Amigos para Sempre

The first time i saw this movie, i did'nt notice. The second time i saw this movie i hated Jodi Thelen. The third time i saw this movie i began to understand Danilo. The fourth time i saw this movie i already loved Jody Thelen. The fifth time i saw this movie i understood why Danilo loves Georgia Miles. The sixth time i saw this movie i had to see it again. The seventh time i saw this movie i saw it was about me. And i have loved it ever since.

Four Friends is about (surprise) friendship, and it could have been a 'sugar sweet' and 'violins when neded' film, but it's not !!

In Four Friends i think all human needs (death and love) are covered.

Summary: A Great Movie !!

This film about four friends coming of age in the 60s is one of my favorite films of all time. The acting and script in this movie are unlike any you will ever see in another film. Jodi Thelen is perhaps the best young actress I have ever seen. She makes Georgia a truly unique, unforgettable character. I have to admit that I fell in love with Georgia AND Jodi after seeing this movie. Some of the dialogue spoken between the characters is like poetry (and some of it is poetry). Craig Wasson (one of my favorite actors...he's a natural actor, never fake) plays Danilo with such passion that's it easy to believe that he is an immigrant that comes to love America. This is on my list of top 10 best films of all time. Anyone who has seen this movie PLEASE write me! I can't find ANYONE around the south who has seen this film, much less anyone who loves it as much as I do.

I watched it again tonight (once or twice a year); and it got me curious re: what new comments were here, if any. I'm both pleased and surprised to see the relative glut of new reviews -- which do NOT add up to a 6.1 rating, btw! -- for this most excellent film. I guess it was released on video....... FINALLY!!!?

In a comment dated 18 June 2001, Nozz wrote: Melville said that "Moby Dick" was only "a sketch of a sketch"... the book illuminated so many avenues that it never took time to explore. So too with "Four Friends." ... So it's a little unfair, but there's a sense of missed opportunity because everything in the movie is so good that it seems to deserve more attention.

I think that's part of the point/its poignancy and bittersweet sense of loss at the end, which is what makes it so evocative; as so is life -- small moments of apparently frivolous experience/choices/opportunities -- which will rarely, if ever, come again; and certainly not while we are the same. We always think of/were taught the 20/20 hindsight bit; but there's NO guarantee path "x" would have been more ideal/fruitfil/ better than path "y"! One can never KNOW w/o taking the path/making (whatever) choice -- Talking about good things here, not stupid things like OD'ing on some lame chemical or suicide! Can't speak for today's youth -- as it is indeed a different, more cynical world! -- but given the idealism, hope, and energy inherent in the 60s youth, who wanted to LIVE (after so much repression)...... and experience everything, a legacy of feeling loss was inevitable. There's just not enough time being young. I never grew tired of being young, as long as my body was! That's not to say many/most did not have many good times, even wonderful lives and families. But the ideals we hoped for the world certainly didn't materialize; and few realized it in their personal lives, I suspect, at least on the braod scale we hoped. And for that, we greive; for few have the choice. "Four Friends," as does few films, conveys that loss so splendidly and the rewards of the remaining, though not ideal, friendships -- whose importance in our lives is timeless. And yeah, it always elicits tears and longing for what could have been! Someday it will be recognized, I hope, for the great film it is!

This is a great movie. It is one of my favorites. It covers a great time in history to have grown up. It addresses several of the problems of that era, including the Vietnam war, racism, the moon landing, patriotism among others. It also includes smatterings of comedy, drama, horror, incest, and romance. That is a lot to cover in one film. It does not have the time to adequately develop the story or the characters. Therefore, you have to watch it attentively. If you leave it without pausing it , you can miss something that is never explained again. There is so much for the brain to absorb, it seems to drag. I compare it to Deer Hunter which does the same thing. The acting is great, but other than Craig Wasson, the actors disappeared after this movie, and he only seems to have gotten small roles.

Were the 60s a non-stop blast of idealism, hedonism and self-exploration? Were they a violent, divisive cataclysm that heralded America's decline? Well, this movie makes both points. And what's more, it makes them brilliantly, probably because it was made by one of the greatest directors (Arthur Penn) and screenwriters (Steve Tesich) in film history. Because of the talent involved, you never notice how epic and improbable this story is: four kids from a grimy Midwestern town (think Tesich' hometown of East Chicago, Indiana) experience every major social upheaval of the 1960s, from the civil rights movement to the Summer of Love to (of course) Vietnam. But what could be soapy, sappy and overblown in the hands of lesser filmmakers (think Zemeckis) is art thanks to messrs Penn and Tesich. Some of the images are so indelible that the dialog becomes superfluous: in an excellent sequence near the start of the film, teens bat around a beach ball with a picture of JFK and Jackie, so we know it's the 60s. When the protagonist sees the girl he loves having sex with his best friend, his eyes meet hers, so their estrangement is established without a word. And later, in a disturbing single shot, a bunch of white kids around a bonfire start pounding on a smaller group of black kids, shattering the idyll forever. Still, Tesich is a smart enough to understand that he's writing for an impressionistic film so he keeps his script minimal to the point of cryptic -- entire relationships start and end in three lines (what happens to Danilo's college roommate Louie will have you laughing and crying at the same time). After many travails and terrors, the movie ends on an unresolved but hopeful note and you're actually satisfied by the slight unease since that's how life works, and this film is a pretty effective albeit rather heightened approximation of how memory and experience actually function.

So why weren't there Oscars galore for this picture? Why isn't it heralded as a modern classic? Well, part of the problem is the cast of young unknowns, all of whom are excellent but couldn't get busted in Hollywood. (It's just as well -- better-known actors might have demanded longer, more floridly written scenes that would have thrown the film hopelessly off balance.) Another problem is the film's ambiguity -- neither Penn nor Tesich seem inclined to judge their characters, and modern filmgoers tend to get headaches when they're asked to make up their own minds. I know this firsthand, since this is the first "art" film I saw with friends, and we loved it so much and discussed it so long afterwards (we were pretentious teenagers so we had the time) that we couldn't help but rave about it to a hippie-dippy couple we knew, who LOATHED it for its lack of overt moralism. And finally, there's the character of sweet Georgia, the elusive object of desire for the other three friends. Georgia is a free spirit who idolizes Isadora Duncan, and she wanders across the 1960s having all kinds of different experiences, and despite some trauma she emerges more or less intact. Lots of people resent that, which is why mediocre films that torture and kill adventurous women (think "Forrest Gump") win Oscars while masterpieces like this can't get released on DVD. Find it, watch it, love it or hate it, one way or another you will be affected.