Pour some sugar on me | Film Review | Indy Week
Pin It

Pour some sugar on me 

When he's not munching up newborn babies or spray-painting pentagrams on church altars, antichrist superstar Jerry Bruckheimer produces movies. Really awful movies. Movies that through sheer decibelic might and rapid-fire editing power strangle the last breaths of humanity out of our beaten, trembling bodies--movies like Con Air, Armageddon, and Gone in 60 Seconds.

Trading in Bruckheimer's muscle-addled morons for a much curvier set of lead characters, Coyote Ugly had a lot of camp promise--compared to exploitative men movies, exploitative chick flicks always seem to take themselves a lot more seriously, thereby resulting in a much higher quotient of irresistible vulgarity--in short, the immensely pleasurable "Showgirls effect".

And, good God, the planets were definitely aligned for a great time here--disconcertingly cute struggling-songwriter (is there any other kind?) Violet is leaving her tiny New Jersey town for New York City. Saying goodbye to her gruff, disapproving dad (John Goodman), Violet moves into Cheap, Two-Bit, Rat-Infested Heights, located somewhere smack in the middle of the Village. Once she settles in, our budding Tori Amos has a rough time of it, and one night, while spending her last $2 on a slice of pie at a diner, she spies three ludicrously hot women hanging out together, whooping it up, being generally "outrageous," and saying "girl" a lot. For obvious reasons, Violet is utterly mesmerized by this display and rushes out to get a job at their bar, which is called Coyote Ugly.

Basically, the deal with Coyote Ugly is this: Five preposterously erotic ladies wearing skimpy rubber thongs pour shots for a capacity crowd, writhe seductively on the bar, drench each other with water, get down on all fours, slap each others' asses and scream vulgarities through bullhorns. These lively little sequences are the meat of the movie, although glued between them are a few scenes of Violet's emerging relationship with some Australian guy and her eventual debut as a singer-songwriter. (Oh, did I ruin it? Aw, damn.)

Despite a fourth-quarter attempt to lay judgment upon the strip-tease shenanigans of the Coyote girls, Coyote Ugly obviously loves its skin, as well it should--it's the film's best (and only) asset. By packaging the flesh tightly enough and jiggling it with enough overplayed melodrama, Coyote Ugly could've reached almost Valley of the Dolls proportions. But it doesn't.

The first clue that things are awry is the PG-13 rating. That's right. No nudity. A film like this with no nudity is like Friday the 13th with no Jason. Not that either of them are necessarily good films, but those who pay the price of admission to Friday the 13th aren't there to see tender emoting. They're there to watch Jason chop off some guy's head with a push lawnmower. The second clue comes when Violet says, "This reminds me of the first time I heard 'Bridge Over Troubled Water'", and then adds, "by Simon and Garfunkel." Those four words make it excruciatingly clear what age-demographic Coyote Ugly is trying to nail down here, which in turn illustrates just how narrow of a niche Bruckheimer's aiming for--quite simply, a gonzo opening weekend rather than a potential cult classic. The film has nothing in the way of lofty goals, and without lofty goals, there is no camp.

What we're left with is a fish-out-of-water drama to be taken at face value: about $6.25 in my estimation, which, depending on where you live and if you want any popcorn, may or may not cover the price of admission. Now subtract the $5 worth of in-your-face booty, and you're left with a $1.25 series of highly uninvolving dramatics: (1) Violet's music, which is neither good nor unique, yet is supposed to herald some great new, uh, talent in songwriting. We're left on (sigh) "the edge of our seat" with such thrilling questions as "Will Violet conquer her stage fright?" "Will her songs ever get radio play?" "Could this character get any lamer?" (2) Romance with the Australian guy, a doughy-faced dude about as exciting as a wet paper bag and with approximately the same vocal delivery. (Note to filmmakers: Avoid putting life-sized cardboard cutouts of Patrick Swayze and Bette Midler in the background of your tender lovemaking scene, particularly if they have more stage presence than your leads.) (3) The disapproving dad subplot, which functions OK here, but is never as enjoyable as the other standby alternative, the plucky-kid-brother-in-a-wheelchair.

But to be too hard on a film like Coyote Ugly is to pretend that you're above it, and that's just plain wrong, for Coyote Ugly belongs to a long line of enjoyably bad cinema, like Justine Bateman's Satisfaction (1988), Matt Dillion's Wild Things (1998), and a whole slew of below-par John Hughes movies from the 1980s, movies you wouldn't be caught dead "discussing" but that you could actually "chat" about for an hour while reclining on your sofa, watching it on the USA Network.

And fortunately, the antics at Coyote Ugly do reach an occasional level of silly absurdity that's enjoyable to witness: Rachel (the token bitch) cutting off some guy's ponytail; Cammie (the token slut) lighting the bar on fire, then dancing on the flames; or Zoe (the token gal-who's-just-doing-this-to-pay-for-law-school) leaping off the bar and body surfing into the crowd. I mean, it's hard to hate a movie where "Pour Some Sugar On Me" isn't played with a wink-nudge; instead, it's just supposed to rock, and does so, almost disturbingly well.

Coyote Ugly is a lot like that Def Leppard song--it rocks as long as there's enough eye candy to distract you, and you don't think about it too much. Sure, it's a shame Bruckheimer was afraid to get his groove on with a little more audacity, but Coyote Ugly isn't a total waste of time for those unafraid to indulge in bad taste. Contrary to popular belief, partaking in a cup of crap cinema is not really bad for you--go ahead, swish it around, enjoy the flavor. Just don't swallow. EndBlock

  • The enjoyably bad Coyote Ugly's best asset is (surprise) skin.

More by Daniel Kraus


Subscribe to this thread:

Add a comment

INDY Week publishes all kinds of comments, but we don't publish everything.

  • Comments that are not contributing to the conversation will be removed.
  • Comments that include ad hominem attacks will also be removed.
  • Please do not copy and paste the full text of a press release.

Permitted HTML:
  • To create paragraphs in your comment, type <p> at the start of a paragraph and </p> at the end of each paragraph.
  • To create bold text, type <b>bolded text</b> (please note the closing tag, </b>).
  • To create italicized text, type <i>italicized text</i> (please note the closing tag, </i>).
  • Proper web addresses will automatically become links.

Latest in Film Review

Twitter Activity

Most Recent Comments

The lobster is arbitrarily asinine, disjointed, and gratuitously violent towards both humans and former humans that "didn't make it." If …

by Marco_Polo on The Lobster Surreally Skewers Society’s Fear of Single People (Film Review)

The only peeople who murdered those boys were let off by an inexperienced prosecutor and hoodwinked judge. The facts are …

by Greg 1 on The West Memphis Three are free ... what about the real killer? (Film Review)

"Miles Ahead"... "opening Friday".... where? I'm having a tough time finding film times/locations on www.indyweek.com now. The …

by Tbone on Don Cheadle’s Miles Davis Film, Miles Ahead, Isn’t a Real Biopic—It’s Something Better (Film Review)

Actually, many evangelicals and other Christians would not agree with the notion that "if you are a true believer you …

by bsquizzato on Film Review: Christian Movie Miracles From Heaven Goes Where Secular Hollywood Won't (Film Review)


The lobster is arbitrarily asinine, disjointed, and gratuitously violent towards both humans and former humans that "didn't make it." If …

by Marco_Polo on The Lobster Surreally Skewers Society’s Fear of Single People (Film Review)

Most Read

© 2016 Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation