Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Fluke_Skywalker Plot; A young pre-law student from the Midwest (C. Thomas Howell) spends the Summer in L.A. working for his Uncle's firm.While serving an eviction notice, he meets a washed up beach volleyball player (Peter Horton), forming an unlikely friendship that eventually leads to the two of them entering a high stakes beach volleyball tournament.'Side Out' is insultingly contrived--even for the genre--and beyond stupid. Its limited appeal lies in the trappings of its era (released in 1990, but a total 80s movie through and through) and whatever charm its game cast can scrape from the bottom of its barrel.

SnoopyStyle Law student Monroe Clark (C. Thomas Howell) from Milwaukee moves to L.A. to work for his rich real estate lawyer Uncle Max. He's given a job to serve eviction notices. One of the tenants is beach volleyball player Zack Barnes (Peter Horton). He was the original local king of volleyball but he has been spiraling downwards. His business partner Kate Jacobs (Harley Jane Kozak) is tired of him but there's more to their relationship. The new king is Rollo Vincent. Monroe befriends local Wiley Hunter and falls for Samantha (Courtney Thorne-Smith). Monroe and Wiley play in a tournament and Zack comes in to coach them.C. Thomas Howell is not a believable volleyball stud. On top of that, his character is not appealing at all. I think he's trying to be Tom Cruise but he's no Tom Cruise. His kissing scene with CTS made me involuntarily laugh. Peter Horton does have that washed-up beach bum vibe. This is all terribly cheesy and it's not the fun type of cheese. This is bad.

michiganguy28 This movie is perfect.. If you do not like this movie then you are not a beach volleyball player. This movie provides the viewer with everything needed for a great plot... I can watch this movie everyday and want to hit the beach. An instant classic......If you think this movie is not good, then you are not a volleyball player or failed to be any good...Peter Horton plays an excellent part of an aging classic player... The cast is made up of a lot of pro volleyball players as it should be. If i had anything bad to say about this movies is that its not 2 hours long. I would have liked to see more volleyball practicing between Horton and Howell as student and teacher... Over all movie is A+++++++....

tedg Spoilers herein.Sometimes the only value or pleasure you can get out of a film is to speculate on how you can make it better.Here is the old saw about a washed up athlete coming back and winning the championship. Naturally a love interest also has role in the business. Naturally, there is youngster to coach.The discriminator this time around was, I suppose, buff male volleyball players. But everything is so uninspired it makes my head hurt.However, this could have been a really good film because of the nature of the game. Every interesting filmmaker gets around to a sports film sooner of later. The `large team' sports are all about masses of people moving about, so when Oliver Stone gets involved, you get an interesting cinematic experience that has little to do with the game and everything to do with the choreography of movement.Boxing is something else that has been explored well, starting with Chaplin 80 years ago and peaking (for now) with `Raging Bull' which explored many approaches to engaging us in sharing the ring. Stallone exploited that as well. In these films, the handling of the sport is the excuse for everything in these films, and a worthy reason for a visual outing.Beach volleyball is an interesting, untapped opportunity. It is highly dimensional; the movement of the game involves people moving as individuals and small groups and in a way unencumbered by equipment and costumes. It has confrontation and collaboration. It can be sexual, at least superficially so. (Athletics and sex are contradictory.) In filmmaking terms, volleyball is cheap; all you need is a talented visual eye, some `athletic' cameramen and corresponding equipment and a clued in editor.So why haven't we seen for volleyball something as exciting as `Blue Crush,' which was far more challenging logistically?How would you approach this? Supposing you kept exactly the same script and actors, you might try adding two types of shots:--As it is, the contest itself has no identity beyond showing the scoreboard. But remember how in `Hoosiers' and `Cool Runnings' the contest itself was developed as a character? Remember how in `Slap Shot' and the first `Rollerball' the contest was as much with this character as with the opponents? So we'd need some shots that do this by assembling visions of all the mechanisms which define the contest: the ads, the promoters, and (in sweet self-reference) the TeeVee industry. mise-en-scene.--Far more challenging is to solve the problem of the eye at least as well as Scorsese did with `Bull,' something he borrowed from `Red Shoes.' We'd need two perspectives: one placed in the court and shifting between points of view and moving shots of the dynamics of the two players' strategic placement. After all, the idea is high speed chess to get the other folks where they do not want to be and exploit it. Unless we see the space, we can't relate to the game. The other type of shot is the ball, similarly ranging from on the ball (as a player of sorts) to dynamically tracking its trajectory. After all, the ball is incredibly fickle in whose side it is on, and this can exploited visually. I think a lot of this can more cheaply be done with a computer. Lots of slow motion of differing speeds. Some `matrix-like' freezed rotations.A ripe opportunity. Who will try it after the box office success of `Blue Crush.'Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.