Semi-Tough (1977)

Very well executed

The greatest movie ever!

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

The majority of Michael Ritchie's early films focused on the competitiveness and ruthlessness of a then contemporary United States. Be it "Downhill Racer" (1969), "Bad News Bears" (1976), "Smile" (1975) or "The Candidate" (1972), all his films during this period are explicitly about competition, American institutions and individuals who put their personal goals (and/or profits) before a team, community or group (or vice versa).One of Ritchie's weakest films, "Semi Tough" is a shapeless and abrasive satire which focuses on the world of American Foodball. Ritchie takes aim at obsessions with winning, self-help programmes, health fads and the vanity and vacuity of the self-obsessed. His overall target, though, is a more generalised form of "self-improvement". American capitalism itself hinges on a certain unquenchable, existential lack. The consumer is always unfulfilled, always in need of completion, an anxiety which capitalism incessantly creates desires to exploit. Failures to attain contentment are then transfered back to the subject, leading to guilt and an escalation of transfered desires; maybe the next hit will bring completion. Elsewhere the film watches as children of the 1960s struggle in their search for meaning a decade after vague promises of liberation collapsed. What they latch onto is essentially a New Age cult which mixes narcissism and individualism with corporate maxims. Other Ritchie themes are brought up - the costs and violence of winning, exacted on both winners and losers etc - but it all feels forced, Ritchie trying too hard to be the next Altman. Tonally, the film struggles to juggle comedy, satire and drama."Semi Tough" is criticised for being smug and abrasive, but that's understandable, considering it's populated by smug, abrasive and self-obsessed characters. The film would begin Ritchie's slide into more mainstream, forgettable territory. Robert Altman's similarly themed "HEALTH" was released one year later.5/10 - Worth one viewing.

OK, the movie isn't that great. The plot was confusing and the character's relationships weren't too clearly explored. Also, it wasn't particularly funny nor entertaining and the sub-plot was rather typical and plain. On the whole, not a movie I would sit down for entertainment.But what has got me about this film is the way Burt Reynolds character becomes; laid-back, relaxed, unjudgemental, wise and very respectable. That in itself gave me the image of who I want to be, a man who is laid-back, honest and unjudgemental, a man who is wise and respectable. No doubt, I will try to spend my life becoming that man.

People don't seem to know how to respond to this movie. The people whowant "Smokey and the Bandit" think it's weird and not funny; the peoplewho want "Scenes from a Marriage" think it's sophomoric. Well, it isweird and occassionally sophomoric, but it is very, very funny in anunderhanded, ironic way - and also in an over-the-top goofball way. Youbetter be prepared for different kinds of jokes coming at youunexpectedly. This obviously big-budget studio comedy has more in commonwith discursive satires like "Smile" or "Nashville" than other studiocomedies of the period, although it is far more well-made and plottythan either "Nashville" or "Smile": I think it's the best of both worldssatire and spontaneity wrapped up in a comfy old-fashioned romanticcomedy. Think "My Man Godfrey" with four letter words and football. It'strue the characters do not have exactly novelistic depth, but surelyCarole Lombard's character in "Godfrey" was as thin as a pancake - butit didn't matter because Lombard was playing her, and she made up indizzy star-power what the writers left out. Here Jill Clayburg is theLombard part, a real star at the top of her game, radiating star-poweredcharm. Matching her watt for watt is Burt Reynolds, perfectly cast, andable to make the odd-ball anti-intellectualisms of the writing soundperfectly effortless. Kris Kristofferson is in the Ralph Bellamy part -the guy whose job it is to get jilted - but he oozes a full-bore sexualmagnetism that makes the heroine's confusion perfectly understandable.This is real neglected gem - you shall recognize it for the dunces arein a c

Jenkins's novel is one of the funniest books ever written, and THE funniest sports novel. The movie is a total trashing of Jenkins's work. It retains only the title, the names of a few of the characters, none of the book's plot, and none of its humor. The storyline bears absolutely no resemblance to the book. Billy Clyde's diary of the week leading to the Super Bowl, with all its hilarity, has been replaced by a silly look at self-improvement fads and crazes and Gene Autry music. Reynolds and Kristofferson are not believable as professional football players, although Kris would have been a great Elroy Blunt, had that important character been retained from the book. The problem was that Jenkins lost control of the scriptwriting. When the scene in which Billy Clyde and Shake are discussing their rating system for women was written, it used the Dudley Moore scale of 1-10, with 10 being tops. Jenkins informed the director that in the book, the scale went the other way, with a "1" being the top vote. He was informed, "This is the movie!"I give this one a "1", using the movie's scale.