Loser

Release Date: July 21st, 2000

Cast :

Directors: Amy Heckerling

Somebody stop Amy Heckerling and tell her to quit while she is ahead.  She capitalized on the playful aspect of the teen angst phenomenon of John Hughes in the 80s with Fast Times at Ridgemont High.  Then she showed a deft transition into the 90s with Clueless.  Now, as her characters would grow and mature, she too attempts to step things up to the next level with Loser.  Unfortunately, she falls victim to the tendencies of the films which she inspired.  From Pretty in Pink and Some Kind of Wonderful, through She’s All That, Heckerling takes what could have been a lighthearted teen romance and turns it into regurgitated mush.

The movie begins innocently enough.  Paul is a small town boy, headed of to the big city.  The early family scenes are touching in their naiveté, but unoriginal in their devices.  Flashbacks to Secret of My Success would not be unwarranted.  Upon arrival in New York City, he meets the most clichéd group of characters this side of network television.  There is the struggling girl, sleeping with her professor, and moonlighting to make it through school.  Her ultimate matching with Paul is so painfully obvious, that everyone but the two of them see it.  Standing in their way are several ridiculous hurdles.  Paul’s stereotyped roommates, who party too much, don’t study enough, yet still seem to stay in school.  Finally, there is the incredulous professor, played with delicious wickedness by Greg Kinnear, doing what he does best, be a jerk.  Add all this up, and the result is a movie where the only mystery remaining, is when these two clueless folks will realize they love each other, and how many rehashed situations is the audience forced to sit through before they do. It plays like a series of similarly themed “Paul Goes To College” skits, complete with cameos.  Act 1, he attempts to adapt.  Act 2, he meets the girl Act 3, girl and guy can’t be together, can only be friends.  Act 4, the two realize they love each other, happily ever after, hit the lights.  In between, for comic relief the roommates who exist obviously exist as foils to Paul’s plans and to exploit his unhipness and Kinnear as his romantic foil.

Unfortunately Heckerling falls into so many cinematic traps, that it is hard to imagine that she ever had an original thought during this film.  She steals shamelessly from the current trend of teen movies, the stereotypical love story, and the small-town meets big city culture clash to just name a few.  The result is a film that cannot help but be a cute and harmless tale, with its hip and adorable stars, but like her previous film, is ultimately clueless.

It is impossible not to fall in love with Biggs and Suvari.  They are adorable, they have a great chemistry and they have a cinematic following based on previous successes.  What they don’t have is a decent movie to showcase all of these benefits.  These two deserve another script, with the emotional touch and intelligence of American Beauty, and the lighthearted but relatable humor of American Pie.  A slightly refreshing touch is Heckerling’s use of cameos.  Comedians Steven Wright (a personal favorite), Bobby Slayton, Taylor Negron, SCTV alumnus Andrea Martin, David Spade all prove that in small doses, this film can work, but as a whole, the failure is glaringly obviously and disappointing.  Even Mark Ratner from Fast Times makes an appearance, showing that those TBS royalty checks must not be sufficient anymore. Heckerling touches on some curious social issues, with scenes about excessive drinking, teacher student relations, and date-rape drugs.  Unfortunately these are used to merely set up and progress the inevitable rather than being the social commentary that they should have been.

Ultimately, Loser lives up to its name by trying to capitalize on previous successes, both by the director, and the star, and failing to generate any originality.  Films like She’s All That and Can’t Hardly Wait, showed that it is possible to take a predicitible premise and infuse it with some new blood and ideas, on the way to cinematic success.  Had this film veered at least once from the beaten path, tread by so many of its predecessors, it might have stood a chance.  Instead it takes everything from Romantic Movie 101, Teen Love Story 101, and Fish Out of Water 110, and combines to make a confusing muddled mess.  So rarely do films titles foreshadow their ultimate results, save Dumb and Dumber and The Stupids, but Loser is how the audience feels for wasting two hours that could have been better spent on say, studying, or watching a better film. ($ out of $$$$)

Agree? Disagree, Questions? Comments?

Tell Me Here

Also see my reviews at:

Cast information and links courtesy of

Go To Reel Rambling Page