Desperately Seeking Susan

Keith Harper Jr.
Desperately Seeking Susan
Year of Film Release: 1985
TRT: 104 Minutes
Language: English
Director: Susan Seidelman
No awards

Desperately Seeking Susan was a different type of movie for myself. In the era of the "No Wave" this film was considered a B-Rated movie. The movie is mainly about a post in the classified ad . Where Susan (the main character) would post in the classifieds so the person she was desperately seeking could find her. Arquette notices these posting and becomes curious to who Susan is seeking. With these occurrences happening the plot starts to reverse roles and the story seems to get crazy. The roles are played well by both of the main characters which are interesting because of their backgrounds.

The first article I read was " Desperately Seeking Susan" by Roger Ebert. He seemed to enjoy the film. Noting that it is about a character Susan who places classified ads seeking someone. And that Arquette grows interested in classified ads and follows Susan. Roger likes to point out that the movie does not move with the self-confidence that its complicated plot requires. The film seems to have so many convoluted ideas but ends up working out in the end with the reversing plots. According toa apolloguide.com Director Susan Seidelman and screenwriter Leora Barish have created a new-fashioned screwball comedy, one that combines improbable elements, from ancient Egyptian artifacts and dead mobsters to stage magic and downtown New York chic, with classic conceits like mistaken identity and romantic conundrums: Should Roberta return home to dorky hubby Gary (Mark Blum), the “Spa King of New Jersey,” or let herself fall in love with funky Dez? The entire cast has a ball with this delightfully original madcap confection: Quinn and Arquette are terrific together; Madonna oozes the seductively sleazy and yet somehow still innocent charm of her original incarnation, all fishnet and visible bras, junk jewellery, and devil-may-care attitude; Laurie Metcalf is a hoot as Gary’s Stepfordesque sister; and Will Patton, as the requisite bad guy who also thinks Roberta is Susan, does what would become his usual sleaze ball routine with gusto. And John Turturro and comedian Stephen Wright have fun with small parts.

The two articles kind of changed my perspective of the movie, because mainly I wasn't the biggest fan. They both pointed out key points in the movie that made sense to why things were done in the fashion they were done in the movie. Like the style the movie was done in was excessive because everything in the 1980s was excessive. That was just how they did things in that time frame. That was there way of expressing themselves.

Overall i thought the movie was kind of chessy and boring. It was like one knew what was going to happen. I know for the time periode being the 80's the directer did whaetver they could do but the story could have been told and shown better. I didn't like the ending with the bad guy after Susan getting clocked and in the head and that was it. I still would recommend people to see it if they were really into the 80's other than that i would pass. But good pick Dr. Mirrer.

work cited:
roger ebert.com
apollomoviereviews.com