RorschachKovacs Frankly, I'm rather glad I didn't read a single review here before watching the movie. Several reviewers evidently take this movie as a convenient platform from which to bash the Religious Right™ for not adhering to the Christian-hating Left's benighted sexual libertinism. To be sure, Skipped Parts is rather brutally frank about all matters of sexuality, but as at least one reviewer pointed out already, the pro-abortion and anti-family bigots of the Left will find very little of this frankness to be at all friendly to their despicable ideology. Actually, one would be hard-pressed to find any "message" to this movie at all, as it is more a reflection of our times than an effort to shape them.This brings me to one of the real strikes against this movie: though set in the 1960s around the time of John F. Kennedy's assassination, the protagonists (Sam, Lydia, and to a lesser degree her cousin Delores) all have ridiculously anachronistic points of view for people from the 1960s, while the antagonists (Sam Callahan, Dothan Talbot, Coach Howard Stebbins, to a lesser degree Maurey's parents, and to an even lesser degree the rest of the students and townspeople) are all basically contemporary Hollywood caricatures of people from the early 1960s. Someone is clearly guilty of either executive meddling or lazy writing.Yes, there were "easy" girls and single mothers back in the 1960s, but none of them would have thought and behaved the way Lydia does, nor would society have dealt with them so mildly if they had; nobody would even have considered rolling out a welcome wagon for a single mother and her illegitimate child in the first place, nor allowed their children to hang around with Sam. Moreover, in those days when the "unwritten law" was still somewhat in effect, the threatened violence against Sam, played for laughs in this movie, would have been no joke. He would be fortunate if Maurey's aggrieved father didn't decide to invite him to a "shotgun wedding" ceremony that was all shotgun and no wedding.As for the much-remarked hypocrisy of several of the characters (particularly Coach Stebbins and Maurey's mother), I'll concede that stereotypes — yes, even Hollywood's — are not entirely without foundation; hypocrisy and hypocrites we have with us always. Anyone who thinks this hypocrisy is offered as any kind of justification for Lydia's evil beliefs and behaviors, however, would do well to reconsider. Sincerity by itself, as Lydia demonstrates, is no virtue at all, and hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue. In this movie, vice pays a very grim tribute indeed to virtue in several truly horrifying scenes concerning Lydia's attempt to cover up Sam and Maurey's mistake by murdering their unborn baby.Most horrifying of all is the scene in which Sam pleads that it's his baby too; doesn't he get any say in what happens to his child? No, Lydia insists, he doesn't. In fact, nothing he says can sway her, though he promises to take responsibility, get a job, marry the girl, do anything if only his mother will let them keep the baby. In the end, it's hypocrisy which proves to be both a deus ex machina and diabolus ex machina, as Maury's mother happens to be down at the very same illegal murder mill having her love child with Coach Stebbins butchered, traumatizing both mother and daughter when they meet and leading to a very awkward moment between Sam and Stebbins as well. How can I *not* see this as being a thoroughly damning portrayal of abortion and all of the cruel baby-butchering child-snatching misandrists calling themselves "feminists" who support it?No, unlike some reviewers here, I would definitely *not* show this movie to teenagers as a part of their sex education. If we must have entertainment while educating our kids about sex, we have plenty of other more informative and positive movies that would serve the purpose far better: The Blue Lagoon (1980) and 17 Again (2009) come to mind. Honestly, did that gross-out moment with Lydia and the sock, or any of the references to oral sex (which also quite understandably grossed out Sam and Maurey) need to be in this movie at all? It would have been far more enjoyable to watch without them. Some movies really should be exclusively restricted to adults even if some of the main characters are kids, and this is one of them.If anything, Lydia's efforts to expose Sam to too much of our unrated world too soon is a precautionary tale, not an example to be followed as some of the more foolish reviewers here seem to believe. Yes, Lydia does seem to be a bit more responsible by the end, having gotten a job and a man to support her so she won't end up being another welfare leech (the way so many single mothers these days are), but it's not clear that she's really learned her lesson; neither she nor anyone else shows any remorse for having nearly murdered her granddaughter, and there's no wedding scene, so it's not clear whether she's actually married to Hank even by common law.Ultimately, however, the reason I don't like this movie very much is that the story is actually rather depressing. Skipped Parts is a comedy, yes, but a black comedy full of disgusting behavior leading to mood whiplash and coming to an only partially satisfying ending. I sympathized with Sam, laughed at the funny parts and was duly horrified at the horrifying parts. On the whole, I don't regret watching it, and I think anyone who can take a few revolting scenes and characters in stride and doesn't mind a few anachronistic attitudes could benefit from seeing this movie. All the same, I'd rather not see this movie again any time soon, if ever. It might be worth a rental, but the jury's still out on whether it will ever be worth a purchase.

robertedward I found this film to be a welcome relief from the self-righteous, hypocritical obsession with sex as evil in our confused society. I'm sure that viewers aligned with the extreme religious right are aghast at the sexual frankness of "Skipped Parts". I only wish they were as upset over the war in Iraq, America's obsession with violence and the rampant intolerance still pervading the home of the free. Instead, sex and four-letter words top the list of moral outrages in the minds of far too many of our number."Skipped Parts" is a compassionate view of outside-the-mainstream people at odds with the establishment. Granted, unprotected sex among teenagers is impractical and unwise, but hardly a reason to despise and condemn. Especially by those who have, as do some of the characters in the film, plenty of skeletons in their own closets.Well-written, well-acted and well-directed, "Skipped Parts" is a moral film in which the highest virtues are kindness, forgiveness, and love.

pageiv To best review this movie, it is improtant to review what happened in the movie.A 14-yr old boy has questions about sex, good, most do. He has a nocturnal emissions and asks his mom what happened, ok, I'm sure he was scared, then his mom touches, then smells, then tastes, his emission. That is about the level this movie is on.Within this movie two 14-yr olds have "exploration" sex. Condoned, and instructed (by use of a taco shell), by the boy's mother and the girl's aunt. The girl gets pregnant, the boy's mom drives her to an abortion clinic, there she sees her mom and history teacher so she leaves. At the end of the movie the girl's mother is in an insane asylum. Which is where the makers, and writer of this movie belong. The girl moves in with the boy and his mother and her lover, with her baby. The two 14-yr olds are shown as a happy couple raising a baby, he doing his writing, and she cheerleading. Sure, what about the endless crying baby? The moral of this movie is how "evil" those conservatives are that say "sex should wait" and do evil things like force their kids to act right. By doing what you want things may go bad, like being pregnant at 14, but things will always work out.

DJExcen Skipped Parts was a dark comedy, there is no doubt about that. I especially enjoyed the innuendo; it added to the feeling of guilty pleasure you get from watching a movie like this. I guess the typical Leave it to Beaver image of the 1950s in my mind created a sense of perverse pleasure while viewing the characters' twisted lives. Bug Hall's last few lines at the end of this movie summed up it's purpose: the movie is one big statement about the sexual and social paradoxes present in the society of the 1950s and, in all reality, in today's society also. While being poorly developed characters, you cannot help but root for the two kids. The religious right would go ape over this movie, if they watched anything besides The Bible Network. It raises some curious questions about the nature and structure of the family and reproductive responsibility. Overall, I would give it a 6.5 out of 10. A good waste of time, but little else.