MovieChat Forums > The '60s (1999) Discussion > 30 year old high schooler???

30 year old high schooler???

posted 20 years ago by SilentJay76
7 replies | jump to latest

Who on Earth was responsible for the casting for this movie??? It's absolutely terrible! Not only do they cast a 30 year old as a high school junior (I thought at first that Josh was the OLDER brother, attending college!), but half the cast looks totally out of place. There's also absolutely no nostalgic feeling to this movie at any stage. I constantly had to remind myself that it's supposed to be the '60s.

I really tried to like this film, but I just couldn't. Terrible production of great material. What a waste...

[–] balehead55 20 years ago

Uh, the movie spans like 9 years so Jerry O'Connel has to look like he can span 18-27. Plus he does have a very young face. How is there no nostalgic feeling? Nowadays there are NOT hippies dancing in the streets, anti Vietnam war protests, or guys burning draft cards. Its a period piece, through and through.

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SilentJay76 20 years ago

Jerry O'Connell is fine. I'm talking about his "younger" brother, played by Josh Hamilton. He doesn't look anywhere NEAR 17! Probably because he was actually 30 during shooting, and looked even older, in my opinion.

As for the nostalgic feeling - I'm sorry, I just didn't have any. The hippies dancing in the streets and anti-war protests looked like re-enactments of hippies dancing in the streets and anti-war protests for a film... which it was. This has been done infinitely better in other movies. "Forrest Gump" is one. I've also seen a number of others, but can't think of any specific titles right now.

[–] jjr3929 19 years ago

I, also, thought the guys were too mature to be in any kind of school -- except for the final year of medical school.

And why were all the Herlihys still at home with mommy and daddy, with the father providing for all of them? Even as far back as the 60's, the young adult kids were on their own. Was Michael in school forever?

For three jobless kids, they certainly got around the country.

As far as nostalgia -- was the mother nostalgic for 1940's eyebrows? Hers were ultra-thin, especially with a technique at that time: the use of eyebrow stencils and dark pencil for bold brows.

The ending with Buddy showing up in that headband and that striped blousey shirt -- funny! And all the others in their hippie clothes and angry-Vietnam-veteran outfit. And small Michael with that long hair!

I know it was the 60's, but not everyone was so stereotyped.

The main problem with this film is that it tried to include too much.

And, yes, I agree that it was not real-looking brcause it was all so forced. That threesome did everything on someone's 1960's list of images.

(Scene at family picnic at home: Daddy, you were so mean to me. Now give me the food for which you paid and let me keep spending your money on my son and on poor, little me, and, oh, yeah, I want ....)

[–] atomicseasoning 19 years ago

I know what you mean, Josh Hamilton especially looked like he should've never portrayed HS whatsoever in he film. (When I look at the credits now, only Julia/"Katie" and "Sarah" were the only ones who were he right ages at the time. Jerry/"Brian" too, but only for the last few years.)

I also know what you mean about them all still living at home, however if you watch the movie/miniseries again you'll realise that Katie hadn't seen her parents for almost 5 years (from late 1964 when she got pregnant & ran away, until Aug. 1969 when her brothers found her & her son at Woodstock) so she sorta had catching up to do.

Yeah the rest of it was more than abit stereotyped, but they were trying to cram as much of the key elements from an entire decade ino a 3 hr TV miniseries, so you have to give them that. The fact that they got Julia Stiles and Jerry O'Connell etc. to do it is pretty good IMHO. (Plus as far as the police's treatment of the college protestors, at least they were a bit more accurate with the brutality than "American Dreams" is.)

[–] teachnsurf 11 years ago

Back in those times from the 50's and 60's, high schoolers looked and acted much older than their actual age. It's the era they were brought up in. Moms stayed home while dads worked. Discipline was practiced not only at home but at school as well. Kids were respectful. Too bad society has ruined morals.

[–] sartan01 11 years ago

(Plus as far as the police's treatment of the college protestors, at least they were a bit more accurate with the brutality than "American Dreams" is.)

atomicseasoning

I agree. That aspect was probably the only thing that made "The '60s" better than "American Dreams." Also, the police brutality against the black people was more realistic in "The '60s."

"American Dreams" was and is still a million times better. No offense to anyone who thinks differently.