X
- 1985
- R
- Columbia Pictures
- 1 h 50 m
- 1985
- R
- Columbia Pictures
- 1 h 50 m
Summary The film that defined the "Brat Pack". A group of recent Georgetown grads in the Washington DC area struggles to get on with their lives and with each other.
Directed By: Joel Schumacher
Written By: Carl Kurlander, Joel Schumacher
- 1985
- R
- Columbia Pictures
- 1 h 50 m
- 1985
- R
- Columbia Pictures
- 1 h 50 m
St. Elmo's Fire
35
6.8
Where to Watch
Summary The film that defined the "Brat Pack". A group of recent Georgetown grads in the Washington DC area struggles to get on with their lives and with each other.
Directed By: Joel Schumacher
Written By: Carl Kurlander, Joel Schumacher
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Generally Unfavorable
Based on 15 Critic Reviews
35
20% Positive
3 Reviews
3 Reviews
33% Mixed
5 Reviews
5 Reviews
47% Negative
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
Metascore
Generally Unfavorable
Based on 15 Critic Reviews
35
20% Positive
3 Reviews
3 Reviews
33% Mixed
5 Reviews
5 Reviews
47% Negative
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
Well written, well made, well acted, St. Elmo's Fire is a quintessential film about the strange middleground between youth and adulthood.
Despite the often skewed story, performances under Joel Schumacher's intelligent direction are spirited and on-the-mark, most notably that of Lowe as the caddish pretty boy and Moore as the frazzled coker. The other leads: Estevez, McCarthy, Sheedy, Winningham and Nelson all deserve plaudits for their credible contributions.
Cowriter and director Joel Schumacher keeps things moving, skipping adroitly from one narrative thread to another. Well he should, since it's unlikely any of the subplots could have stood on their own, and very few penetrate deeper into the human condition than the average magazine advertisement.
St. Elmo's Fire is most appealing when it simply gives the actors a chance to flirt with the camera, and with one another. When it attempts to take seriously the problems of characters who are spoiled, affluent and unbearably smug, it becomes considerably less attractive.
Beyond occasional mutterings of words like ‘love’ and ‘beer,’ there’s never any explanation in the dialog that would hint at motivation.
The most remarkable failure of the film is that the principals don't seem even to like each other very much, despite their habit of facing the future arm in arm. There's a lot of cute flesh up on the screen, signifying nothing. [28 June 1985, p.D1]
Estevez and Nelson are as unappealing here as in The Breakfast Club, though in fairness they're hampered by a script that seems to despise its characters. So, by the end, will you.
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 12 User Ratings
6.8
58% Positive
7 Ratings
7 Ratings
33% Mixed
4 Ratings
4 Ratings
8% Negative
1 Rating
1 Rating
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 12 User Ratings
6.8
58% Positive
7 Ratings
7 Ratings
33% Mixed
4 Ratings
4 Ratings
8% Negative
1 Rating
1 Rating
There are no user reviews yet. Be the first to add a review.
