User Reviews

This documentary hit me like a ton of bricks. The soundtrack, the movie scenes , seeing the guys. I was never able to describe why loved these movies so much but listening to the folks in the film explain why these films were so important to them 100% made me feel like they were speaking for me. To those that gave this film a negative review, it's obvious that you weren't around during those years. This documentary made me want to watch all those movies all over again for the first time. I feel sorry for this generation, you guys can't even spell nostalgia without expecting help from Google translate. Great film.

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.

Sadly, watching this, I felt bad for the young actors. It did not impact movie goers like it did the actors. I felt the documentary was about the fact that McCarthy let it hit him so hard that it affected his career. Watching the other actors talk about their experience wasn't the same. They were upset, but they moved on, in some ways by separating themselves from the group, which is sad.

As a journalism major I was taught to be truthful, but be thoughtful and kind in my approach. Don't leave a trail of bones to make a personal attack, unless you have the experience or talent of the person you're interviewing. You're job is to report the facts, not personal opinion, unless its an editorial, which should hold no weight. The man who wrote the article did not have the same training apparently, nor did the editor. Before you demolish people, talk to them all and walk a mile in their shoes.

I'm sorry to see how it affected them personally. I would have enjoyed seeing them together in more movies. As a child of the 80s we related to the characters. I wish Andrew peace and happiness and hope he finds his bliss.

As someone who grew up with the iconic teen films of the 80s, I was eager to see this documentary. Sure...even though I have a nostalgic fondness for Andrew and the other stars of that time, there was a small part of me that prejudged this with an, "Oh...waa waa waa...labeled a brat when you were young...how devastating." But once I started watching, and progressively so, I realized they were experiencing the same damage that anyone who has been lied about/has a false or exaggerated reputation precede them has had to deal with...but on a larger scale. They experienced it in front of a huge audience, and in a field where one's career can be made or broken, and turned on a dime, from just one event or one narrative, however false it may be. While none of this is in the realm or war or famine or illness, it's understandable that some of these actors felt negatively impacted by, to some extent, having their dreams and goals hit a brick wall, likely due to the musings of a seemingly jealous and older-though-clearly-equally-immature writer defaming them as...immature. More on David below.

I found it fitting and interesting for Andrew to explore the label/article's impact, and he did a masterful job. It was nostalgic and engaging from start to finish, due in large part to Andrew's directing talent, and the courage he and the others had in being open and vulnerable. BTW, Demi's insightfulness was quite a surprising & welcome revelation...someone get her hosting an inspirational podcast, STAT.

Now for some words about David Blum: When Andrew went to visit him, I thought, great...full circle...this will be healing. But very quickly I realized David is, well...a brat. No matter how much he tries to downplay the negativity of the term "Brat Pack" - which by itself is not, of course, the end of the world - it shouldn't get lost on anyone that the content of the article was also disparaging. The distorted headline together with the article is what made it damaging. He was trying to capture his moment no less than Emilio, Judd, and Rob were that night...but somehow it was only okay for him to do so. It's not terrible for an actual journalist to write facts that are negative, as too few "journalists" even do anymore. But it is cruel for a writer to observe a few young, burgeoning talents enjoying themselves and soaking in the glory as most early-twenty-somethings in that situation would, and then slap them - and their colleagues - with a distorted label that will limit their opportunities in a field that is very sensitive to labels. One could - and should - argue that with fame & fortune comes heaping amounts of criticism, that there are pros & cons to everything, and that it's wise to develop a strong spine to handle it...but very few of us yet have a strong enough spine at that young age...and who among us wouldn't be bothered by a widely publicized exaggeration that will alter the course of our career?

The same 29 year old writer who chided their youthful exuberance is the same person who, in this doc, says, "...partially because, you know, you're 29...that's when you make mistakes...you got to take chances and just swing and do crazy things." So, it was okay for *him* to "...swing and do crazy things", but not okay for them? Not only that, but he defamed them for it. Got it, David.

We also get to see that it's apparently okay for *him* to complain about being criticized, as he does when he shares that he thought film critic Richard Schickel "...was there, it seemed to me, to attack me...and I'm like, really? That seems a little harsh, you know..." Again, these things are all okay for Blum, but apparently not okay for younger, more successful people (including Tom Cruise - don't miss David's attempted dig on him, too).

It should also be noted that his ridiculous point of separating those who went to acting school vs. Those who achieved their fame/success during or fresh out of high school puts his childish, insecure, elitist brattiness on full, glaring display...and that's the poetic justice in all of this: ultimately, the world gets to see that the only actual BRAT all along was - and is - David Blum.

Andrew McCarthy makes an earnest attempt to put his own struggles with what I always just assumed was a convenient turn of the Sinatra and friend's super cool "Rat Pack" nickname, into an 80s-ready contrivance for a hack reporter to weild as a cudgel against a coterie of successful actors who were younger and more talented than he was, to rest.

And in the end McCarthy does seem to make peace with the 'Brat Pack' moniker and its implications.

Along the way we find out that a few of those talented young actors allowed it to define their very careers and one or two of them are convinced it changed the entire trajectory of their professional lives.

A far more important consideration should be writer/director, John Hughes, and the impact on the Brat Pack's careers and the films that he made that many would agree, defined a generation.

Someone may have already delved into the Hughes' genius and the legacy he left for us to enjoy.

This documentary sheds light on the personal experience for a group of actors who many of us loved to watch but whose actual lives were unknown to us. Easy to understand how at such a young age the label of being in the "brat pack" could have lasting impact. It's not often you reach such a level of fame and success, and then in a single day are given a brand you never wanted. Andrew conveys his experience and meets with others in the brat pack and discusses their experiences and insights. FYI - Demi is an of insightful sage.

As a fan of the brat pack, it was simply great to see them all again. The documentary was enlightening as I never even considered being part of the brat pack could be a negative thing. To me the brat pack was a group of actors who portrayed our experiences as teenagers on screen and we wanted to see them in every movie. Seeing them in ensembles was great, as were solo features, we never took it negatively but rather as a way to connect with them and always wish for their success.

Overall, this is one I recommend as a case study in the power of the written word. Once article changed all their lives, and this picture shows you how. Worth watching and well made. The nostalgia factor is also mind blowing and made this so much more enjoyable. Think of this as the brat pack finally dealing with their demons from the past, while we get to learn about them, their connections to one another, and how they felt about this brand. It also made me realize how much I missed them all; never will there be a time like the 80s again and never will there be such a talented group of young actors like the brat pack ever again.

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.

Andrew McCarthy corals interviews from a stellar group of eighties superstars who rode the wave of mega hit movies. It is light and fluffy with McCarthy a perfect host delving into the thoughts of the happening. I was a teen of the eighties so this documentary is preaching to the choir. It's great seeing the whole gang again.

It's nice to get some insight to the feelings they were having during the highs of there career. With analysis from the people behind the scenes and journalists who propelled the 'Brat Pack' into the consciousness. Plenty of cool clips obviously. Those movies ruled.

Also the soundtrack is jammed with cool tunes from the decade. It could make a perfect mixtape. The St Elmo's Fire is impossible to escape from.

Now can we get Weekend At Bernie's 3!

Everyone of these people that are on the screen hold a significant place in my brain and in the way I act and what I see as succes, how I still see the separation of classes. I get why they were so stressed about the "Brett pack" term, but for the rest of us poor shlubs that would never be beautiful or charming or rich, that was where we wanted to be! We would've sold our right arm and our mothers to be part of the brat pack, to live that lifestyle of beauty. One of the things that I've noticed is that they complain that maybe their careers didn't go the way they had hoped because of this term and yet every single one of them live beautiful homes and have families which is where I get to the cringe part I understand that it frustrated them, but to have PTSD over Rich and famous careers is a little much for me .

I'm absolutely Gen X and I grew up with the movies and actors here. The longer I stayed with this doc, the more dismayed I was with what Andrew McCarthy was trying to do.

I don't know exactly what I expected but it certainly wasn't listening to the director complain ad nauseum about a single article written some thirty plus years ago that he still can't get over.

I felt like he was in therapy and talking to his psychiatrist rather than making a movie about a film genre that was and is still important to me.

The longer this movie went on, the worse I felt about it. I'm glad I watched to the end to hear actual words of some wisdom from Rob Lowe but I still wish I hadn't watched it.

It feels like sour grapes all the way through and if you're nostalgic about old movies you loved in the eighties, you should stay away from this depressing piece of self indulgent whining.

Am of the same vintage and remember all these actors and movies very well. I enjoyed these movies and occasionally watch the movies.

I not sure about McCarthy - he puzzles me. He strikes as a lost soul, looking for answers as to why his career did not turn out as he had hoped. The movie was interesting , in some ways more questions than answers.

Why did Judd and Molly decline to appear? The interview with Emilio seemed quite uncomfortable. You got a sense that this hook up after all the years would not lead to them becoming close again.

Revisiting the past no matter who you are and what you do does not bring answers or closure.

I got a sense the actors didn't like the BRAT PACK name, but most of them moved on and got over it.

I never thought the tittle "Brat Pack" was degrading or bad press for these young actors from the 80's. I simply believed that these actors Andrew McCarthy, Rob Lowe, Demi Moore, Molly Ringwald, Judd Nelson, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy, Mare Winningham, James Spader, Anthony M. Hall and several more had great chemistry and made sincere and enjoyable coming of age movies. We could all relate to one of the characters they portrayed or to traits from a combination of characters. I thought Demi Moore and Rob Lowe had good attitudes and seemed to use belonging to the "Brat Pack" in a positive way to move forward with their lives and careers, they figured it out. I read these actors were told to avoid each other, not be seen together or to do any further projects together, by their publicists I would assume. They were young and impressionable and maybe all of it could have been dealt with in a more professional, productive way. The movies they made together are classics and still have an impact on everyone that watches them today. They can be proud of that. I believe that the journalist tricked his way into their lives and wrote an article to advance his career tho he knew it wasn't the right thing to do...but his article had little negative impact on the fans of John Hugh's and the fans of the "Brat Pack" actors. We just loved the movies and they reached us on an emotional level. I was quite a fan of Molly Ringwald's vintage fashion and probably not the only one. These actors were really amazing in the 80's and had no reason to run away from each other and to never see or talk to each other again. They may have made several more good movies with any combination of them starring in them. They could have been lifelong friends. I enjoyed this documentary and the interviews from the actors who did talk to Andrew M. It was enlightening. There are songs from the soundtracks of these movies that will always transform us to different times and places in our lives. I just hope these actors realize that the work thy did was worthy and that they are very much appreciated for it.

Obviously this film will be a bit divisive, but I think it was very courageous by AM. For those of us born between say 67 (66?) and 71 (72?) it brought many visceral reactions. Yeah, maybe AM's project was in and of itself "bratty", but so what. After hearing Blum out as well as the others it's kind of an "all's fair in love and war" theme. He was a young journalist building a career and it was within the bounds of what makes America great. AM isn't being any nicer here. Even if you deem AM's project a whine fest, if it earns him new looks from Hollywood and/or the public, good for him.

Here's the thing though - both my older and younger siblings were born just outside the 67-71 timeframe, the "brat pack" films didn't have nearly the same impact as they did with me and the group I with which I grew up (68-70). Same will be true with AM's project. More importantly, not a single one of us read the article... Still haven't. Until I watched this film I had absolutely no idea the "brat pack" moniker had anything very negative associated with it. No one, not even people who were in high school in suburbs of Chicago in the mid 80s can really wax intelligent prose on this whole debate if they didn't see each of the films at the theater in their day AND read the entire, original article.

I thought it was enjoyable to watch, so the guys I did a lot of dumb things with in the mid 80s.

First and foremost 'Brats' shows that young actors in Hollywood are vulnerable. Andrew McCarthy tells us that the term 'Brat Pack' had a big impact on some of the young artists' minds, who were part of this pack. Understandbly as a young person you want to be taken seriously and when a journalist from a renowned newspaper all of a sudden calls you a brat, this can be hurtful and even traumatic for young sensitive artists. The art of an actor is to be sensitive so they can transcribe thoughts, feelings and emotions via their whole being, onto the screen or onto a stage. I very much also understand the journalist being proud of himself with this genius terminology 'Brat Pack'. Where it went wrong was with the guidance from agents and production companies who should have helped these young professionals. It is probably one of the sides of Hollywood that is being ignored: the lack of guidance, the lack of help to understand and define everything that is happening around them and to help them explain and help them to deal with all the turmoil that comes with becoming famous and successful in Hollywood. It sounds to me that the young actors were left tending to themselves on how to deal with all of this. So it is not where the journalist went wrong, but where the whole Hollywood industry failed them. Hollywood as an industry failed them, it failed to be there for their money making actors. Especially when teenagers and young adults are involved. But also when people are adults and experience a sudden succes and fame in Hollywood, there should be good professional help and guidance for a long period of time. I think it would prevent many addictions, many depressions and many stressful, negative feelings. I think this is a subject that should have been talked about, in this documentary. But it shows that even now, as middle aged people, these actors still need to figure out for themselves how to deal with these kinds of phenomenons. So, of course they should have been proud being called the Brat Pack. All of a sudden they were put on the same pedestal as the original Rat Pack. The journalist could have called them Rat Pack 2.0.. But let's face it: Brat Pack is a much better, literary title. It is a badge of honour. And of course they were seen as Brats, when all of a sudden these young actors are making money as never seen before in Hollywood, looking at young actors. And the older generation probably would have also called them Brats, out of jealousy and spite. But when you're in your early 20's without lots of life experience, this could prove to be too difficult to put into context. But everyone around the world wanted to be a Brat like them, have succes like them, be charismatic and communicatively able like them and yes to party like them and be respected like them. Because let's face it: being given such a huge badge of honour, being called the Brat Pack in direct reference to the influential Rat Pack, is a testimony to the succes and influence of these young people right there and then in the 1980's. It is a sign of huge respect, there just weren't professionals around these young people to explain this to them.

As a big fan of my 80s idol Andrew McCarthy this Doc hits the spot. The Brat Pack term that had a negative impact from the actors early on embraced it in this film. Sadly not all the Brat packers didnt show up which is a shame. Andrew did a good job choosing certain 80s songs that represented that era. I also felt Andrew vibed more with certain brats like Demi and Rob than others. As a an 80s kid and seeing the movies you grew up watching brings back happy memories. I just wish they would have interviewed other unofficial Brats like Robert downey jr and James Spader. Overall I like this Doc for what it is, a flashback to memory lane.

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 ****

I'm of the same generation as the members of the Brat Pack, but I have to admit my takeaway from Andrew McCarthy's 2024 documentary was mostly indifference. The film amounts to the actor's personal odyssey in examining the impact of the media's Brat Pack designation back in 1985 on him and his close-knit colleagues, almost all of them in their early 20's. Nearly four decades later, McCarthy, now 61, uses a first-person narrative to track down his fellow Brat Packers as well as Brat Pack-adjacent actors like Lea Thompson and Timothy Hutton and even David Blum, the magazine journalist who wrote the puff piece that introduced the term. Despite his genuine efforts toward personal revelation, McCarthy often comes across as self-entitled and obsessed with the "brat" moniker all these years later. His fellow sixtyish Brat Packers appear downright sanguine compared to him (Ally Sheedy, a poker-faced Emilio Estevez, a chill Rob Lowe, and a post-therapy Demi Moore), and Blum is understandably unapologetic about his role in hurting the feelings of a group of celebrities who are clearly not hurting financially.

Clearly, Andrew McCarthy has been deeply affected by the "brat pack" name for the past ~40 years, both personally and professionally. In this doco, he attempts to bring together the Brats to talk about that era, and the lasting effects of being labelled such.

Some of the "pack" agree with him, and others more or less brushed it off. A couple of the main "brats" chose not to appear at all, preferring to leave the past where it belongs. During the interviews I felt like Andrew McCarthy was putting words into their mouth, almost disagreeing with his former costars about their views of that era. It was almost like, "Why aren't you more upset about this?"

It is interesting to see the impact the term has had on its so-called members. Did it raise their popularity? Did it harm their careers? (Yes to both.) Did they take offence? (Some yes, some no.) Of particular interest was the interview with the journalist who coined the term: why he did it, how he came up with it, and the effects he dealt with in the aftermath. At times, Andrew did not look happy during this interview at all!

My main complaints are technical issues: camera angles, editing, that sort of thing. Very distracting, and I don't think the finished film is a cohesive piece of work. While Andrew McCarthy is an accomplished director, this is not his finest work.

Like most Gen X, I grew up with the brat pack so this was an interesting look back at the actors and how the name originated.

A lot of the interviews become quite awkward as we see Andrew spend the entire documentary basically lamenting the brat label as though it ruined their lives. Emilio Estevez looks nothing short of uncomfortable as he stands there barely getting a word in other than politely nodding and agreeing.

Malcolm Gladwell's section was quite interesting as he offered some great insight into why the Breakfast Club was as popular as it was, pointing out how there was no social media at the time and the movie was one of the first to show 80s kids something they felt genuinely represented them, and how the idea of being brats was cool to them. The producer Lauren Shulee Donner adds to this idea, finally getting Andrew to see that Brat Pack was something seen as cool to teenagers, while Andrew seems to have spent his life being negatively defined by this term.