Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Outsiders” didn’t storm the box office back in 1983.
But, years later, it became famous for its young cast. Patrick Swayze. Tom Cruise. Ralph Macchio. Matt Dillon. Rob Lowe. Diane Lane. Emilio Estevez.
All would go on to become either stars or, in the case of the couch-jumping Cruise, mega-stars.
But doesn’t the same hold true for “Platoon?” That 1986 Oscar winner, out this week in a snazzy new Blu-ray release, fared far better with both critics and crowds alike. So it never needed much in the way of a boost. But look at the “Platoon” cast. Willem Dafoe. Forest Whitaker. Charlie Sheen. Johnny Depp. Kevin Dillon.
Not a bad collection of young actors on the cusp of fame.
But whatever happened to that Sheen kid, anyway?
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
“Outsiders” had the bigger cast, but “Platoon” put its cast to better use (aside from Sheen, who didn’t have the depth necessary to carry the lead role- Stone’s first choice for the role was apparently Kyle MacLachlan, who I think would have done a much better job).
Outsiders + Red Dawn (there’s that Sheen kid) > Platoon. Of course, they all pale compared to Fast Times at Ridgemont High, featuring future Oscar winners and nominees galore, including the writer.
Agreed, Jimmy, regarding Sheen in Platoon. I always thought he was too much of a lightweight for that role, especially spending so much of the time playing against the menacing character played by Tom Berenger.
Platoon also had Corey Glover, (the lead singer of Living Colour of “Cult of Personality” fame)
I really can’t judge too much, I think Outsiders had the bigger, and newest cast, with nothing on their sides pushing them forward as yet, so I’m going with that one. Ralph Macchio? Who’s that guy? C. Thomas Howell? Who’s that guy (okay, yeah, “who is that guy,” but with CT being the horror fan, “The Hitcher” was a GREAT movie.) at the time, I think only Dillon had a name. Him and Leif Garret. These were all young and noone actors at the time, who got a shot and are almost universally known because of that movie.
Platoon had better actors, other than Sheen, but they were established actors, just haven’t had a major feature to showcase themselves yet. Berringer, and Willem Defoe are Amazing, Kevin Dillons role was disturbing, charlie was a whiner, whitaker and David were rebelious blackboys. The roles weren’t fantastic by any means, but the performances in many cases were, but that’s because it’s really a superficial story. A few experienced actors in a well financed and promoted movie, vs a bunch of noone kids in a movie that was just a second thought trying to actually tell a story.
So in end, I go with Outsiders.
Hmm, two overblown didactic movies with simplistic Marxist narratives—how shall we pick which is “better” (i.e., less horrible)? Also, Platoon convinced people to tolerate Charlie Sheen, and that’s more despicable on Stone’s part even than palling around with Castro and Chavez (both of whom are probably saner than Sheen, which should scare you).
I suppose crappy Vietnam movies annoy me less than crappy “coming of age” movies, though, so I’m gonna have to say Platoon is a slightly less severe offense…uh, I mean “better movie”.
Platoon is one of the best comedies of all time,its like mommie dearest(unintentional comedy)Stone’s the guy who some how made a even a film about the jfk assassination seem dated.Jfk’s his best film,its a good thriller,but even that’s cheesy and manipulating.Back to platoon,its badly acted,one dimensional characters,bad dialouge,manipulating cheesy music,and the most obvious,simple plot,in war film history!Full metal jacket just gets better and better