Eight Days a Week

1999 "He Came. He Sat. He Conquered."
6| 1h32m| R| en| More Info
Released: 26 February 1999 Released
Producted By: Underdog Productions
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Peter loves his next door neighbour Erica and, on the advice of his grandfather, decides to camp out on her front lawn for the entire summer, or until she agrees to go out with him. His father is none too happy about the idea and refuses to let his son back in the house, even to get a change of clothes.

... View More
Stream Online

Stream with Prime Video

Director

Producted By

Underdog Productions

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Jeremy_brewer1 First of all Kerri Russel looks good, but she has small breasts! When they are staring at her when she is in her bathing suit probably knocked out on valiums. They focus the camera on her and I'm wonder what interest they could actually have for her. Most perverts find some one that meets a certain beauty in every angle. They should of chosen somebody else to play her part. I mean Alicia silverstone would have been better or anybody else. They could of at least chose someone who was older or something. The guys in this where also horrible actors. They where always dumbfounded about anything that has to do with women. How do you find interest in that?
fedor8 A confused, horny, and unbelievably naive teenager (Schaefer) decides to spend all his time in his love-interest's garden until she finally accepts his love. Needless to say, an annoying premise, especially when one considers how unworthy his love-interest (Russell) is of this huge undertaking, this utterly ridiculous effort. He actually spends the whole Summer in her garden, and she never once - until the last day before college - invites him inside the house. In fact, it takes her over a month to even start speaking to him. Is this girl worth a nickel? Apparently Schaefer and the director think so. Russell not only ignores Schaefer's considerable - albeit idiotic - effort, but she also goes out with a dumb jock (the usual, cliché situation in teen comedies).All the facts point to Russell being just an average, dumb, American airhead floozy, and yet she is presented to us as a girl that we're meant to find likable. This is the dumbest aspect, because she was annoying. Another thing that struck me as too absurd - even for a teen comedy - is that Schaefer actually refuses the middle-aged Catherine Hicks's open flirtation and then even voluntary oral sex from her, just so as not to jeopardize his chances with the flat-chested, skinny, thin-lipped so-so Russell! Now, Catherine Hicks makes Russell look like a school-boy, and Schaefer says no to her?! It's just too dumb. Too dumb. And annoying - once more. (I think you get the drift: a highly annoying movie.) No mentally healthy, self-respecting male heterosexual - not to mention heterosexual teen - would refuse Catherine Hicks, who looks more like 30 than 45. A sexual advance from a woman of her appeal is what the best male fantasies are made out of. In the end, Schaefer's best-friend and teen-philosopher (Robb) - who is supposed to be the (bigger) "loser" of the two of them - gets to have sex with Hicks, while Schaefer finally gets his scrawny little Lolita; I'd say that Robb got much luckier. Robb is also more interesting as a character (which admittedly isn't hard), and the guy playing him is a rather solid actor, while Schaefer's character is more bland on the whole, and Schaefer himself is nothing more than mediocre. I particularly enjoyed Robb's "a**hole gene theory" and his attitude towards life. The film is entertaining on a forgettable level, and occasionally faintly amusing, but Schaefer's inexplicable, overly-idolatory fanaticism over Russell makes little sense, and, unfortunately and very predictably, he gets the airhead in the end. The use of Beethoven's fantastic 9th for the final scene of the film was a desecration of that piece.
slverbulet7 Simply awful. It's a lot like all the other stupid teen sex movies, except that it doesn't have: A) A really hot chick B) A funny actor C) ShameMost of these movies carry a bit of shame. They know what they are. This movie had all the signs of poor writers who wrote for poor minds. Unless they sincerely thought they did a good job (which I doubt), the makers of the movie were banking on stupid teens. No, there's not something that's over my head. No, narration does not mean the movie is deep. The media has done enough to make sex meaningless, yet still potent enough in absence to destroy self esteem and reputations. Some of these movies are funny though. For an obvious example, American Pie. Like it or not, the movie had funny people in it. It was fresh (to some extent). It was better.Why why why would anybody want to watch this? I'd rather sit through A Clockwork Orange torture.And what's the deal with the characters being like 14 years old?
Toxie2k2 This is one of my all time favourite films, not just because its got a great (although not totally original) plot but also because it manages to inspire at the same time. This is one of the films that made me want to make films...I can't see me ever going to the effort that Peter did to get Erica, but anyone who's ever loved someone can understand it :)