natswim Okay, so I watched this when I was a lot younger and I enjoyed it at the time. However, after re-watching it at a more mature age, I'm shocked at how I didn't notice how alarming some of the stuff in this film is! First of all, how can a movie that is so highly regarded have an incidence of rape that is completely glossed over and considered "okay"?? Why are none of the characters even slightly alarmed by what happens? I was honestly surprised by how racist and sexist this movie is. Shocked at how people can watch this without being alarmed.

rhiadejong I'm gonna start with the good stuff though it is few and far between. First of all, the main character, Samantha, was a pretty well drawn character. She is 3 dimensional as main characters are meant to be. She is also pretty funny and relatable. The second was the wedding scene that was pretty funny. But that's about it in terms of good stuff.Now the bad stuff. I had to watch this film for media studies and it made me feel physically sick, it was a completely revolting film. Now I'm gonna tell you why there are two MAJOR issues with this film first off it is RACIST (and homophobic but not as glaringly). The exchange student was there simply to add to the chaos of the household but was just walking semi stereotyped walking gag. The big rat that topped this super coated cake was believe it or not RAPE. Yep, the geek character takes advantage of the drunk popular girl at a party, it is not shown, but the morning after she is, (apparently) fine with it! completely unrealistic and also what the (insert ten thousand super bad swear words) kind of message is this sending to young people especially males. Now something else that made my blood boil was that the romantic interest was the one who suggested and helped this geek guy date rape his girlfriend. Apparently the audience is still supposed to be looking forward to seeing said guy kiss the girl. So for an alternative ending, I imagined Samantha jumping in Jake's car then repeatedly running both Jake and the geek over while eating her cake. This helped me keep my lunch inside the lining of my stomach.I understand people saying to watch film in the context of the time and place they were made, I certainly managed to keep that in mind when watching Rebel without a cause. However Sixteen Candles cannot be watched with this in mind, it has no excuse whatsoever.so please please please do not let anyone, old or young, male or female ever see this film

Hitchcoc I don't know why, but I've always found Molly Ringwald tough to watch. There is a snarl that is part of her being that doesn't appeal to me. Nevertheless, she does a decent job here as a poor ignored girl whose birthday is forgotten. Then we have a bunch of juvenile jokes, designed to appeal to, you guessed it, juveniles. I think a lot of the people who liked this movie, see this time in their lives in the characters. Once again, like with the breakfast club, we have all these persons with prescribed traits, interconnected. They come and they go, but there is not real connection. As a matter of fact, they would be at opposite poles in real life. We know that things will work out in the end and all will be well with the world. Nothing wrong with that. It's just not all that engaging.

sharky_55 It is a John Hughes teen movie, so even during the opening scenes many will have sketched a good idea of how Sixteen Candles will conclude. The usual archetypes are all there; the prissy older sister, the bratty, fast talking younger brother, the mopey middle child, the high school power couple and so on. Hughes would build a career from these - in fact he subscribes to these roles so much that he would later cast Hall in practically the exact same role a year later in Breakfast Club, as the brain, or, as he is constantly referred to here, the geek. The two would have the climatic scene in the car, where they realise they are more than their labels. Conventionally we expect that they will somehow end up together romantically after Jake is found to be less than the noble pretty boy; you know, the whole 'what you were looking for was right beneath your eyes' shtick. But Hughes doesn't fully commit to these expectations, but flips them around, winking slightly. The father is not stuffy or stuck up, and remarks that it is good that his son is being educated in the areas of female sexuality, albeit crudely. The whole film seems to conspire against Sam, with even the grandparents forgetting her birthday. She shows a sarcastic awareness: "They live for that sh*t!".So there is decent groundwork. Hughes sprinkles these little knowing touches, which are familiar and make sense; the sex quizzes that teenagers pass around, still all the rage these days, and in the way that two jocks can only hold an even slightly in-depth conversation whilst alternating on the pull-up bar. Even the geeks, the lowest of the low on the proverbial food chain, make crude sexual wagers amongst themselves. Sexuality for them is a strange, scary and curious thing, and Sam's laughter is a gentle mockery of sorts, transcending the boundaries of the screen. The audience too can giggle at how inexperienced they are, and how they are completely ruled by these expectations of them. But we also understand, and sympathise, which is what Hughes is known for. The secondary character, however, are a different story. The queen bee is predictable enough, a blonde bombshell that holds the star quarterback type in her claws and smiles sweetly to the rest of the world. But the mistake is to afford Jake the exact same personality. He knows nothing of Sam except for a little note she wrote in, and the phone-calls to her grandfather, whilst humorous, ultimately just confirm our suspicions that this power couple is exactly as they appear: shallow as a kiddy pool, in both characterisation and attitude. So no one cares when they break-up amicably. The worst of the film is easily the Asian exchange student, Long Duk Dong, whose every word is followed by a loud and distracting gong, and whose broken English, hideous haircut and lack of social etiquette immediately brands him as the designated punching bag. This is not only lazy stereotyping (yelling "Banzai" as he falls from a tree, the way he flits from Chinese to Japanese) but also Hughes contradicting his own mantra. Characters are more than their labels, except when you need to make vulgar, derogatory jokes. Dong is immediately shackled with another similar stereotype, the large, unattractive man-beast. The act is supposed to be eye-opening and subversive but only reinforces the respective stigmas. Even Hall, lowly as he is, barely gives neck- brace girl a second thought. There's something very mean-spirited about the whole thing.