MovieChat Forums > The Outsiders (1983) Discussion > Why some people criticize this as "the c...

Why some people criticize this as "the cheesiest, corniest movie ever"

posted 3 years ago by Wuchak (8776)
7 replies | jump to latest

This was one of two films Francis Ford Coppola shot back-to-back based on S.E. Hinton's young-adult novels. "The Outsiders" was successful at the box office while the even more artsy "Rumble Fish" (1983) failed to draw an audience.

Hinton began writing "The Outsider," her most popular novel, in 1965 when she was 16, inspired by two rival gangs at her school, Will Rogers High School, which is about 2.5 miles west of downtown Tulsa. I bring this up because the movie definitely comes across as a melodramatic tale from the perspective of a teenager.

The most mundane, trivial events are presented as life-or-death happenings, like going to a drive-in theater or facing your nemeses at a park where one person idiotically brings a switchblade to a fistfight.

This explains why some people write the flick off as "the cheesiest and corniest movie ever." In its defense, you have to acclimate to it in order to appreciate it. Go back to what was happening in your life when you were in your mid-teens and how a fistfight or breakup was an earthshattering event. The movie captures this very well.

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77577) 3 years ago

I’ve always greatly respected this movie and the short novel it’s based upon.
I’ve read and seen both many times, Hinton could tell a good story and Coppola made a fine film with this one here.

[–] Oblivioid (1494) 3 years ago

This movie is a work of art, and the book is a classic that every adolescent should read. Just about every movie on this website has the same similar threads with the same similar criticisms. I don't think most people even understand what they are saying. Why is the movie 'cheesy? Does that person even know?

I think when a viewer can't personally relate to situations presented in any film, that translates to 'cheesy', when in fact you're just ignorant and have little life experience.

[–] punkrockgirl (1270) 2 years ago

There is nothing cheesy or corny about this movie. People who think that don't understand. This was a story written in the 1960s. so the screen adaptation is set in the 60s. I like that the director chose to make it feel that way. It's completely like films were at that time. With the lighting, scenery, music, and even the acting. When I watch the Outsiders, I don't feel like I'm watching an 80s movie, I feel like I'm watching a 60s movie.

Also, the author was actually 15 when she started writing the Outsiders and finished the novel when she was 16.

[–] Wuchak (8776) 2 years ago

Thanks for the more accurate info.

By happenstance I read a review of this movie yesterday by someone on IMDb, a good writer, who lambasted the film for including a song from 1964, "Gloria" by Van Morrison, when the events took place (he claimed) in the 50s. Nope, the story takes place in 1965 when "Gloria" would've been a staple hit.

[–] punkrockgirl (1270) 2 years ago

To add what I said, she did write most of the novel when she was 16, but it actually wasn't published until S.E. Hinton was 18 years old.

Thank you for sharing that bit of info. Yes, it should be clear that the story takes place in the 60s, not the 50s. I think it was smart of them to use that song. The music in the film was used brilliantly (as far I know with only the theatrical version that I've watched) and I actually didn't know it was named "Gloria."

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Good points.

[–] strntz (12474) 2 years ago

I think Coppola did a fantastic job of bringing the book to life. The movie was just how my mind's eye saw it when I read the book.

But I think both the book and the movie are cheesy stink fests. Mind you, as a black high school student in an inner city school in the 70s when I read this, a lot of things were corny to me, but I haven't changed my opinion even as I expanded my horizons.