Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Hattie I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Bill Phillips Most of this movie seems a bit dated, and, on the boys' parts, overacted. As well, after 45 years, seeing it again, I realize that Jennifer O'Neill is not that great an actress, well, until the awesome ending. And, what a shock to discover that now at 70, she has been married nine times. What does that matter? Nothing really, but I had lived most of my life imagining her as she was in this movie, young, beautiful, and mesmerizing. In spite of all the above, the last episode of the movie is so powerful and so well acted by both O'neill and the kid that it will forever remain a classic movie. And, what a coda to discover that it really happened to the writer, and the letter read at the end was the real letter the writer had read as a kid. Can't forget as well that this movie would probably never been as successful without Michel Legrand's musical theme. Of course, this movie could never be made today, just as Pretty Baby could never be made (Hollywood has yet to do a total "mea culpa" on its child exploitation,) Call it what you want, this is still a story of a wiser, older woman taking advantage of a younger clueless 15 year old. In the true story the kid (the screenwriter) was actually 14. It doesn't matter that half the 15 yr old boys in American would gladly be exploited in this manner. But, if you're honest, that's also part of the problem. In spite of this, the movie is still one of my guilty pleasures, and is, I suspect, the same for most men. I have no idea what women think of it. As an aside, it has some outstanding comedy. The drugstore scene is a stand alone vignette. And to add to its credentials, this film was directed by Robert Mulligan of To Kill a Mockingbird.

BobbyT24 I remember watching this in high school. It was one of those "wish I was Hermie" moments with one look at Jennifer O'Neill. I think any teenage boy would fall in love/lust with just one look at her. If you would have asked my IMDb score when I was 15, my answer would have been 10 out of 10."Nostalgia is one helluva drug," as the saying goes...The cinematography was exquisite. The settings, magnificent. Of course, the music is still timeless. Jennifer O'Neill... extraordinarily luminous. However... If movies have a shelf life, this one's expired somewhere in the early-80s. What I never considered about this movie was just how poorly written and acted this story really was as a film. My understanding is this was based on a true encounter for the author. I'm sure he had wonderful memories of that lady. I wish those memories would have been translated into a more enjoyable viewing experience. I don't know who cast this movie in 1971, but the actors acted like an early-'70s beginning actors' workshop. All were stiff, forced and delivered lines like they read the simplistic script off-screen, stepped in front of the camera and regurgitated those basic words or tried to improv the rest. There was no chemistry between Hermie and Dorothy. The three friends were as dopey as they were supposed to be funny and charming. The dialogue delivered throughout could have been written by a horny, male teenager who wanted to impress his WWII-era teacher without studying language truly spoken in 1942. When everyone looks like they are acting in a school play with just beautiful scenery behind them... you get my drift. The music, however, sets a gorgeous tone. I'd forgotten the theme piece plays throughout. It's beautiful melody weaves a spell over the audience to understand young love and all it's charm. The score most assuredly stands the test of time.The movie's coming-of-age story is sweet, lovely, full of nostalgia... but not innocent. As other reviewers have stated on this site, this is statutory rape by the stunning female lead. We can't gloss over that fact, as beautiful as the scenery surely is. Sure, Dorothy is exceedingly sad and effervescent. Sure, Hermie has been chasing and dreaming about her since the film's opening shot. Sure, the island is one romantic location after another in a lost time we all reminisce about in our dreams... but she's still a pedophile in her actions. Every underage person has had a crush on an older person. It's unlawful for the older person to act on it. The story also had to only have been written by a male. If this would have been a female's perspective, having a 20-something widower taking advantage of a smitten 15yo girl would have a completely different reaction from the audience, no matter the era this movie was filmed.The final line in the movie sums up how basic the storyline is: "In the Summer of '42,... Benji broke his watch, Oski gave up the harmonica, and in a very special way, I lost Hermie... forever." The entire movie just felt... basic. I wanted to love this movie again. I NEEDED to love it again. But some things can't catch their original magic once you open the bottle a second time.I would only recommend this to people who want a sweet look at 1942 New England island life with a haunting melody playing you into a trance. It's very beautiful, serene and worth the trip into our past for that portion of the movie. If you're looking to reminisce about a great story from your childhood, you'll be disappointed. My recommendation: Buy the soundtrack - preferably with a cover featuring Jennifer O'Neill's lovely face. Sit in a quiet room near the ocean with the music playing in the background. And reminisce about lost time and your own lost loves for the soundtrack's entirety. You will be rewarded far more than watching this film. I'm sad this viewing robbed me of a beautiful memory in my youth. Sometimes, nostalgia is better left in the past, much like this movie should have been.

disinterested_spectator In a way, this movie is a companion piece with "The Way We Were" (1973). As I noted in my review of that movie, the scene where Katie first has sex with Hubbell challenges our attitude about rape and the double standard. In that case, it had to do with having sex with someone too drunk to have given consent. "Summer of '42," on the other hand, challenges our attitude about rape and the double standard when it comes to having sex with someone too young to have given consent.With both movies, we pretty much have the same three time periods: the 1940s, when the movies were set; the early 1970s, when the movies were made; and today, when we watch them from the perspective of the twenty-first century. In "Summer of '42," a 15-year-old boy named Hermie falls in love with a 22-year-old woman named Dorothy. One evening, she gets word that her husband's plane has been shot down over France, and he is dead. She and Hermie have sex, and the next day she is gone.I never really cared for this movie, but that is neither here nor there. The sense of it was that Dorothy, in her grief, turns to Hermie for affection, and that what happens is a deeply meaningful and positive experience for him. Now, I don't know what the laws were in Massachusetts in 1942, but I am pretty sure that in most states, if a 22-year-old man had sex with a 15-year-old girl, he would be guilty of statutory rape, and if found out would be sent to prison, especially when the jury was told that he had sex with her on the very night he found out his wife had been killed, for that would make him seem callous. Should we condemn the man but excuse the woman? Did Dorothy deserve to go to prison for rape, just as a man would?Once again, as with "The Way We Were," we have a situation in which there is consent after the fact, in this case, when the boy becomes a man. Does that matter? And if it does, what would our attitude toward Dorothy be if the adult Hermie was psychologically harmed? And once again we have to distinguish between the attitudes existing when the movie was set, when it was made, and the attitudes we have today.Even today, the double standard lends itself to late-night humor. Typical was when Jay Leno was discussing a story about a female teacher that had sex with one of her male students, leading Leno to ask in exasperation, "Where were these teachers when I was in Junior High?" Humor aside, could "Summer of '42" be made today? More to the point, could such a story be told in a contemporary setting? Probably not. But I wonder if that represents a genuine change in attitude, or simply a fear that the movie would not be well received. I, for one, would have a hard time condemning Dorothy, even if the story were set in the present, just as I would have a hard time condemning Katie for what she did to Hubbell, even if the story were set in the present.

joy-106-307514 Warning! Spoilers in this review. I was young and naive when I saw this film. About 15 years old I think. It truly both educated me, and changed my life. This was the first time I became aware that others had feelings comparable to the ones that I had. The scene where Hermie has to buy the rubbers is hilarious. The druggist was perfectly casted. It's hard to imagine nowadays that it used to be against the law to sell condoms to people under a certain age. Anyway, I strongly suggest reading the book before seeing the movie. It allows you to know what thoughts are going through Hermie's head throughout the film. For instance, there is one scene where he is holding the ladder as she puts items in the attic. In the film you simply see him smiling and appearing nervous. In the book there are probably two full pages of description of what he is thinking at that moment.