No, it's not a failure. It's not good either. It's simply one of the oddest ducks of 80's comedies - trying to be both an actual National Lampoon movie (it's based on one of the stories from the magazine, which I'm not sure), and a satire of them and teen comedies. Trouble is, I couldn't really tell. It felt more like Altman reaching further than he did with MASH to make a completely anarchic, tasteless comedy about a couple of guys (in this case Daniel Jenkins and Neill Barry are FAR from the talents of Eliot Gould and Donald Sutherland) who just want to stir up the sh*t in middle-upper class Arizona and have some fun. Only this time there's no war going on or people to fix up in a hospital. What is there to do? Uh...

I was glad it wasn't just some assembly-line thing. It is an Altman movie, to the bone, so loose and free that you have to watch moment to moment because there isn't anything CLOSE to a plot here. It's just a semblance of vignettes around what OC and Stiggs did on their summer break (not their real names, and as OC says, one of my big laughs, is that "Call me OC, it sounds more ridiculous"). Make a wild car that is $100 off the lot and can be decked out to look like a monster-truck- Studebaker? Check. Bring a machine gun as a wedding present for a very unsatisfactory wedding? Check. Make friends and give out t-shirts from the Schwab insurance company to Melvin Van Peebles? Oh hell yeah a check. How about a trip to Mexico to snag an African band to later crash a theater production on its opening night? Uh... hey, it IS a National Lampoon movie.... sorta, not really, whatever.

I was fascinated by OC and Stiggs, no question there. Sometimes I was laughing, more for the little beats of oddball behavior that Altman was always known for sprinkling in. Ray Walston as the grandfather, while no more or less one note than any of the other supporting (or lead?) characters, is maybe the funniest most consistently, rambling about extreme acts of violence in stories and making outrageous omelette's and drink concoctions that he correctly predicts make one more prone to sex. And while he's not as funny as I'd hoped, Dennis Hopper also has a fun appearance playing his Photo-Journalist from Apocalypse Now - that is, if the Photo-Journalist ended up having lots of guns, ammo, and marijuana to grow out in the fields, uh, somewhere.

The whole project, from some of the casting (hey, Jane Curtain and, uh, future stars Cynthia Nixon and Jon Cryer) to how bizarre some of the set pieces get (skinny dipping again in the Schwab's pool? Hey, there's a tiki backyard next door!), is like a big stunt on Altman's part. And why not? His career was full of them, from doing a shaggy-dog take on the Long Goodbye to his madcap take on Popeye. But the main characters are so obnoxious that the power of the satire just became lost, and I wasn't sure if the line not simply got blurred between doing an actual teen comedy and a satire of it but that the line was screwed altogether. Over time the film seems to have gotten a small cult - maybe apologists, maybe people who genuinely like it after it unfortunately (or maybe rightfully) bombed after being shelved for two years - but it still doesn't make it top shelf work from this director. The style is just so all over the place that maybe, at best, it could work as a wild-card party movie, like throw it on, dip in and out, get laughs where they suddenly, outrageously, pop up, and skip over some of the lesser points. C+

Definitely one of Altman's worst, though perhaps not quite as bad as some may lead you to believe. The producer wanted Altman to make a teen comedy in the vein of Porky's or something. Altman hated those kinds of movies, and decided to make a parody of one instead. Unfortunately, you just can't make a parody of a comedic genre. It never works. O.C. and Stiggs comes off as just a wacky teen comedy as directed by Altman; the only difference is that the characters are slightly more obnoxious and, instead of being fun anti-heroes, they're detestable. Which makes for a rather unpleasant movie. The script (or Altman's alterations – he apparently hated the script as written, so who knows how much he changed it) is extremely sloppy as well, especially as it nears the end. There are some amusing moments along the way, so it's not a total bust. It does contain one of the funniest dialogue exchanges I've ever heard: "How would you like to have more fun than you've ever had in your life?" "I don't know. I've had a lot of fun. I have Legos, you know."

O.C. and Stiggs are not your average unhappy teenagers. They not only despise their suburban surroundings, they plot against it. They seek revenge against the middle class Schwab family, who embody all they detest: middle class.

This film was a critical and commercial flop in its day, and has gone on to be considered one of the worst films in Robert Altman's long career. No film is singled out more than this as being the low end of his talents. (If his lowest film is still above a 5 on IMDb, though, he is doing better than many.)

Perhaps a revisit is in order. Not that the film is a lost classic, but in some ways it might be ahead of its time. While it failed as a 1980s teen comedy, it has some aspects of 1990s teen comedy in it. Particularly such "subversive" films as "Suburbia" or "SLC Punk". Stiggs might have blended in well with those groups...