanboy heaven surrounded by all the toys money can buy. They’re an odd couple who bond in their mutual unhappiness until something happens I won’t spoil (not that it’s all that clever) and Mike finds himself “17 Again” in 2009.
Ned poses as Mike’s dad so he can “fulfill his mystic destiny” and use this do-over to make all the choices he should have the first time. This plan’s quickly derailed when Mike gets his first real look at who his estranged children (and now fellow classmates) really are. And so he sets out to help them and in the process reconnect with their mother, his soon to be ex, played by the ever-fetching Leslie Mann.
The film’s biggest failure is in failing to milk the premise for all it’s worth. Mike, a romantically close to forty guy dropped into a modern L.A. high school, should be a pathetic fish out of water constantly caught off guard and struggling to catch up. But almost immediately he’s in complete control of his surroundings, handling the high school bully with ease and becoming the big man on campus.
Mike’s emotional arc is equally unsatisfying. The selfish grown up we expect to rip into this opportunity looking out only for number one changes almost immediately into the protective dad. This change is both abrupt and unnatural. Where did the growth come from? This kind of enlightenment should be something hard-earned and emotionally affecting for the audience, not the result of a plot in need of a turn.
While the story never rises above sitcom level (which is true for the cinematography, as well), what can’t be overlooked is the film’s winning charm. In the best sense of the word, this is a nice movie. There’s a heart at work here that’s in the right place and deserving of goodwill thanks to both genial performances and, most surprisingly, a moral clarity.
In an early scene, a sex-ed teacher mocks abstinence education and passes out condoms, In her mind it’s a foregone conclusion high school seniors will have sex, but Mike summons 20 years of experience and not only argues with her – he wins the argument! Later he’ll explain to three over-sexed cheerleaders that no one respects them because they don’t respect themselves, and if this isn’t enough, the film’s heavy is a punk who uses girls for sex.
This is a big deal. This is a mainstream Hollywood film allowing the biggest teen heartthrob in the country to sincerely and effectively make this argument. I have gummi bears in my hair because I had to be picked up off the floor. No, this won’t undo fifteen years of objectifying and hyper-sexualizing teenage girls, but between this and a similar theme in the wildly popular “Twilight” series, could we be seeing the rare healthy turn in pop-culturedom? Let’s hope.
“17 Again” doesn’t lack for flaws, but it is amusing, good-natured, paced well, safe for the kids and refreshingly void of irony and cynicism. (for whatever reason, I’m trying to avoid the word “wholesome.”) That’s worth something these days and everyone involved deserves credit, especially Efron who marks his arrival with poise and star power.








Subscribe via RSS
44 Comments
Thanks John—sounds like a movie I will encourage my teenaged nieces and nephews to see; I have to admire Efron for the career choices he makes, if this film, like the HSM series, encourage positive, moral behavior.
There aren't too many movies geared to teens I'd want my teens to watch. This MIGHT be one of them. (A new movie promoting abstinence? Out of Hollywood? Seriously?)
Thanks for letting us know about this one. I haven't paid to see a movie since…. since….heck, when was it?
Oh man, I couldn't disagree more about your assessment of my Leo. I'm as red-blooded, right-winger as they come (OK – I don't own a gun & hope I never feel such fear that I feel I have to buy one) but Leo is about the only actor of this generation who will force me to pay $10 and sit among the ice-crunching slingnasties in the audience. Can't stand to wait for Netflix Leo. Need my Leo fix immediately.
Leo and Martin Scorcese together – pure magic. This ardent student of Theodore Roosevelt's life is breathlessly awaiting the planned Scorcese film on TR's pre-White House life (his most interesting and romantic years) with Leo playing TR. The perfect and just about only casting choice. Leo will have no problem portraying the eccentric, swashbunkling, romantic TR. The casting of TR's wife Edith just might make/break the film, however.
Another pro-abstinence flick would be "10 Things I Hate About You." This modernized retelling of "The Taming of the Shrew" featuring David Krumholtz, Heath Ledger, and Joseph Gordon-I-can't-freakin'-believe-he's-Cobra-Commander-Levitt features one teenage character who reveals that they had once had sex, and that it was a huge mistake. It also features the wonderful Larry Miller as the father of the two teenage girls: an OB-GYN who is constantly telling them about the babies he's delivering to teenagers.
"Alright, wait a minute. No drinking, no drugs, no kissing, no tattoos, no piercings, *no* ritual animal slaughters of any kind. Oh, God, I'm giving them ideas."
Considering most of the audience for "17 Again" is pre-pubescent girls, a "don't have sex" message is a good thing. (And when the hell did Matthew Perry get old enough to play dads?! That means…I'm old, too!) Why avoid the word "wholesome?" It's what's made Efron a star. The High School Musical franchise is super-squeaky clean, but they're well made, acted and sincere, and along with "Wicked," will suck the next generation into a love for musicals, so good for them!
Seems good. The image is nice, if true. I'm only wondering because his girlfriend looks too sophisticated for me and too old for him, but I really don't know. The image and the message are important. I remember him from Summerland, and he seemed like he had some acting potential. I guess I'll wait for my teenage granddaughters to report back to me. Their mom is pretty level-headed about what they can see, so I hope you're right. Unlike DiCaprio to whom I took an immediate dislike the first time I saw him, Efron seemed like a kid who would be all right around my granddaughters, but normal enough that I'd have to watch him around the girls.
Your remark re Twilight is so true. I have wondered if your site would host a review of this story. Amazing: the hero of Twilight is actually termed a 'gentleman'! I have not seen that word associated with a hero since the sixties. Edward is also… a VIRGIN; as is his beloved Bella. And they decide upon abstinence until marriage because of their familys' feelings; and because it is the Good (ie, righteous) way to behave. Further, when Bella becomes pregnant, and it is clear that she will probably die if she continues on that path, she decides against an abortion when her husband wants her to have one. Why? Because she loves the child within her.
OK, werewolves, vampires, magic, weirdness. But at its heart, the Twilight series is a kindly and healthy story. That it is so very popular with young and old is a very hopeful portent for our future.
I know my soon to be 12 year old daughter will want to watch this. She loves the HSM movies and Zac Efron. I was leery until reading this review about letting her watch this one.
Thank you for this review, John.
Cuz when I think "masculinity," the FIRST thing that jumps to mind is an overly well-groomed musical star who makes a point of NOT chasing girls
John gave Twilight a glowing review on the old Dirty Harry site based on many of these points that you make. He was a fan!
Oh, no, you di'n't!! Hee!
My 16 year old daughter went to see this tonight. She came home BUBBLING over with enthusiasm. (I just sat there and tried to listen to her gush over Zach–it was difficult for me to do–but what about raising a 16 year old girl isn't difficult?)
Well, wow! I had no interest in this film (didn't even know what it was about) but I may have to watch it. Good things should be supported!
The movie Twilight is interesting: it is low budget, mainly because (I think) the producers didn't know what they had… the special effects are dreadful, for example. On the other hand, the actors are very good, and in the case of the male lead, 'smoldering.' It seems that the next movie will have a lot more money supporting it.
The book has been a runaway best seller, and has accounted for some 16% of all books sold in the US in the first quarter of this year. Not bad. It reminds me of the under the radar books like the "Left Behind" series: they sold tons, without one being noticed by the major publishing communities on the East and West coasts.
Another thing about The Hero (Edward): he is 'old fashioned', because he comes from a pre WW I time. He believes in early marriage, and being courteous. Amazing. In today's world, I guess young girls are learning how to perform oral sex in school. And yet… given the chance, they will dream about Edward Cullin, and they will want to be like Anne of Green Gables.
Yeah, he did. And it was well worth the thumb up I gave it. He expressed what was hanging out in the back of my head. Don't hate him because he's beautiful. But I'm still going to give the kid the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry, Julie. I'd find him more believable as Eleanor.
Don't get me wrong–I thought it was a witty comment, but I haven't gotten that vibe from what little I've watched Efron in. (I almost forgot about Hairspray! He was great in that!) He, like Twilight's Edward, is the perfect love for young girls (and more importantly the parents who shell out for the merch)–cute, and utterly chaste. (Grownup gals like me go for the Sookie Stackhouse novels when we want our sexy vampire fix) And whoever Efron chooses to bed off-screen is his own biz.
Both my girls, ages 19 and 11, want to see this movie ~ I can't remember the last time they enjoyed a movie together.
"I have gummi bears in my hair because I had to be pickup up off the floor" is one of the funniest lines I've read in a long, long time.
Thanks for the review!
The Twilight movies IMHO are terrible, because the implicit message is terrible: encouraging young girls to chase romantic bad boys. It's about the stupidest message one could give girls, akin to telling young boys to judge girls solely on looks and sexual availability alone, no other criteria needed.
I think DH/John Nolte is wrong, completely wrong about Twilight the movie series. The message of "abstinence" is overwhelmed in the book and the movie about chasing after a bad boy and finding meaning in being the bad boy's girlfriend, instead of independent accomplishment.
I've seen other reviews noting Efron's comic timing, I suppose we will see if anything comes of it.
However, MONEY is not very important to Hollywood, if it were, Adam Sandler, Rob Schneider, Judd Apatow, John Hughes, Seth Rogen, Nicolas Cage, and Vince Vaughan would rule Hollywood instead of Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Nicole Kidman, Brad Pitt, George Clooney and Quentin Tarantino, who do rule Hollywood. Making money is nothing, no one Hollywood cares about it, being "cool" and part of the in-crowd is everything.
The movie "17 Again" came out late, because it was nearly impossible to get music for the movie. Bands burst out laughing when they were told who the star was. Efron, regardless of the reality of his personal life (which I don't frankly care to know) is viewed as a joke by Hollywood at large, the same way Miley Cyrus is. Jamie Foxx felt free enough to make offensive and fairly brutal comments about a 16 year old girl. Why? Because of the reality of power in Hollywood.
Hollywood will NEVER change. It didn't have to be Lord of the Flies meets Groundhog Day, but it became that way and only Hollywood's total destruction of movie studio system, production system, revenue streams, and so on will change things.
In that sense, the most important development was Youtube making a deal with CBS and others to show content on their site with ads served against the content. THAT folks changes the delivery model.
To a low margin, high volume, model. No more paid ticket attendance or DVD sales, just Youtube views and whoever gets the most views gets the most ad revenue. With content open to potentially, anyone, including folks besides CBS or Paramount. I'm sure 17 Again is a nice, funny movie. But it won't change Hollywood. Youtube can.
I have to say, I do like his acting, too. I have no idea about his private life, and I do know he idolizes Leo. Let's hope, he doesn't follow in the footsteps of that youth star and go activist, preach monger.
Hey, I actually liked High School Musical 1. (haven't seen the others). It reminded me of Grease meets Fame.
I liked the basic plot of Twilight, but its creator honestly has a Dan Brown-level grasp of storytelling knowhow. It was a good story, ill-told.
I loved the "baby-belly" part. The speeches btw the dad & the younger sister were priceless. Especially the one where he's recounting the teenager who just gave birth and what she was screaming about as she's in labor.
I disagree about the point of the Twilight series. I never got the idea that Edward IS a bad boy. Edward tries to avoid her as much as humanly possible until he realizes it won't work, he's open & up-front about what he is and what will happen to Bella if they become involved, he's protective to a fault, affectionate, considerate, he brings her home to meet his parent for pete's sake! And that's just in the first book!
If that's what a bad boy is today, please, sign me up!
However, I do agree that Bella is wimpy. Of course, I also see Edward as being baffled by this weakness and pushing her to get outside it. But I think that was Ms Meyer's point.
a gun represents having control of your life and surroundings, not fear
I am kind of heartened to see the young kids like Cyrus, Jonas Bros, Jordan Sparks, Ephron, Taylor Swift, etc., who aren't trying to be the sluts of yesteryear, such as Justin, Britney, Lindsay, etc. Maybe there is going to be a tide-turning? Or is that just wistful thinking?
Looking over the topics usually discussed on this blog, where every word out of the mouth of anyone liked by conservatives is treated as coming from a saint (your guys) and any word coming from a non-conservative is treated as if it came from the Anti-Christ, it is a treat to read a review like this that is, in fact, (sorry John) wholesome. Except for a little heavey-handedness about abstinence, you've written an entertaining, warm-hearted review about a simple, funny, young-at-heart movie. Thank you! It really is not true that the world is going to hell any faster in a hangbag than it ever way or that the vitriol often spewed on this blog (not by you, John) will be helpful to anyone but the poor soul who has finally found an outlet. It is true that some warmth and humor will make a long day shorter for everyone. While this movie will not be a modern Pat Boone vehicle (we can all thankful for small favors), it is delightful and the lessons can never be put forth often enough.
"Thank you! It really is not true that the world is going to hell any faster in a hangbag than it ever way or that the vitriol often spewed on this blog (not by you, John) will be helpful to anyone but the poor soul who has finally found an outlet."
Oh, spare me your condescension-disguised-as-compliment. There are many topics discussed here besides movies, many types of movies discussed and many reviews of those movies that various people don't agree with.
If you can't see the things going on in this culture that are disturbing, I can't help you. But pointing those things out is not vitriol. It's people caring about this culture, this country and this world.
"Thank you! It really is not true that the world is going to hell any faster in a hangbag than it ever way or that the vitriol often spewed on this blog (not by you, John) will be helpful to anyone but the poor soul who has finally found an outlet."
Oh, spare me your condescension-disguised-as-compliment. There are many topics discussed here besides movies, many types of movies discussed and many reviews of those movies that various people don't agree with.
If you can't see the things going on in this culture that are disturbing, I can't help you. But pointing those things out is not vitriol. It's people caring about this culture, this country and this world.
Edward is a VAMPIRE! I fail to see much of a future for these two whether they abstain or not.
Efron's no joke to Hollywood–he makes money. (And before you put Brad Pitt in that column, "Benjamin Button" made money, too) "17 Again" will show if Efron can hold a feature himself, but if not he can look forward to a long life on the small screen. I don't plan to see it–I liked the premise when it was called "Freaky Friday" in 1976 but then, I was a 'tween myself) I'm still not convinced YouTube/Hulu will change the moviegoing experience all that much. Catching up on a CSI I missed is one thing, but I'll still go to the multiplex for a movie, text messengers and crying toddlers be damned. But hell, I still like reading newspapers so maybe I'm just old fashioned. And considering Hollywood is having a pretty booming year even in the middle of a wretched economy, I'm not sure how fast they'll be to change the model.
The interesting thing about the Twilight phenomenon, especially the books (hey, 16% of total book sales in this year's first quarter is not chopped liver), is how unexpected it has been to the large established booksellers and moviemakers. Summit, the producer of Twilight, has been amazed at the movie's huge WORLDWIDE earnings. I would expect that no-one in the movie biz is aware that "Anne of Green Gables" is still selling briskly, more than a century after its first publication. And most of the chatter from the big TV networks assumes that Twilight is all about sex and only sex. They are wrong, of course. But try to explain that to Maher and company.
This disconnect between what Hollywood thinks is 'important', and what so many people KNOW is important, is the raison d'etre for Big Hollywood. The internet is making a huge difference now as it replaces the publicity/distribution networks of yesteryear.
And whiskey, you should read the book before criticizing it.
Once he turns her into a vampire, they'll be together forever!
Wow, John, I didn't see that one coming. I doubt I'll pay full theatre price to see it, (being old and not a teenage girl and all) but I won't run when it turns up on HBO.
John,
So glad to know my initial response to the trailer proved correct! Check out the "Hubba hubba/Zac Efron".
I saw it last night with my kids*. I had no idea that I would be one of three adult males in the theater. I was really expecting to be bored and set my expectations low accordingly.
Was I wrong. The movie was really good. You're right, John, Zac Efron is good and will only get better with age.
The grown up nerd, Ned did make the movie for me. The lightsaber fight was worth the price of admission.
By the way, I suspect that the writer of the movie had his tongue firmly in check with at least one subtle High School Musical reference.
* "Taken" is no longer showing.
i. love. zac. :]
and i loved this movie. it's great to see zac (mmm… zac <3) in a more serious movie (not that this movie was serious… but you know, it's not high school musical or hairspray, it's all acting).
but some of the scenes were a bit creepy when you think about it. (21-year-old zac kissing 38-year-old leslie? yuck… and michelle trachtenberg hitting on her dad? double yuck…. [yes, i know she doesn't know, but still, how awkward :/...])
overall, though, i was repeating over and over again to my friend "he's so hot! he's so hot! he's sooooooooooooooooooooo hotttttt!!" (you get the idea)
and i think she may have gotten a little annoyed :]
love,
erica (who loves zac <3)
Having seen the trailers to 17 Again, the only reason I think Zac Efron might be good in that film is because when I see him talk and act, he reminds me of Matthew Perry. Because Perry, of course, plays Mike as an adult, to have Efron act like Perry in this film works.
What's with the "yesteryear?" These people are largely in the SAME BASIC AGE GROUP.
What's with the "yesteryear?" These people are largely in the SAME BASIC AGE GROUP.
Let's see, John, you have a choice between reviewing a Zac Efron or a Russell Crowe movie — and you pick the "dreamy" High School Musical metrosexual? Somebody needs 8 hours of Clint Eastwood films, stat!
Did you read the review?
He said he felt that Efron had some masculinity.
I highly disagree about Leonardo, actually – have you seen Blood Diaomond? – but I also have to point out that Twilight is not, at heart, promoting teenage abstinence. While I"m really glad to hear that 17 Again does – what a rare turn! – what Twilight does is instead take a different angle in portraying teenagers and teenage lives as sex-obsessed – Bella can't sleep with Edward because if she does, he'll kill her. But there's absolutely nothing to suggest that she WOULDn't sleep with him if she could – in fact, in one of the scenes in the movie, if you remember, only his control over his blood-lust and his fear of killing her stops them. Twilight, in my opinion, is actually even MORE sex-obsessed than most other teen films – because much, if not most, of the romance/romantic tension is created by their physical tension and the boundaries they're forced to stay within. Because they CAN'T sleep together, they are all the more frenetically lust-driven, especially Bella. I'd say that it's very dangerous to tout Twilight as a sample of what teenagers need to see, particularly in terms of how it deals with sex.
Thank you for the review, however – it was quite interesting
Amber –
I can't speak to the film because I did not see it. But I did read the first book and I couldn't agree with you more! Even though they were not sleeping together, it was all about an obsessive lust filled relationship. I had heard this book was so sweet and innocent, but even though there's no actual sex, it's all about the lust of what they can't have. (And as you said, the only thing stopping them is the death thing, not any desire on the part of either one of them to remain abstinent.
I cannot imagine why parents would want their younger kids reading it, let alone their teens. (As if they are not already obsessed enough with sex!)
[...] Again has been hailed as “a big deal” and a “nice movie” , primarily becase it stands as ” openly and sincerely in favor of teenage abstinence.” [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.