MovieManChuck 2/4Before I critique the movie (which will be painful to do) I would like to observe the pools of talent involved in the making of this movie. We have director Francis Ford Coppola (known for The Godfather and Apocalypse Now) working with C. Thomas Howell, Tom Cruise, Emilio Estevez, and Patrick Swayze. The classic S. E. Hinton novel adaption is, for lack of better words, not very good.This film seems very textbook, and that's the main reason I wasn't a fan. Coppola refuses to stray from the confines of the book. In other words, it's not original. He teamed up with Hinton to try and provide the audience the most accurate presentation of the book, and that's something I very much respect. However, staying with source material doesn't mean you should the very camera angles predictable.One thing the movie succeeds at addressing is its title-you feel like an outsider. Coppola has skill at developing characters at a steady pace, and then developing the characters relationships. This is a real shame, because it feels Coppola is giving his actors more depth then they can handle. The performances from Howell and Macchio (the two main characters) are unfortunately the most inept on the set. They can't convey their roles with the proper gusto.One thing I really enjoyed about The Outsiders is the atmosphere. He was able to portray the times well. Coppola put effort into creating the feel of a 50's Oklahoma town. It's a very subtle touch, but I throughly enjoyed it.When it comes down to it, The Outsiders is not a bad movie, but it's definitely no good either. It does a great job of re-telling the book in the exact same way, which for me was a pointless excersise.

Davis P I just don't see the great love some people have for this movie. The Outsiders (1983) is a film by Francis Ford Coppola, based off the novel of the same name. The story is set in the 1950s, and it stars a lot of the big time youth stars in Hollywood at that time. The cast includes Matt Dillon, Tom Cruise, Ralph Macchio, Patrick Swayze, and Diane Lane. The film's plot relies a lot on the acting from the cast, it's a lot of heavy dialogue between the characters. And of course there is nothing wrong with a film relying a good bit on the actors and their talent, but I feel like this film relied so much on it that the actual story suffered. The rich and poor, the preppy kids and the greaser kids, the differences in social class plays a big role in the plot. It's ultimately what gives us a movie, it's because of that and the horrible consequences that come about from that, that we even have a book and movie. I will commend the acting from all the cast members, the performances given were very good and that's why the rating is as high as it is. To be completely honest, the acting is really the only part of this film that I actually liked. I feel like the actual plot was weak and the filmmakers didn't do enough to make me care about what happened. Many times throughout the movie, I found myself bored and wondering when it was going to end. I just couldn't get involved in the story, couldn't get myself to care about what happened. I think another mistake they made was the pace and the length. Maybe if it was longer, and if they would have filled that time with more interesting things, then I would giving this film a higher rating. I can't recommend The Outsiders because truthfully it's not that great of a film. Yes, many of the performances given were good, but that's it as far as positives go. I felt like I had overall wasted my time by the end of the film. I guess it's not terrible, but it's certainly not good. 4/10 for The Outsiders.

ryanp-48552 The Outsiders is the movie adaptation of the book of the same name. The plot is Ponyboy and Johnny two "greasers" kill a "soc" named Bob after he almost drowned Ponyboy. He does this because earlier in the movie, he saw Ponyboy, Johnny and their friend Two-Bit with his girlfriend. They go to their friend Dally, he gives them money and a gun. They hide in this church, before Dally comes and picks them up. But the church catches on fire, and Ponyboy and Johnny go back to save some kids who got stuck in there. Johnny and Dally are both injured in this, and they are rushed back home, where the greasers and the socs are planning for a large scale gang fight that night. After they win the fight, they go back to find johnny is dying. After he dies, Dally robs a store, but is shot dead by police officers. Then it ends with Ponyboy writing the story as an essay.I read the book in Grade Eight, and while not good, you could still understand what was happening. The movie, fails at that. You need to read the book to understand what the relationship between Ponyboy and his brothers. In the movie it completely glossed over it. Anyway, some of the acting is bad, and feels forced, and there are so many parts of the movie that are unintentionally funny. Some examples: When Ponyboy and Johnny are standing outside of a church, and they are watching a sunrise, there is a orange filter being used. And you can tell because, everything in the shot is orange. Another time is at the end of the movie, when ponyboy is reading Johnny's note, it shows Johnny's face, then after he's done reading, it just zooms in on Johnny's eye, for no reason.There are a bunch of bad shots, like one in the church where it just pans over the church's floor. Also, the pacing of this movie is bad. Everything is rushed, Johnny's death is completely glossed over and they cut out a bunch of stuff. In the beginning of the movie, when Ponyboy is shoved over by his brother Darry, instead of a long dramatic pause, it just quickly cuts to Ponyboy running away. There is music playing over every scene almost. And in the gang war towards the end of the movie, you can't tell who is who. The movie does have some good stuff, like the plot is interesting, Dally's death is well shot, but there are just too many flaws for it to be called a good movie.Final Verdict:5.7/10 A poorly paced mess of a film, with a few redeeming qualities.

Movieman The golden age of film was in 1980's, some will argue the 1930's & 1940s, though during those years actors were without color. The director Francis Ford Coppola laid down his desire for dark drama and intertwined a fresh cast of faces no audience had ever witnessed. Some of which went on to carry fortunate future titles, building long careers in acting. With this cast alone, a symmetry of poverty was produced in an honest portrait of Rich Kid Vs. Poor Kid. We are all invited into the diary of a lost boy group without assistance attending school under the thumb of wealthy bullies. Leading into a tragic sequence of inner city blues, as raw and detailed as reality.