In Crowd, The

In Crowd, The is rated PG-13: for violence, sexuality, language and drug content.

This movie is so ridiculous that I can't even begin to offer a plot summary without criticizing it. Henry Thompson (Daniel Hugh Kelly) is a physician at a psychiatric hospital, who has been working with Adrien Williams (Lori Heuring), a patient that developed a sexual obsession as a teenager by fantasizing about her previous psychiatrist who was trying to help her overcome the pain of her parent's divorce. When that doctor didn't return her affection, she remodeled his car with a hockey stick.

But Doc Thompson figures Adrien--just out of her teen years--is now ready to try society again, so he arranges a job for her at a posh seaside resort where a group of hormonally unbalanced, drug using, alcohol addicted young "adults" spend their summers while their wealthy parents pay their booze bills. Obviously the perfect place for a recovering sex addict...

Enter Brittany Foster (Susan Ward), center of the clique, who takes an unusual, almost sexual interest in lowly Adrien. When other members of the opulent peer group (including a professed lesbian) warn Adrien to stay away from Brittany because of her manipulative nature, Adrien attributes their advice to jealousy and class distinction. Besides, Brittany (who is fond of wandering around half-naked, thus providing frontal female nudity in this movie) shows no shortage of interest in the opposite sex too, judging by her not-so-subtle advances toward Doc Thompson, who keeps dropping by to "check up" on Adrien. In fact, the biggest challenge of the script is remembering that only one of these characters was supposed to have a psychological problem.

Degenerating into almost a slasher style thriller, the ludicrous story serves up unnecessary violent and sexual content, implausible chase sequences and horrible acting, in a feeble attempt to teach kids to be wary of the "in crowd." Meanwhile, almost every scene features people holding drinks, including one individual who's supposedly recovering from substance abuse. Consequently this film fits its PG-13 rating about as well as the overflowing bikinis it often portrays.

Studio: (pictures (c)2000 Warner Bros.).

Nathan Bexton, one of the actors in this film, made the follow statement at the movie’s premiere (found at http://in-crowd.warnerbros.com/premiere/ ): “Everyone wants to envision themselves in that fantasy realm, and I guess as a responsible film maker you have to show the consequences there are—which there are—you know… shallow mentality, but Porsche… all the sex you want, but herpes. It’s like, you know, there’s tradeoffs.”

What is implied about wealthy people in Nathan’s comment ... “shallow mentality, but Porsche”? How often do we often see rich people portrayed as negative characters? Why?

Do you feel the filmmakers showed responsibility in their portrayal of consequences for the behaviors they depicted? Are any of these consequences ever shown in a comic or vengeful manner? Many of the lesser characters spend summer after summer doing drugs, sex, and booze. Are the negative outcomes of these lifestyle choices ever portrayed within the movie? If you wrote this film, what consequences would you predict for these characters?

While few teen movies provide better role models than those shown here, you can take a look at possible consequences of some of the lifestyle choices depicted in this film by checking out our review of 28 Days .

Even wide-screen and Dolby Digital can’t save this movie, but the commentary provided by Lori Heuring and Susan Ward is unintentionally revealing, as they laughingly point out many of the fatal flaws within the script.

Their personal reflections about some of the film’s sexual moments are interesting as well. At one point Ward complains of having to wear a sheer top without a bra, yet she exposes her breasts earlier in the movie. In another scene, Heuring wears a nearly transparent bra and complains of her embarrassment in watching the movie with her dad.

An interesting family discussion could be started from the girls’ comments that actresses have no choice in what they wear—they are hired only to read their lines.

Did you know that wardrobe decisions were made by the creative staff of a production and not by the actors? Did you realize that these were conscious, well thought out choices?

Do you think movies like these influence people—young women especially—in what is acceptable attire? Do movies and entertainers affect popular fashion design?

Are actors and actresses really without choice? What consequences might they face if they just said no? What price would you be willing to pay in order to be a star?

For women in show biz, taking your clothes off has long been accepted as a wrung on the ladder of success. How is this perception strengthened every time a movie is made including these elements? Does the audiences’ patronage of these movies encourage more films of this nature?

Could things change if we just said No?