Brats

Engaging documentary from actor Andrew McCarthy on the participants in the popular teen movies of the 1980s--actors who are now pushing 60--and how the label "Brat Pack" (taken from the headline in a 1985 New York Magazine article by David Blum, who is interviewed) was possibly a brand, a stigma, a curse, or maybe something special, something that other actors of the time aspired to be a part of. McCarthy, once a pseudo-self-conscious, aloof and somewhat constipated young movie star, took the inspiration for this project from his autobiography, "Brat: An '80s Story"; his feeling for the past 30 years that the term "Brat Pack" was a scathing slap at a certain group of young Hollywood talent circa 1985 isn't unjustified, but his personal wounds--and the sometimes mixed feelings of his contemporaries--are put into perspective here in quickie-therapeutic fashion (aided in its presentation by a bevy of vintage TV clips and interviews). One of the first questions posed is: who was actually in the Brat Pack? I always felt it pertained to select members of the cast of 1985's "St. Elmo's Fire" (not everyone, of course; there's no mention of Mare Winningham, for instance). There's also some suspense in McCarthy's rounding up of interviewees, particularly reluctant stars Molly Ringwald and Judd Nelson (both of whom decline the invitation). "Brats" isn't investigative journalism; McCarthy is out to heal personal and professional wounds, and he wants perspective in his journey from Emilio Estevez, Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Jon Cryer, Ally Sheedy, Lea Thompson, Timothy Hutton, writers, producers and directors. McCarthy insists he is not sentimental and he is not nostalgic--but "we" are, and the general catharsis is almost real. **1/2 from ****

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.

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.

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.