Quote:
Originally Posted by frankotank
I'll bet I get bashed for this....but here goes....
I watched The Outsiders this weekend. it'd been so damn long since I'd seen it I had forgotten a lot of it. now I know this movie is considered a classic....but damn....not a very good movie. actually laughable in some parts. quite the cast, but I just didn't think it was very good.
|
Did you watch the original version or the director's cut? Not that it improves the acting that much, but it certainly provides a better idea of what Coppola was trying to do. It has alot of scenes the studio cut out for fear of homophobic reactions even though they are clearly about brotherly love. He was really playing with what a young adult story/movie can address but the studio just wasn't on board, and while all the actors end up with considerable career success, they were cast to sell Tiger Beat magazines, and they shot the whole thing in no time at all so not much rehearsal time. I think there is still some success in bringing a unique perspective to film (and literature with the original novel.) It is a teenage girls perspective of bad boys so it is ultra-romanticized and prone to being overwrought, but it has a genuine appreciation of the struggles boys face growing up.
For his next one, Rumble Fish, shot right then as well in Tulsa, the studio backed out so he was on his own plus they added great veterans like Dennis Hopper and Laurence Fishburne to compliment the young cast. It is even more theatrical and stylized and was critically destroyed except for Ebert who loved the risk and originality. It goes the full distance he was trying for in The Outsiders, and was way more successful visually. Critics in retrospect have come to judge it as an art film instead of a teen film and rate it much better. I would recommend Rumble Fish for sure over the other one. It is one of my favorite movies, especially to look at.