Brats

From an 80's kids perspective, there were so many young, cool actors that it's easy to lump dozens of people in the mix. Andrew really focuses on "The Breakfast Club" "St Elmo's Fire" and John Hughes creations in general. He really digs his fingers in the sand to find the root of his personal feelings towards the term and also commonalities from the other members. It's interesting to see the wide spectrum of perspectives from the (finger quotes) brats. Some were fine with it, some didn't even want to be included and McCarthy does well in making both points valid.

Documentary films have a specific formula to follow that can make it seem like, sort of, if you've seen one you've seen them all. This one is no different. It really just depends on is the subject matter interesting to you. If you were a kid at the time then yes, these people were rock stars. Ninety minutes feels a bit long, they could have trimmed the fat a bit more. All in all great walk down memory lane. I can almost smell the shopping mall food court, adjacent to the cinema where we dumped quarters into Donkey Kong. Good times.

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.

Andrew McCarthy makes an earnest attempt to put his own struggles with what I always just assumed was a convenient turn of the Sinatra and friend's super cool "Rat Pack" nickname, into an 80s-ready contrivance for a hack reporter to weild as a cudgel against a coterie of successful actors who were younger and more talented than he was, to rest.

And in the end McCarthy does seem to make peace with the 'Brat Pack' moniker and its implications.

Along the way we find out that a few of those talented young actors allowed it to define their very careers and one or two of them are convinced it changed the entire trajectory of their professional lives.

A far more important consideration should be writer/director, John Hughes, and the impact on the Brat Pack's careers and the films that he made that many would agree, defined a generation.

Someone may have already delved into the Hughes' genius and the legacy he left for us to enjoy.

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.

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.