What the?

Opinions, opinions and opinions, like you said.
There have been many comparisons of David Rabe to David Mamet.
Indeed. Mamet is comparable to Rabe. Their plays focus on
a stream of themes that tend to rush through their plays
like a river-current. And, based on personal experience,
audience reaction to the pieces have been just as heated
as the debates proposed in the plays.
Imagine David Mamet writing "Oleanna," stating in every
magazine interview that would listen and print that "Oleanna" was not
a political play, and then sitting back, lounging out,
puffing on an over-sized cigar, up in the marquee of the
theatre and laughing at the up-roar he had stirred.
Because, as a playwrite he had succeeded. An audience is
viewing his piece and responding.
I tend to believe that David Rabe follows suit. Explore the
history of his plays: controversial topics, war, the effects/
affects of war on the individual and the war with self.
Consider the symbolism of the play. Phil/Eddie/Mickey, forget
male-chauvinism, these men dabble in misogyny and debauchery
daily. But, essentially the piece is about the battle of the
self vs. self, vs. social influences and media influences.
Consider their professions. Tangible, believable and poetic.
Hollywood. Satirical and biting. Anyway, I think that the biggest
uproar against the film was a double standard, in a sense.
Eddie is struggling with balance and decency and morality.
He wants to be loved. And, to discover these answers, Eddie
must search his soul, into the deep, unpenetratable arenas
that all individuals generally are to afraid too probe.
Eddie is searching for answers. David Rabe is proposing
questions and generally, I believe, the audience is to terrified
to search through the piece because they are afraid to acknowledge
the answers they might find as well.
"hurlyburly" is a sad, brilliant piece. Scratch through the facade
of the lives of Eddie-Micky-Phil-Artie-Darlene-Donna. You might
find a hint of individual reflection staring at you.
I thought the film was wonderful, the play is spectacular.
David Rabe once said (and I am paraphrasing) that when he
construced the piece he simply wrote it. In my opinion that is
one hell of a intuitive observationalist. I commend Mr. Rabe
in spite of society. And in traditional David Rabe fashion,
"blah-blah-blah" & "rat-ah-tat-tat."

I LOVE THIS FILM. However, I'm an actor and thought provoking character pieces where people are searching for answers are what I live for. That kind of thing always fascinates me. Unfortunately apparently most people here at IMDB don't like going to movies where people have long, in-depth, insightful conversations about the meaning of life. That's a pity.

Sean Penn gives one of the best performances ever put on film in this though and for that alone it should rate waaay up there. Then again, remember that these are the same people who voted "The Shawshank Redemption" the #2 movie of all time! It's not a bad movie (lots of my friends are in it) but it sure as hell shouldn't rate anywhere near that high.

Maybe I'll live so long that I'll forget her. Maybe I'll die. Tryin'.

I too think this movie is AMAZING! It's the #1 on my list of favorite movies. Personally, it confuses me too about why it receives negative reviews. I get the sense that most people (1) don't like movies based on plays because it's all dialogue and no action, and (2) like the other poster said, don't like to be confronted with themselves when watching a movie. Personally, I enjoy both and so Hurlyburly is a film I try to keep digging deeper into because, in so doing, I feel like I'm digging deeper into myself as well. There are so many themes and ideas running through it. Plus, the cast of this movie is amazing. Sean Penn and Kevin Spacey work so well together and off of each other. The top notch cast is what caught my eye the first time I found the movie.....in a discount bin for $5. Every now and then you find a beautiful jewel hidden in the rough! :-)

This really has to be one of the best movies i have ever seen. The dialogue is golden my friend..lol. it depicted reality so well..wow

The characters are mostly repellent. They are not the sorts of people that most folks would want to listen to for a couple hours. They are pampered, self-absorbed a-holes. So it's not hard to see why many folks dislike the movie.

That being said, I think it has some great moments and there is some really good acting in it. However a lot of it just seems like masturbation.

I have come up with a theory and I hope I can express it here without it being regarded as a personal insult. There are many posts on the IMDB from people asking either why people generally like or dislike a certain film. I think the answer is usually pretty obvious when you think about it and the person asking the question is either dumb or just being a troll. I guess that is insulting but I don't mean any ill will and if you have a reasonable rebuttal I would love to hear it.

Well, I'm one more replier who cannot fill you in, for I also loved this movie. Perhaps not liking the characters kept some from liking the movie?

I have to say that I'm one of those that really, really disliked this movie. I *wanted* to like it -- as it's been said elsewhere, it's a great cast, and everybody tries really hard, but, to my mind, the writing just wasn't there.

There was no structure or plot to speak of, which isn't necessarily a bad thing -- if the writing and acting and character development are enough to keep you hooked, which just wasn't the case for me. I found the dialogue and characters to be poorly written. It wasn't just that they were unsympathetic characters, it was that they *weren't* characters, they were just cardboard cutouts that did a lot of drugs.

I would strongly advise anyone I know against seeing this movie, in the end it's just a waste of time -- it's a story you've seen a million times before, and done better.

This flick is a tribute to the monthly rental plan. I wouldn't have picked this one if I had to pay a separate price. But it turned out to be worth not just the two hours viewing time, but also the two or three hours my wife and I have spent since then discussing the movie.

The first part of one of the DVD commentaries triggered some thoughts we hadn't had directly, but before that we already were talking about the competition theme and the self-induced fog as a barrier in communication (even when people are desperate to communicate).

I can see why some people would hate this flick. My guess is they didn't take the time to think afterward about why characters did and said what they did. For example, Mickey lays into Eddie about how Eddie's only use for Phil was to have somebody guaranteed to be a worse screw up than him. Under the surface of that dialogue was that Mickey was projecting onto Eddie exactly Mickey's own purpose in keeping Eddie around. Or Eddie pleading with Bonnie to suck his dick: This comes after the one-dimensional Bonnie (as perceived and required by Eddie and Mickey as a condition for their support of her) suddenly is acting like a real person with feelings and opinions. He is pleading not for a blowjob, but for her to get back into her box and act according to her designated role. If you don't look below the surface, all you see in that scene is a guy so desperate for sex he has to beg for it from a hooker (which isn't the motivation at all).

A good movie satisfies you for the time it is on the screen. A great movie keeps you talking and thinking about it long after. "Hurlyburly" is a great movie.