That Was Then... This Is Now

I was born in 1970. While many movies such as Pretty In Pink, etc. were bigger hits, these movies along with a couple of others were incredibly important in what it means to be a friend, what it meant to grow up, and what it meant to grow up in the 80's. It wasn't a "great" movie, but it was a great movie for me and is a great movie about growing up, deciding what is important, forming morals. Will be on my buy list when I get a little money.

Only thing wrong with this movie-- the decision to "update" the story to make it contemporary. Some novels lend themselves to that kind of reinterpretation easily, but S.E. Hinton's early works aren't among them. The book, set in the late 60s, was essentially a follow-up to "The Outsiders," picking up a few months after its TV Series left off. The character of Ponyboy was taken out of this film for obvious reasons (why would he still be 16 in 1985?), but other Outsiders (most notably Tim Shepard) remained intact without aging a day-- effectively destroying any continuity it might have had with the film it was undoubtedly cashing in on. As result of this questionable rewrite, the novel's focus on the greaser/soc conflict dying off is completely absent, as are other time period-specific subplots. Perhaps the filmmakers wanted this to stand on its own from Coppola's then-recent "Outsiders" adaptation, but this likely hurt "That Was Then...This Is Now" in more ways than it helped it.

I always loved S.E. Hinton's novels as a kid: The Outsiders, Rumble Fish (which in my opinion, is the greatest film adaptation in the series despite everyone's fascination with The Outsiders), Tex, and That Was Then This is Now.

'That Was Then, This is Now' was the last film adaptation (although the TV series for 'The Outsiders' follows five years later after the release of this movie). I would've attribute the mediocrity of the movie, or at least the inability to really put forth all that the novel did, was because it was not directed by Francis Ford Coppola (who directs 'The Outsiders,' and does a fabulous job with 'Rumble Fish'), except 'Tex,' which was a pretty good movie, was likewise not directed by Coppola.

I think it is in part the chemistry among the characters. The whole mood looks like something out of a music video, with Craig Scheffer coming off more like a guy who broke off a long relationship with a girlfriend rather than dealing with a rambunctious brother (in addition to other things). Plus, as another viewer already mentioned, they shifted the focus on characters so that superstar Emilio Esteves becomes the center of attention. Most of S.E. Hinton's novel always portrayed a struggle from the brother who is looking out at things that, by his perception, have become (or always were) seriously out of control. (See 'Tex' and 'Rumble Fish'). And yes, they unfortunately acquiesced to the Hollywood happy ending, and in the sappiest way, despite all of the problems that the characters endure.

Unlike previous adaptations of Hinton's novels, even those not directed by Coppola, they really fail to portray the struggles that the characters realize in the book. And, lack of developing the story on this point really makes you only half appreciate the characters and their conflicts (and in this case, not even their resolution).

This is a very poor adaption of one of S.E. Hinton's best novels. The characterizations are quite off the mark, and there is little to no development of situations and characters. Periodically the viewer is thrown into really weak attempts at "deep", philosophical dialogue from out of nowhere - straight out of the book but oddly out of place in this disjointed film.

The acting is not much better. Only Frank Howard (as M&M) and Morgan Freeman (as Charlie) really make their roles believable. Emilio Estevez, perhaps due to the script itself, never makes Mark the character he needs to be to actually propel the story in the right direction.

All I can make of this film is an attempt at grabbing the same attention as "The Outsiders", another (and much better) film adaption of a S.E. Hinton novel. Both books/films have a few characters in common, some similar themes, and Emilio Estevez. "That was then..." just doesn't work out.

In English class, we read S.E. Hinton's saga of teenage angst. The students were enthralled with the story. While the setting was from years past, the ethical questions raised and the teenage situations were quite apropos. The story generated a great deal of quality discussion in class...education at it's finest.

The movie, however, was a bit of a disappointment for us. Taken by itself, it was a fine example of 80's brat-packish fluff. It was formulamatic, but entertaining. One could hardly say that the movie was based on the book, though. Bryon's personal growth journey and coming of age, so well illustrated in the novel, was sacrificed to car chases and Hollywood's penchant for tidy endings, in the movie.

While I would recommend both, I would caution that they are two separate stories, sharing the same character names. Perhaps there is the lesson: You cannot watch the movie to get out of reading the book! .