Wizard-8
The title of this movie really begs a snappy comeback, but I won't do it. Anyway, this is the movie that severely derailed John Travolta's career for a number of years before "Pulp Fiction" brought him back. I'm not sure what (a miscast) Travolta was thinking, because at the script level alone the movie suffers from some major faults. It's not just that his character is pretty unlikable, but that the character is unlikable in an uninteresting manner. You'll keep hoping he'll get his comeuppance, but he never really does. Another problem is that the movie is much too long and too slow. The thin central story is padded out with subplots and unnecessary details. Also, while I certainly understand this was a 1985 movie, the way that fads and technology are presented in the movie feels both quite dated and silly. It's hard to believe that "Rolling Stone" magazine allowed the filmmakers to use their brand in this miscalculation. Wonder what "Rolling Stone" film critic Peter Travers thought of this movie.
rivau319
This film was definitely the final nail in Travolta's metaphorical coffin having been preceded by 'Staying Alive' and 'Two of a Kind'. Upon first viewing of the film, I was dumbstruck to find what I thought was Travolta acting poorly and the story seemed to be absolutely forgettable and pointless! But after persevering with the movie a couple of times more, I enjoyed it. I even changed my mind on Travolta's performance and realised what he actually tried to do-a mixture of anger, frustration, fatigue, mild charm-all of which are attributed to a workaholic Rolling Stone journalist such as his character Adam. The music has a pulsating beat although I do admit some songs on the film's soundtrack are better than others but the music does seem to carry this film along. Curtis is dazzling in her role as the 'Aerobics Pied Piper.'(Her sexy body and amazing legs are a plus for this movie.) Jann Wenner deserves special mention even though he's probably playing himself considering he was then the editor and now owner of Rolling Stone Magazine. This is a real 80s movie, and a strange theme involving both journalism and aerobics somehow merging together. Travolta and Curtis both do a great job in their roles bringing a contrast of characters in their relationship. I didn't however like the beginning or ending credits at all. The beginning was just basic and static-a list of credits against a plain background. The ending wasn't great either--Berlin's 'Masquerade' song (which is, in my opinion, a weak link in the film's soundtrack), plays on while ALL of the key characters do aerobics...Is that realistic? Bizarre. I rather liked it when Curtis meets Travolta at the end and they drive off. There, is when it should have ended. But I guess all in all, an entertaining mid-80s movie.
NixonNow
OK, I know this is a bad, bad movie. It's not like I have any "diamond in the rough" illusions about this actually being a good movie that's merely misunderstood. So why is it that I watch it every time it's on? I honestly love watching this film!Maybe it's the dated 80s setting and the "studly" guys that look utterly homosexual now. Perhaps it's the great lines, like Anne De Salvo looking directly into the camera and saying, "C'mon, guys, make me suffer," or Matthew Reed (in his one and only screen role) saying, "It was love at first sight. I took one look at those tits and my whole body got hard!" It could be John Travolta going through his aerobics routine with a sock in his jock, or Larraine Newman straddling the leg-spreader, proving that not every woman looks sexy in a leotard.Of course there's Jamie Lee Curtis calling Travolta a "sphincter muscle" three different times. There's also Jann Wenner gyrating his fat gut during the closing credits. How about the pointless scene where hundreds of Boy George fans storm the hotel, or Curtis "deleting" Travolta's article by merely backspacing (What kind of word processor is that)? There's even the premise that Rolling Stone is a serious news magazine - HAW HAW HAW!I seriously can't recommend paying money for this, but it's worth a watch if it comes on a local channel just for the sheer badness of it all. This is the definitive nadir of Travolta's career (check that...it is better than Battlefield Earth, but what isn't?) After this, even Look Who's Talking Now looks brilliant.
straka1962
I too have seen this movie, many times. I agree it is not Travolta or Curtis' best work but it was not meant to be Academy Award caliber. It is what it is, a fluff movie that fit the time it was made. I was an aerobics instructor at the time and enjoyed the movie. It is still fun now to look back at the hair and clothes and hear the music. What generation can look back and not say to themselves "what was I thinking wearing that?!" Curtis has never looked better-well maybe in the movie with Arnold when she did her little dance and who does not mind looking at Travolta for 90 minutes or so?Travolta, for all intensive purposes, plays the same character in each movie so why are we ever surprised. Curtis was trying to shed her 'flat chested, school girl in jeopardy' image and did a good job of it.
AD
