Threesome (1994) from Tuna and Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Tuna's comments in white: 

Threesome (1994) is a romantic coming of age story about three college students who end up sharing a bathroom in a dormitory suite. Stuart (Stephen Baldwin) is a slob and womanizer who had hoped to have a room to himself until Eddy (Josh Charles) arrived as his roommate. Eddy is quiet, sensitive, intelligent, and not much interested in women. Still, they find a way to get along. Then, one day, Alex (Lara Flynn Boyle) moves into the other room of the suite, sharing a common bathroom. Seems the school computer had her as male, and the housing woman refuses to believe she is a woman, and says there is no place to put her even if she could prove it.

What starts out as a battle and a turf war soon turns into Stuart falling in lust with Alex, Alex developing a real thing for Eddy, and Eddy's
realization that he is more interested in Stuart then Alex. The three become inseparable. They all try to help each other sort out their love lives and discover their sexuality, and soon find that nobody is even remotely interesting to them but each other.

Maltin and Ebert award 3 stars, while Berardinelli says that romantic comedies almost never work, and this is no exception. He gives two stars.
IMDB readers have it at 6.0/10, which is a respectable range for a comedy. Lara is sexy throughout, even to having a climax fully dressed on a library table, but manages to hide her nipples through a shower scene, a three-way sex scene, and a daylight skinny-dipping scene. She does show her buns several times, and the side of her breasts. There is also a pretty good pokie in a white t-shirt. An unknown actress shows a lovely pair of breasts in bed with Stuart. 

Scoop's notes in yellow: 

The general feeling was two and a half stars, and I guess that's right, although it isn't consistently mediocre, as that rating might imply. In some ways it was weak, and the first half is slow and unrealistic.

In the final analysis, however, I thought it was not bad at all. It drew on some real deep strengths to counter the weaknesses.

NUDITY REPORT

see the main text for female nudity.

Josh Charles and Stephen Baldwin do not show the whole Monty, but both expose their butts in the skinny-dipping scene and, briefly, elsewhere.

The premise is completely contrived, of course. It boils down to this: two men, one gay and one straight, share a suite with a straight woman. She loves the sensitive guy, who is attracted to the straight guy, who is attracted to the girl. So it goes. 

The characterizations in the script weren't any better than the premise. Baldwin's part is an absurdly unintelligent, unrealistic, party animal, but we are led to believe he finds these great waves of sympathy and compassion within him, to the point where he even puts the gay guy's hand on his butt in the three-way. So, I wouldn't give the writer credit for a sensible premise or realistic characters, and the dialogue seemed pretentious, whether delivered in actual dialogue or by the irritating voice-over which tells us that all this happened in the past.

As a result, I was generally bored by the first half of the movie, and even a bit irritated by some of the characters and situations, major and minor. The only saving grace was some earthy humor which got me to laugh out loud a couple of times.

Then something jelled. These three actors started to pull the whole thing together by finding a way to express their joy in each other's company, and their love for one another, all without forcing it. Baldwin had the most unrealistic character, but he found a way to make it come alive in the second half, and by the time the film was over I thought I was watching three real people. 

I have to give these actors a lot of credit. They obviously really liked each other and the material, they milked every scene for all it was worth, and eventually they got me enjoying it as much as they did.

DVD info from Amazon.

  • Widescreen anamorphic, 1.85:1

  • alternate ending with director's comments

  • no other major features

Nobody will confuse this with a Salinger story, although they reference that author at length, but it has some of the same type of internal logic, in that the three of them build a special world, from which they lock out everyone else except those of us watching the film. Ultimately with a coming of age story, I ask myself whether it contained real characters and whether I enjoyed seeing their story on screen. In the first half of the movie I wasn't prepared to deliver two "aye's", but by the end, I was ready to answer in the affirmative. 

Although the movie ends with a voice-over, it doesn't try to draw any pat conclusions or teach any lessons. It just kinda says, "We stayed in touch for a while, then not, you know how it is. Those moments - we just needed them at the time". The DVD has the original ending as well, a much clumsier scene which they wisely re-shot. I enjoyed seeing the two endings, one after another, and thinking about why the filmmakers changed their minds.

Kudos to the actors for molding the material into something they could work with. 

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus: two and a half stars. Ebert 3/4, Berardinelli 2/4, Maltin 3.

The People Vote ...

  • With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 6.0
  • With their dollars ... so-so. It took in $15 million domestic 
IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

Return to the Movie House home page