Skipped Parts (2000) Reviews

• Provocative, but credible

  kctexan-12003-08-31

  After seeing Skipped Parts, and reading all the user reviews, I see why so many are repelled by the movie, but I'm one of the ones fascinated by it. In order to care about a movie, I have to care about at least one character, and in this movie, it definitely was the case, with the Sam Callahan young male part. Although it's true that hardly anyone went through what Sam and his young girlfriend went through, it was captivating to me to see Sam want, so much, to be a real boyfriend to his rather matter-of-fact fellow sexual experimenter. I identified his caring for, and attraction to, girls, with my own young life. As for his mom's character: yes, she was waaayy out there, but I have known women like that, so they *do* exist. I think that, overall, Skipped Parts is one of those movies where you have to give in to the situation a little, and go with it. IF (and this is critical) you have been through at least some of the feelings, if not actual situations, these characters experience, I think you'll agree that the 93 minutes, or so, spent in their world is not wasted time (although I think one time was enough for me...too many other great movies out there to see!).

• I laughed very hard and cried a bit too, this one's a keeper.

  RoyBatty-72000-06-10

  Just got back from watching the world premiere of this film at the Seattle International Film Festival. I must say, I enjoyed this movie a great deal. Skipped Parts is a wonder to behold -- outrageously funny, poignant and bold. It never shies away from the tough subjects it covers while at the same time enlightening us with its humor. The acting is top-drawer, Jennifer Jason Leigh is brilliant once again, with standout performances by young Bug Hall and Mischa Barton. I don't want to give any of this one away, but I highly recommend you check it out. A word of caution, if you find sexual banter and activity between 14-year-olds disturbing, do not see this film, it is not for the close-minded. Slated to be released in September 2000.

• Redefining the Family-Skipped Parts a Must See!

  HFenderchick2002-12-15

  Jennifer Jason Leigh knows her stuff. After picking up Skipped Parts off the shelf, my choice based solely on the interest in Jennifer Jason Leigh movies, I was not disappointed by Skipped Parts. A coming of age story of the American family. You can call it dysfunctional but through all of the problems and obstacles this family saw, it seemed to have more love and happiness than the stereotypical suburban, white picket fence family we are so used to seeing in every movie. Jennifer Jason Leigh is spectacular, yet again, and anyone who loves off-beat movies with a heartwarming feeling from a different direction (compared to other movies) this is a must see and ace on my list. Watch it twice then buy it (as I will do shortly)

• Very Good, Very funny, film

  fpf2001-07-03

  I saw the trailer for this film a few times when I was renting some movies and I thought it looked very funny. Then today I saw it at the video store. I picked it up and watched it and loved it. I thought Jennifer Jason Leigh was so hilarious in this movie and she truly stood out as Lydia, Sam's mouthy, slutty mother. Another acting standout was Bug Hall, Mischa Barton and Angela Featherstone. I thought they played there part perfectly, especially the young leads and Leigh. I was also suprised to see Drew Barrymore in a very small role as "Dream Girl". Although it deals with pregnancy and sex with 14 year olds...I still found it very entertaining and if you want to see some very good acting and a good comedy, i recommend this movie very highly. 10/10

• Offensive to the Religious Right?

  jonmeta2006-05-16

  Phrases like "this movie will drive the Religious Right nuts" get a lot of mileage. A number of reviewers have said it about "Skipped Parts". So I'm wondering what the Religious Right really would think of this film if they examined it seriously. First, the storyline suggests that sex education for kids is not a good thing and may have unwanted consequences. The women who give the advice, Lydia and Delores, are pretty unsympathetic characters when they're talking to the adolescents. Are we meant to applaud the way they give explicit details (complete with taco shell, like a silly pantomime of a sex ed class) to 14-year-olds, while withholding the key point of where this might lead? I don't think so, because their recklessness is part of a commonplace theme that runs through the film - the kids are more sensible than the adults - and also because we're shown those consequences later. Lydia and Delores might as well give Sam and Maurey a hand grenade and tell them to play carefully. So score a point for Religious Right family values here. Second, the film doesn't take the view of abortion that the Religious Right might expect from so called "Hollywood liberals". It doesn't present it as a quick and relatively painless way out of a jam, nor does it do any pulpit pounding about the dark days before Roe v Wade. The film could have made Lydia and Delores into proto-feminist heroes, enlightened before their time, but it didn't. In the story, there are two consequences of visiting the abortion clinic and neither one is a guilt free abortion. So score some big points for "family values". Third, the film ends by affirming the stereotypical woman-man-girl-boy family: the waitress, the Indian, the cheerleader, and the precocious young narrator. Sure, the narrator and the cheerleader have a baby, and the waitress is a grandmother before she's thirty. But unless the Religious Right has recently come out against grandchildren being raised by multi- generational families, I fail to see the problem. So what's there to offend the RR, other than the portrayal of Wyoming natives as rodeo loving illiterates? (And that's only offensive –probably -if you're from Wyoming.) Well, there's the scene where the two young teens face each other in their underwear, saying something like, "I think this is how it's done." It was uncomfortable and strange. But a lot of reviewers found it creepy, and I'm sure not all are card-carrying members of the 700 Club. And it doesn't change the fundamental themes of the story outlined above. Lydia's loose morals and rebelliousness are sure to offend the Religious Right, right? Yes, because her actions are *meant* to be offensive: her irresponsible talk, her rambling, self- indulgent rudeness to the welcome lady, her inability to do a stick of work, her cruelty to a man who's much too good for her. The RR is offended and so is everyone else. So maybe, in the movies, actions shouldn't always be judged desirable if they offend conservative Christians. Even the RR is sometimes offended by what's actually offensive. But I digress. The good news is that, as in all traditional morality tales, Lydia comes round in the end. She gets a job, declares independence (rather than just rebellion) from her father, and settles down with a man who loves her. Sure, she's white and he's Native American, but not even the film's illiterate Wyomians are offended by that. That leaves just one theme that seems custom made to offend conservative religious types. The film threatens to undermine parental authority and traditional family values by making the kids more sensible and moral than the adults. In fact, the grown ups are mostly first class hypocrites, as revealed especially in the confrontation at the abortion clinic. Sam, on the other hand, is an example of responsibility and kindness. But wait. I think I've read that somewhere before. Something about religious leaders being blind Pharisees and children being the kingdom of heaven. Yes, that definitely sounds like a deliberate attempt to offend the Religious Right.