Jeanskynebu
the audience applauded
Stevecorp
Don't listen to the negative reviews
DubyaHan
The movie is wildly uneven but lively and timely - in its own surreal way
travisbickle86
With the clouds running through blue skies and the majestic mountains ever present you'll know Desperate Hours has American maverick, Michael Cimino at the helm. There are few auteurist directors who have this ability to impose themselves on an audience with the 'look' of their film stock within the first few minutes. Kubrick, Bergman and Tarkovsky come to mind, of course. Sadly, we are yet again left trapped between a conscientious artist trying to feed us caviar while the studio chew up some cardboard and spit it out:'According to some official sources, Michael Cimino's original cut of Desperate Hours was mutilated by the film's producers, resulting in a very badly edited film filled with plot holes. The only known proof of any deleted scenes are some stills which seemingly show a few of them.'It's sad to think Cimino didn't have the chance to re-cut this film like with Heaven's Gate. Still, the acting is fantastic; Mickey Rourke was at the height of his powers here. There is humour thrown between the tension; some of the more subtle exchanges and glances between the characters are masterful. Like in the 1955 version, there is subtext referring to class, and references to the changing nature of American society. Cimino also references the influence of advertising, although the theme is never developed (thanks again to you-know-who!) As Rourke's Bosworth spews out:'That's why America is becoming a second rate country!'The editing by Chris Rouse/Peter Hunt is a mess. Choppy and careless. The ending sees the most obvious intervention by the bean counters. I could almost hear the argument between director and producers during the closing scenes:'Give me more time. This doesn't make sense. There must be at least some character resolution!''No, Michael You've spent our budget. Don't mess with us, we're not United Artists. We'll tell the press!'For years I had avoided watching Desperate Hours based on the reviews; but if you are a fan of Cimino, it is easy to see past the choppy edits and plot holes. The cinematography is often a joy, as is the direction of the fantastic cast, costume/set designs and cars. At times I felt like shouting out 'Michael, you spoil us!' because you don't see many filmmakers today who are allowed to treat their audience as adults. Thank you Michael. RIP
hnt_dnl
In reality, DESPERATE HOURS (1990), a remake of the classic Humphrey Bogart-Fredric March film of the 50s, is a BAD movie, but still watchable due to it's badness! It boasts a talented cast of actors (Anthony Hopkins, Mickey Rourke, Lindsay Crouse, Mimi Rogers, David Morse, Kelly Lynch, Elias Koteas), all of whom had either had been in,or were about to be in, acclaimed works.It came out a year before Hopkins would do "Silence of the Lambs (1991)", for which he would take home the Best Actor Oscar, and go on to do several more acclaimed films in the 90s, receiving Oscar noms for most of them. Rogers would star in "The Rapture (1991)", for which she may have robbed a nomination for Best Actress. Lynch had just done "Drugstore Cowboy (1989)", one of that year's most acclaimed films. Crouse was 3 years removed from starring in arguably David Mamet's best film "House of Games (1987)". Morse was on his way to having a very successful career in small roles most notably, "The Green Mile(1999)". Koteas gave a scene-stealing performance a few years earlier in "Some Kind of Wonderful(1987)" and was among the army of cast members in one of the 90s most acclaimed films "The Thin Red Line (1998)". Last but certainly not least, is arguably the most famous (or should I say infamous!) of this eclectic cast, Mickey Rourke, who had just come off a dynamic decade in the 80s with hit and acclaimed movies such as "Body Heat (1980, his film debut)", "Diner" (1982), "9 1/2 weeks (1986)", "Year of the Dragon (1985)", and "Barfly (1987)". And to top it all off, "Desperate Hours" was directed by an Oscar-winning director, Michael Cimino (of "The Deer Hunter" fame). So what went wrong? I think the main problem with "Desperate Hours" is that it takes itself too seriously. There is no character filter or décorum. EVERYTHING is over-the-top, starting with the very loud and abrasive opening courtroom scene that sets the odd tone of the film. The judge yells. The lawyers yell. The accused gets to yell (which makes no sense). The accused in question is dangerous, sociopathic criminal Michael Bosworth (essayed by Rourke), who is about to be sentenced. His hot lawyer and lover (Lynch) helps him escape, then he goes on the run with his younger brother (played by Elias Koteas) and his brother's very big and very slow best friend (Morse).The 3 fugitives seek refuge in an affluent suburban neighborhood in the home of the fractured Cornell family, who are taken hostage by Bosworth and his cronies. The husband-father Tim (Hopkins) is just visiting as he and wife Nora (Rogers, who I actually believe delivers the most convincing performance of the film) are estranged and about to be divorced due to Tim's affair. The Cornells have 2 children, the teen-aged May (played by then-unknown Shawnee Smith, now of "Becker" and "Saw" fame) and Zack (played by Danny Gerard). In hot pursuit of Bosworth is FBI agent Brenda Chandler (Crouse), who end up using the lawyer as bait to help entrap Bosworth.This movie is incredibly awkward yet somehow, I find it immensely enjoyable! Everything is so over-the-top to the point it's hard to look away: the acting, the zooming camera shots, the hyper score. This remake came out in 1990, a year where movies were in transition of moving away from the dated look of 80s movies, but not yet adopting the dated look of the 90s movies. By having it's own unique style and not conforming to either decade, it actually makes the movie look kind of fresh when one watches it over 20 years later, as the focus is more on the beautiful scenery and setting, especially that huge mansion, than anything else.I know that a kidnapping-hostage situation SHOULD BE intense, but the actors' performances seem more like histrionics and hyperventilating acting than natural reactions to events. Characters are overly emotional at even the most minor moments that might call for subtlety. Yet the unintentionally laughable acting adds to this movie's watchability! I know it's wrong to laugh in a movie like this, but it's hard to avoid when the dialog and characters are so odd and weird. As Bosworth, Rourke pontificates with painfully long and confusing monologues. Hopkins basically does this odd-looking squint throughout the movie, I guess because his character is stabbed early on and so he must act as if in pain, but it seems over-the-top (honestly, though, I thought he carried this over-the-topness into "Silence of the Lambs"! LOL). Koteas plays it way too nice to be believable as a bad guy. Crouse sports an incredibly odd accent that I can't tell where she's supposed to be from! I don't know whether Morse is supposed to be stupid or mentally disturbed (maybe both). Smith and the other kid are terrible (but can be forgiven being essentially child actors). Lynch is an emotional mess in EVERY scene she's in. Rogers is the ONLY actor that rise to the occasion with a genuinely believable performance of a mother afraid for her family, yet that makes her out-of-place since everyone else is so off-kilter! And it's really all of this bad acting that makes the movie work. It's simply so BAD that it's actually GOOD! It's a fun ride watching these actors basically out-awful each other. The self-importance of the movie adds to it's awfulness. In particular, watching Rourke go nuts on everyone and needlessly pontificate is a hoot! Unfortunately, this movie signaled the downfall of his career as he literally started making nothing but crap in the 90s and even late into the 00s before a career-resurgence with an Oscar-nominated performance in "The Wrestler" some almost-20 years after this dubious film. Still, I have to say, if you want to be entertained and have a good laugh with a group of friends at a riff-able movie, this is one is definitely a contender!
nomorefog
Does anyone remember Michael Cimino? Well, if you don't he was the director of The Deerhunter, a major success as well as a film regarded subsequently as a 70's classic by critics. What happened a few years later was, he made his second film, 'Heaven's Gate' which unfortunately, was a legendary flop. The film bankrupted United Artists studio and since the film was his idea, who else was going to get the blame? Cimino was persona non grata for a long time with the major Hollywood studios, then made a comeback in the 90's with a series of coolly received films, but was never again to achieve the pre-eminence he had gained with 'The Deerhunter'. This movie was one of his attempts at a directorial comeback, but unfortunately it was derided by critics and public and failed to make much of an impression. As a remake of an old Humphrey Bogart vehicle, the film started behind the eight ball (some re-makes alienate the fans of the first version and can have what I would call, an 'aversion' factor which has to be overcome to make any kind of impression.) This remake of 'The Desperate Hours' (1954) was frankly, just never good enough to overshadow the original, much less to make money or find a contemporary audience.A group of gangsters conduct a nasty home invasion so they can kidnap an entire family and hold them to ransom for a vast amount of money. Well, what is the verdict? The cast seems solid, we have Anthony Hopkins, Mickey Rourke,and Kelly Lynch. The only one arising out of the ashes with their credibility intact seems to be Lindsay Crouse, playing a police woman who figures out what is going on in the house across the street. 'The Desperate Hours' suffers from misconceived characters as well as credibility problems with the script. The so-called 'good' people are pinched and small minded. They bicker amongst each other and are unable to make any kind of plan as to how to escape from their kidnappers. The 'bad' people are two-dimensional cardboard cutouts. Mickey Rourke is insufferable in this and why the others follow his orders is the sole thing to keep the audience awake just long enough so they can scratch their heads and ponder about it; there is no one in the cast for the audience to identify with, even remotely. Lynch and Rourke have a romantic tryst up against a wall that caused some comment, most of it derisive, and the film died the death on its first release.There are some who would defend 'The Desperate Hours' but I'm not one of them. I thought it was a yawn from beginning to end and frankly not worth anybody's time. The exception to all this mediocrity is Lindsay Crouse who has to put up with such little screen time she must have wondered why she accepted the part at all. Unfortunately for all concerned, 'The Desperate Hours' leaves the audience with about one hundred minutes of dead time. There are plenty more interesting crime films out there and I would say that it's best to skip 'The Desperate Hours' for something more rewarding.
czarnobog
Michael Cimino delivers another unfocused, meandering "epic."Like Cimino's "The Sicilian," this movie is an adaptation of a novel. And like that earlier film, this one is dragged down by elliptical and illogical story points.Cimino's weakness as a director is his inability to distinguish between cleanly complex story lines and unnecessarily complicated story machinations. Like "The Sicilian" this film sputters forward in stuttering starts and maddening stalls.How so many fine actors came to agree to be in this movie is a mystery. The script is so illogical at times that it stops you cold with wonder. Didn't anyone notice how inconsistent Mickey Rourke's character was? How unbelievable the characters' motivations and actions were in so many scenes?A few glaring examples: when the teenage boy shows up demanding to keep his date, it would have been simple to have the father tell him she was sick and asleep and couldn't be disturbed. Instead, the consummately cold-blooded and brilliantly devious villain sends the girl out on the date, trusting her not to run right to the police for help? Even worse, she complies.And when the boy does first arrive, he mentions not one word about the massive police barricades he just passed on his way to the house.The interaction between the law officers is just as nutty. Lindsey Crouse is a shrill feminazi barking orders, until her lamely contrived "character change."With three screenwriters on board, it would normally be hard to fathom exactly what went wrong. But checking the credits, we find that two of them had previously collaborated on several much better movies. The third is the original writer, who had a hand in the screenplay, as well as having penned the novel and a play based on it. My guess is that Cimino deserves the blame. Based on his earlier works, he seems to think long and rambling equates to epic. One telling scene set in a beautiful outdoor setting, with music ripped off from a John Ford western, testifies to Cimino's self-grandiose vision.This film wouldn't be nearly as painful to sit through if Cimino was less talented at handling actors and placing his camera. It's too bad he has such rotten story sense. Apparently he needs a stronger, more intelligent producer than DeLaurentiis and better story development executives to reel him in.
