Brats

Some young actors once celebrated as The Brat Pack, which sounded very cool to us normal kids back then,whine and complain about having been called that name, because it killed their carreers? Oh please, really? Other actors have been labelled this or that, they moved on and proved themselves, and that was it. Nobody thinks of Robert Pattison as the vampire boy anymore, and Kristen Stewart is a regular of independent films. Demi Moore went on to become a very successful A-lister, same for Tom Cruise. If success failed for some others that was probably for other reasons. Also,those films made them very famous opened more doors, made them rich. I loved Breakfast Club, Sixteen Candles,The Outsiders and many others. I think they should instead be celebrating the success they had with them, all the young hearts they touched, and how they are still remembered by their legacy.

It's interesting to hear what other reviewers have to say about director Andrew McCarthy's vision and compilation of this documentary. Words such as whiny or whack always seem to accompany people's shortsidedness and forget that even though this is not the typical life, it is still someone's life.

What was most interesting is to see the different reactions of those who were in the Brat Pack and those who were Brat Pack "Adjacent." McCarthy's story comes from a perspective that an article written by a journalist, which we come to find out had gotten his idea from a dinner where he was labeled. Being 29 in the 80's wasn't considered young and he was looking for something to propel him to the next stage of his career. So were McCarthy, Nelson, Ringwald, Sheedy, Lowe, Moore and Estevez. The main difference is that the journalist's life wasn't nearly affected the way he wanted, and had no remorse for how it might have affected the lives of those he wrote about.

The issue is that we as humans root for people to be successful until we feel they're too successful, become jealous and ultimately find a way to knock them down a peg. Granted it comes with fame and it just so happened that it hit McCarthy, Nelson and Ringwald the hardest. The others have gone on to much longer and more diverse careers, yet we have a hard time feeling sorry for those people who seemingly had it easy.

Ask yourself if there's an event in your life that you still haven't dealt with. If you have adjusted to all trauma, kudos to you! Do you know someone in your family that hasn't? I think this was the crux of what McCarthy was trying to figure out through the exploration of people that meant a great deal to him at one time, yet never really got the answers to why it bothered everyone so. You can see the natural catharsis he goes through as he talks to Sheedy, Lowe, and even a casting director that gave him a different spin on the stigma of the Brat Pack.

All in all, the lesson that they all took mostly 30 years to learn is that you're presented with two choices when being pigeon holed in Hollywood. You can allow it to dictate your career for the worse or you can rise above it like several of them did. I believe that McCarthy got the peace he was searching for.

Regardless if you like the documentary or not, movies would not be the same without their generational success.

The idea was interesting. But the documentary sometimes took itself too seriously, and sometimes was too flippant. It could be overly harsh and other times too forgiving. It would have been good to hear how lives were specifically changed, but instead talked around what happened so no one would be labeled as bitter or brooding.

One poignant point was how movies had changed in the early/mid 80s to be youth oriented with movies about teenagers and played by younger actors. It created a swelling of new, young stars never seen to that degree before or since.

The focus was on a hit piece article by an envious reporter that labeled them "the brat pack." It was supposed to be article on what it was like hanging out with Emilio Estavez for a few days before it was morphed into a scathing denunciation of an entire group. The article was pretty sloppy in its writing and tried to tar and feather as many people as possible, including Nicholas Cage and Tom Cruise.

It changed the lives of all the actors. They stopped talking to each or seeing each other to distance themselves from the insinuation. But the damage was done. The label went "viral" before that was a term and for a group that was already getting older and would be looking for more adult roles, many found a wall they didn't expect and didn't know how to overcome.

Many of the actors most deeply immersed in the time weren't interviewed. Some in the documentary were barely on the outskirts. And again what was truly missing was the nitty gritty of how it impacted rather than hearing again and again versions of wow, that was really something and quite an experience. How did it feel to break contact? What was it like going to movie auditions after that? Had the public reaction change? How did it change their lives?

That was the part that was missing.

This documentary hit me like a ton of bricks. The soundtrack, the movie scenes , seeing the guys. I was never able to describe why loved these movies so much but listening to the folks in the film explain why these films were so important to them 100% made me feel like they were speaking for me. To those that gave this film a negative review, it's obvious that you weren't around during those years. This documentary made me want to watch all those movies all over again for the first time. I feel sorry for this generation, you guys can't even spell nostalgia without expecting help from Google translate. Great film.

First of all, no one read the stupid article and knew whether it was being critical of the kid actors. This was before the internet so an article in New York Magazine wasn't read nationwide. The name stuck as it was easy to remember because it plagiarized the other pack. The article (I just read it for the first time a minute ago) is total crap and if it weren't for the name he coined, no one would have ever spoken of those few thousand words again. It was nothing more or less than a hatchet job by a journalist who probably wanted to sleep with one of them.

It's ironic that the one I despised the most in this group as an actor and the one with the most punchable face, Andrew McCarthy, has had an interesting career lately as a travel writer and now this film. I haven't read anything he's written so I'm beginning with his memoir of walking the Camino de Santiago with his son.

Nothing much of anything is revealed in this film. Once upon a time there was an article written that coined the name. The supposed members of this Brat Pack, young actors, made a bunch of films dealing with young people. There was never much to this story and thus not much more can be said about it all these years later.

The film itself is awkward at times with way too much time inside of a car, too many shots of the film crew lurking around in the background, and there wasn't much at all of what their lives were like 40 years ago.

The strangest thing I learned from the film was that none of them were even friends and haven't had any contact with each other in all these years. It just seems like they'd at least call once in a while to comment on a recent project they had finished, either to compliment each other or ask if they knew about it. In the end, they weren't any sort of pack at all.