Why isn't this film ever mentioned as one of the 80's best movies, or even, an undiscovered classic? I thought Rourke was great in the lead, and Henriksen was very sleazy in his role. Each actor played their role to perfection. This is one of the best 'B' movies ever made!
A terrific B Noir/Pulp? name your poison! This movie came out of nowhere, no flourishes or hipness. Hill tells his tale as it should be. Look at that cast! Mickey Rourke Morgan Freeman Lance Henrickson Ellen Barkin ForrestWhittaker Elizabeth Mc Govern ...and the great Scott Wilson.
It's a sad, very violent tale that is told and felt in 90 minutes. Very underrated, but isn't it fun to redicover these gems?
In discussing this under appreciated film no one has mentioned what (for me) is the biggest selling point of the enterprise, The great performance by the wonderful Ellen Barkin. She's mesmerizing all the way through with her gritty portrayal of a double crossing, double dealing, over-sexed, murderous and truly evil whore. She's truly great. Also, I fell hopelessly in love with Elizabeth McGovern when I saw Ordinary People and she was my favorite actress throughout the 80's. She has her limitations as an actress, but with that gorgeous face and those incredibly beautiful eyes, she had me transfixed for an entire decade.
I agree, Johnny Handsome is indeed one of the best films of the 80's- period. It's certainly not a B film.
I wonder if anybody who saw it picked up on the central theme of this film- the "liberal" view -vs- the "conservative" view? The liberal view, played by Forrest Whitaker, says that Johnny is intrinsically good but was made wicked by an evil society and a bad birth defect. The "conservative" view, portrayed quite nicely by Morgan Freeman, says that Johnny is inherently bad, no matter how he was born or how society has treated him.
In the end, Freeman's view wins- according to the film.
It is a B-movie, it's got a B-movie plot and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, it's a strength and a commodity that became less and less prevalent as time went on. What would have killed the movie are the compromises made to the story to get it produced at a higher level, like when Pacino was on board to do it. The execution and acting under Walter Hill's direction are A-level anyway and the Mick adds another reason why he was the most underrated leading man of his generaiton.
As for the social context -- the audience gets a huge visual metaphor regarding the appearance of a rehabilitated criminal versus what still goes on underneath and how, for whatever reason, change is almost never possible. To that end, it reminded me of a Sam Fuller movie.
Very like a Sam Fuller movie. And I agree that Johnny Handsome is a quintessential B-movie in the best sense of the word. It is pulpy, gritty, violent and fast-paced, with a strong urban atmosphere and great performances from everyone. Barkin in particular was a blast.
Dr Freud, I LOVE the Mick also, but he was never underrrated. For a few years, he was the hottest thing going. It was his mishandling of his career & tabloid BS about his personal life which took him from us. He was awesome in 'Sin City', but far from 'The Pope of Greenwich Village'.
yeah what ruined his career was in 1991 deciding to box. i was impressed with the way he got tough with that coworker. that move he makes right before he grabs that guy was perfectly natural. i don't know if they teach that move in acting class either way he did it perfectly.
I love this movie, it's ridiculous that it only gets 5.7! it deserves a lot more..
anyways, mickey rourke was excellent, morgan freeman was too.
the music was a little neutral (but very smooth+cool) music has a lot to do with the feel of the movies, and if this movie would've had better music, it would've been better.. The Firm (starring Tom Cruise) has the most terrible music in the world! -great movie though+underrated.
Personally, I like the fact not many people know about this sort of movie - I like B movies like this that don't have wide appeal like X Men or Indiana Jones. This film is well directed, well written and well acted - a typical 80s thriller/melodrama.
As for Rourke he WAS the 80s - his performances in the 80s were consistently the best of any actor in my opinion - just watch Year of the Dragon, Pope of Greenwich Village (try and ignore Eric Roberts), Rumblefish, Angel Heart - he is the MAN. Or was anyway. He was brilliant in the otherwise awful Sin City too - a real return to his 80s success.
Sadly, his performance was screaming: "hey look I've lost all respect for acting, you fools!" It's a shame. The moment when he sees himself anew in the mirror is very well done buy him, bet that was the only thing he really prepared for this movie.
Watched it last night and realized: I have very fond memories of this movie, but when I see it, I see 80s hollywood pop studio crap trying to be more than it is. Strange. I still can't hate it )
I agree. Terrific watch. The acting is a bit stylized, over-the-top, but in a good way. Sort of like heightened reality. It's not easy to pull that kind of tone off - clear indication of Walter Hill's genius as a director, and the consummate skill of this cast.
Rolling Stone "...The movie is spiced with malicious wit and dazzling performances....In this brutal, gripping film, Rourke means to get under our skin. And does..." 10/19/1989 p.29
"This is a movie in the true tradition of film noir..." Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times "Two thumbs up! A power house ending...I'd like to see it again." Gene Siskel, Siskel & Ebert
New York Times "...It becomes a flashy crime drama played by a furiously vibrant cast in [a] hardboiled yet over-the-top manner....Barkin enthusiastically tarts up the story..." 09/29/1989 p.C10
Washington Post 6 of 10 It's bracing to see Hill sticking true to his vision and, at the same time, looking for new ways to express it. His filmmaking here has a ruthless vigor. His storytelling--except for a sizable hunk in the middle while we wait for Johnny's new life to begin--is muscular and brisk. It sweeps you up in its grim nihilism. - Hal Hinson
i agree all the parts with rourke and mcgovern were intriguing, that's the best part of this movie. the problem is this movie wasn't intriguing until the 45 minute mark. the ending was flat. it just ended in a very unceremonial way it didn't have much power.