Are we supposed to like these guys?

[deleted]

I agree. While some of their conversations in the Diner were quite enjoyable, for the most part the characters were just uninteresting and had no depth to them (I don't usually complain about this in films). Rourke's character was rather interesting of course, but Bacon's character was, for some reason, the only one I genuinely liked... or at the very least, was fun to watch. Nevertheless, I dig the film.



What do you think the teacher's gonna look like this year?

Well, it's not really a "coming of age" movie at all. These guys are already adults, but they're just young enough where they're not really adults, or at least, they don't act like one. They haven't grown up. But I think liking these characters is besides the point. As you said, it's a slice of life, and I think it accurately depicts guy friendships. What's important is that the audience is able to recognize who these guys are. That they can see themselves, or their friends, in these guys. And chances are you know a Modell in real life, or a Boogie, or have a friend who married at a young age.


Jack "Things could be worse"
Hurley "...HOW?!"

Yeah, I'm honestly shocked this movie was nominated for an Oscar for Best Screenplay, where was the script?? The dialogue was boring and flat, the story was bare bones, there was no dramatic tension or character development. I didn't care about a single character. Scenes jumped from one place to the next without any real thru-line at all. I was bored out of my mind watching this, and I'm a big fan of films of this genre (simple storylines, focused on an ensemble, minimalistic direction, etc).

This movie instantly made me think of "Swingers" (only I actually like "Swingers"); I felt like Jon Favreau pulled a lot from this to get the overall feel of "Swingers," but "Swingers" is a far more entertaining movie, at least there's a clear main character in "Swingers" and you care about him and he has an arc throughout the film. I could've cared less about Boogie or Eddie or Shrev or Billy in "Diner." I mean, Boogie's storyline literally is he owes people money for gambling, he puts his dick through popcorn so his date will touch it, he then sees a hot girl on a horse, he starts to try to sleep with Shrev's wife but doesn't, his debt gets paid off for him (WAY too easy of plot point there if I'm being an annoying critic), then he magically gets a horse and finds Horse Girl and rides around with her. Huh? Who is this guy?! Why am I supposed to care about any of this?! Because Mickey Rourke is "charming?" Is he?? Boogie just comes across as a guy who thinks he's cool who mumbles a lot. I'm confused.

Then there's Eddie, okay, he's weird, acts childish, is getting married, gives his wife a football trivia test in hopes she'll pass it, she doesn't so he says they can't get married, then next time we see him he's marrying her. Huh?! Why the hell should we care about him?! Or ANY of this??? HOW IS THIS A BEST SCREENPLAY?!?!? None of the characters EARN anything they get in the movie. Ugh. I could go on and on. I feel like this movie makes every single screenwriting mistake imaginable.

Just didn't understand why it deserves to be called a "classic." Am I missing something???

I didn't like them either. I agree, I enjoyed seeing this slice of 1959 Baltimore, but wish it had been focused on some other lives and not these jerks.

I'm not sure, most of them were jerks, but it didn't stop the movie from being enjoyable. Of course American Graffiti was a stronger movie just because of those funny, likable characters, but that's just my opinion.

I don't know, but it's funny the metascore or w/e is almost a NINETY, and it was just a so-so movie, and then a lot of good movies have metascores of like 45.

I didn't mind them - I just found it boring. Had to turn off about halfway through and will finish some other time but I'm not exactly in a rush.

I guess this is considered a polarizing movie but I can't see why people love it. It's just there. Other films have done the same concept far better.