MovieChat Forums > The Lost Boys (1987) Discussion > First half feels almost like a different...

First half feels almost like a different movie from the second half


I watched The Lost Boys last night either for the first time, or for the first time since I was a child. I would swear that I watched it as a kid but, watching it last night, none of it at all felt familiar.

The movie was fun and also functions as an interesting time capsule of the actors, fashions, music and film conventions that were in vogue in the late 80s. At 97 minutes I also think it's just about the right length, and doesn't wear out its welcome or stretch its premise too thin.

That said, I feel like a certain kind of film is set up in the first half of the movie but then, in the back half, it shifts and kind of becomes something else. For instance, while there is humor in the first half, much more time is focused on David and his crew of vampires and the COOL of everything. In the back half though, at least until the finale, the titular Lost Boys nearly disappear--and along with them the sense sense of "cool" of the film's world--while the humor is ramped up and Sam and the Frog Bros come the prominence in the plot.

While I did enjoy the film as a whole, I would've liked to have seen a film with more of the attitude and style of the first half, and more scenes with David and his crew of blood-sucking misfits.

Did anyone else also feel this way?

reply

You know it's funny as it randomly occurred to me recently how peculiar it was how there was all of this early buildup of David and his gang, culminating with Michael being recruited & then they abruptly drop out of the film until they reappear antagonistically later in the film. In retrospect, it always subconsciously felt a bit disjointed & a bit of a missed opportunity to flesh out Michael's dynamic with David & his vampire gang in the middle parts of the film before becoming fully antagonistic

reply

For sure. It does feel like something is missing in terms of that dynamic. More time should've been spent on Michael falling under the sway of the David and his crew but he becomes entranced VERY quickly and, once he drinks the blood, the focus laragely lifts to Michael trying to understand what's happening to him, which mostly occurs in scenes where he's either by himself or with his brother.

In the OP I praised the run time and it was "just the right length." Maybe that's actually not correct. Maybe it would've been better as a two-hour film with some of the story elements fleshed out better.

reply

Kiefer admitted that the experience wasn't cohesive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmA_KepFjgE

reply

Keifer's body language there is crazy.

reply

Understandable given the Julia Roberts thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES0oHwRvTcg

reply

In the end both avoided that bullet.

reply

They didn't talk to each other for a long time but they made up and are very close now, or so I've heard.

I'm pretty sure both of them were with Jami Gertz as well.

reply

That was interesting, thanks.

It's been years since I last saw Jason Patric and would not have even recognized him there.

reply

That's an interesting video, it's cool that Jason was interested in improving the film and talked to the director above.

I think he meant that the Santa Cruz scenes were not cohesive, probably because of time issuues (looks like most of it was filmed at night).

What's also interesting is that Schumacher rewrote the Lost Boys to be in their 20s instead of 13. I still think the strongest scenes in the movie are between Dianne Wiest, Bernard Hughes and Edward Herrman, and the two Corey's.

reply

Many films do that I expect - fun and games at first then more serious when the plot nears its conclusion

reply