Throughly enjoyable film that does the book justice, I personally prefer the book, but the main parts are still done excellently here, I recommend this.

Great soundtrack, lots of actors from around my youth which I think makes this movie seem better than it maybe. So not great but good.

Classic!

Its large cast generated the so-called "Brat Pack".

I hadn't seen the film since eighth grade and since then, I've watched a lot of eighties classics and know these actors better. So when I saw a poster for the movie I was like 'This is the cast? That film has to rock!' Well I watched it and my reaction was, eh? It was a comforting movie but man, the plot was so shallow the characters were pretty shallow outside of Ponyboy and the other guy I already forgot. Film just felt like a mess to me. Music was pretty solid but other than that, didn't give me much emotions. 5/10

Smart film from Coppola about gang rivalry. Like Rumble Fish it's based on a novel by S E Hilton - who wrote it when she was just 16! Apparently the book was banned due to it's portrayal of family disfunction, and underage drinking / smoking. The film was mostly trashed by critics on release.

Heck of a cast in this film though - most of whom went on to become megastars (Tom Cruise, Rob Lowe, Matt Dillon, Emilio Estevez, Patrick Swayze, Ralph Macchio, Diane Lane etc). Also beautiful cinematography by Stephen H. Burumwith lots of lovely fades, dissolves and sunset shots.

7.8/10

Modern viewers may find this overdramatic at times with sudden shifts in tone but the heart of the film is timeless and makes this a film to rewatch every few years.

From today's perspective, the biggest draw of "The Outsiders" is certainly the outstanding cast. In the first few minutes, you really sit in front of the TV the whole time, like Leonardo DiCaprio in "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood"—there are so many familiar faces. And the (almost exclusively male) actors do an excellent job in this coming-of-age film, especially C. Thomas Howell as the main character, Ponyboy. Audiovisually, I don't have much to complain about either: Director Francis Ford Coppola's direction is high quality, and the soundtrack captures the 1960s very well.

However, I didn't really warm up to the film. On the one hand, that's because I'm not particularly interested in the era. I just can't do much with the whole "Greasers vs. Socs" approach. Also, most of the characters aren't necessarily written in a compelling manner. Overall, I would still say that the strengths just outweigh the weaknesses in this film. If only because of the cast, "The Outsiders" is still fascinating today.

Definitely not a bad movie, but it was definitely more mellow and uneventful than what I was expecting, especially after ready the description. It definitely has its moments, but there is a lot of mellow drama mixed in.

The movie was too fast-paced and they removed a lot from the original book. But when they show the main parts of the original, they were pretty good. The directing was weird but understandable. The actors were alright and the soundtrack was great.

6/10, the book was better.

Somehow this has turned into a middle school summer reading assignment, and both my kids have had to read the book and analyze it prior to starting seventh grade. We watched it will my older child four years ago, and just watched it again with my younger child. I read it as a kid too, pretty sure about the same age they're at now.

I looked forward to watching it with them as they are always compelled to point out differences in the book and the movie.

I've seen the movie at least 4 times now, and it's always an enjoyable watch.

Turns out I marked down the wrong version. I was wondering why when I had paused it I was already over the 90min mark. Stupid TCM has 1983 in the EPG description. When in reality I was watching the 2017 release "The Outsiders: The Complete Novel" https://trakt.tv/movies/the-outsiders-the-complete-novel-2017
I have seen this release before so I'll leave it as watched.

Lacks nearly all the introspection, thematic nuance, and dramatic tension of the novel. Maybe if the directing had been different, the special effects not so overdone, and the sountrack not so gimmicky.

Didn't work for me. Lots of contrived scenes about 'we gunna make it' in various situations. No real emotions just charged scenes. It seemed to change tone often and was uncohesive.

Quite a few great actors in this movie. I thought it still was a little boring at times and too slow. I did watch the directors cut so that might of hurt it. The music was good.

I read the book in school as a kid but didn’t remember any of it in my adult years. With this being my first viewing of the film, I feel it’s a bit dated to really enjoy too much. I also found myself wondering what was cut between the novel and film as there were scenes I just didn’t understand such as why a school bus full of kids took a field trip to an old abandoned church in the first place. Oh well, being a classic at least now I can say I’ve watched it.

I thought this was another well shot Coppola, acted well by everyone, no matter how big or small the part was played. However, the tone and pacing is out of proportion here. I felt like I had seen at least three different types of films, made by three different directors. It is visually stunning at times though and the script appears to stay faithful to the novel.