Sweet Hearts Dance (1988) from Johnny Web (Uncle Scoopy; Greg Wroblewski) and Tuna

Sweet Hearts Dance is one of those 'tweener pictures. It isn't such a bad film, and it has capable performances, but it simply has no natural target market.


Susan Sarandon's breasts are seen in fleeting frames.

Some topless women are seen from a distance on a Caribbean beach.

It's kind of a romantic comedy about a married couple going through a thirtysomething crisis, in which the guy finds that he has no trouble maintaining the joy in his best boyhood friendship, which has become a fun adult relationship, but has lost the ability to maintain the joy in his best boyhood romance, which has become a sour marriage. We guys all go through this at about this age, but we don't necessarily want to be reminded of it. Younger people don't care about this, or can't relate to it.

It's not really romantic, and it's not really a comedy. On the other hand, it's not really a serious picture either, although it can be both touching and painfully honest (I recognized a lot of moments and feelings from my own life at that stage, and nodded in painful recognition).

Mainly, it's just kind of a bookish story looking for an movie audience.


Sweet Hearts Dance (1988) is a lightweight romantic comedy that was not very comical and not very romantic, but had one very strong point in its favor. Susan Sarandon gives several peeks at her nipples.

Sarandon and screen hubby Don Johnson play former childhood sweethearts who have been married for 15 years and have kids. She has grown up, and he hasn't. He and his best friend, Jeff Daniels, act more like teenagers than adults, despite the fact that Daniels has become the High School principal.

Sarandon and Johnson separate ...  boy finds girl.

Yes, it is the pat Hollywood formula, with nothing remarkable about it.  It is technically sound, but only die-hard romantic comedy fans will be entertained.

Many romantic comedies are "chick flicks," but this one scores the same with both sexes at IMDb. 

The Critics Vote

  • Ebert 2/4

The People Vote ...

  • with their dollars: $3.8 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, this film is a C. (Both reviewers). Mediocre formula movie. Not so bad, but who is the target?

Return to the Movie House home page