Sorority Boys (2002) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski)

Sorority Boys is the usual awful grade-b fraternity stuff which tries to capture the spirit of Animal House and fails. In a tip of the hat to the Belushi masterpiece, it even features Flounder's old nemesis, the evil Niedermeyer (Mark Metcalf), who is now old enough to be playing the evil dad of an evil frat guy. Time does fly.

The basic plot:

Three colorful characters are ejected from the frat on a frame-up. They end up dressing like girls and bedding down in a sorority - in full drag. As usual when this premise occurs in films, the cross-dressers learn about the abuse that women must endure at the hands of scumbags like themselves.

Unfortunately, where the Delta House was rowdy, the Kappa House  (KOK - Kappa Omicron Kappa, of course) is just mean-spirited most of the time. The film isn't very funny and has more than a touch of uncomfortable misogyny. The New Times critic called it, "Not only unfunny, but downright repellent", and I tend to agree. On the serious side, its "lessons" and "character growth" are a re-hash of material covered earlier and better by other films.

Rent "100 Girls" instead, or watch some old episodes of "Bosom Buddies".

NUDITY REPORT
Barry Watson and four anonymous guys show their butts.

There is miscellaneous female nudity, but it is generally disappointing and a cop-out. One was a breast close-up with no head. One was out of focus. One was an anonymous girl on a tape-within-the-movie. The only worthwhile scene is a wet t-shirt scene resulting from a sprinkler prank.
In the interest of fairness. I have to admit that the film did have some youth appeal - note the Demographics from IMDB :
age score
below 18 7.0
18-29 5.6
30-44 4.8
above 44 3.3
 

The Critics Vote

  • General consensus: one star. Ebert .5/4, filmcritic.com 2/5

The People Vote ...

  • with their dollars: It generated no heat at the box office. Made for $12 million dollars, it grossed $10 million.
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.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, I must regretfully say it is a C- by our definition. It's a poor movie, as indicated by the summaries at RT and Metacritic, but a lot of young guys at amazon.com and imdb.com thought it was funny! C- appears to be the right grade, but I didn't like it at all (a reaction which was typical for my own age group).

Return to the Movie House home page