Summer of 84, directed by the team of François Simard, Anouk Whissell, and Yoann-Karl Whissell, has many of the elements of an ‘80s teen movie: a Tangerine Dream-like score, a clubhouse where the guys hang out, the archetypal group of friends including the troubled friend with the shitty home life, who puts up a tough exterior (Judah Lewis), the idyllic façade of suburban life, even the fantasy blonde girl next door (Tiera Skovbye), who always seems to be changing in front of her bedroom window. This is much darker than films from that era, though. It’s Stand By Me meets Rear Window.

Suburban teen Davey Armstrong (Graham Verchere, channeling a young Dennis Christopher) spends his days delivering newspapers; playing “manhunt” (hide-and-seek) with his friends Eats (Lewis), nerdy Curtis (Cory Gruter-Andrew), heavyset Woody (Caleb Emery); and crushing on the girl next door, his former babysitter Nikki (Skovbye). He also is devoted to conspiracies, going so far as to plaster the walls of his room with pages from a “fake news” newspaper. (Think the Weekly World News.) And he notices things. So it’s no surprise when the papers announce that several young boys have gone missing in surrounding towns, and that it could be the work of a serial killer, that Davey says he’s sure he knows who the killer is: the friendly, well-respected Officer Mackey (Rich Sommer), who just happens to live across the street. Of course, everyone thinks he’s imagining things, even his three besties, but like all good ‘80s films friends, they won’t let him investigate alone. It’s soon clear that there is something not quite right in the neighborhood, but who’s going to believe the boys without some kind of proof?

On the whole, the film is well done. I’ve got a few small issues with it (e.g. some of the dialogue doesn’t quite ring true), and the ending wasn’t dramatically satisfying, but I’m not sure why it’s getting hate from some reviewers out there. I see a few complaints that the nostalgia is overdone. I didn’t think so. A quick look at the reviewers’ bio pictures makes it clear that they, unlike yours truly, didn’t actually grow up in the ‘80s, so maybe that’s the difference? It felt authentic to me. Although I should make it clear that this film is not paying homage to the actual time period of the 1980s; it’s paying homage to the films of the era. So of course, it’s not going to accurately portray the decade. That’s like criticizing Airplane! Because it doesn’t realistically portray air travel—it’s not parodying airports; it’s parodying disaster films such as Airport and Zero Hour, which are themselves already stylized cultural pastiches. Of course it’s unlikely that the cute girl is going to be attracted to the younger boy she used to take care of…in real life. But in the movies, that happens quite a bit. And that’s where the film succeeds: in recapturing the feeling of those old films. I felt like I could have found an old VHS copy of this film at the Blockbuster going-out-of-business sale.

The film nicely balances suspense with the innocence of teenage suburbia. Despite being about a horrific subject (and having a couple of horrific scenes), there’s still a sense of innocence that blankets the movie. On the surface, at least. And the suspense works here, even though some of it is punctuated by old-fashioned jump scares. It’s obvious that the film owes a debt to films such as Rear Window and Disturbia (which is, itself, more of a rip-off of Hitch’s film than this one is), but there is a significant difference. In those two films, the investigating heroes are helpless observers, unable to leave the house. In this film, they are participants. They can go anywhere, including the house of the man they believe to be the killer. It’s an entirely different kind of suspense.

The performances are very good, with two standouts—Sommer as the alleged killer, and Emery’s Woody. Looking back over the film, it’s he, not Davey, who is the emotional center of the film. It’s an interesting choice, and one that, at least in part resulting from Emery’s understated performance, elevates the film just that little bit more. I have a feeling that his character, and the film as a whole, will seem richer with repeated viewings.

If I look through the window with my binoculars, I can see that IMDB has given the film a respectable 6.7. I’m in line with that, actually. It probably would have been an even 7, but that ending just…didn’t work. Anyway, stop reading the side of that milk carton and go check out this film. (running time 1:45)