Johnny Handsome - Der schöne Johnny

I pondered why Mickey agreed to do this movie. To work with the respected Walter Hill? Or because of the sincerity he saw in portraying a man resurrected? He plays his character with conviction, yet you know Handsome is emotionally wounded, a quality hard to project. You will be impressed by the film's monumental scene where Forest Whitaker reveals Handsome's new face, in turn revealing the jubilation he certainly has dreamt about his whole life. I believe that scene to be hallmark Mickey, very hard to mimic. He handles the role with a sensitivity you can believe about a man in his predicament. A good reason why casting is vital to a clichéd story! Walter Hill directs Mickey to his fullest. I also thought Liz McGovern to be a good choice as a clinging, excessive optimist with a heart for bad boys. It's a suitable choice that she's not lustfully beautiful- a regular, dull, secretarial girl puts the attention on Rourke, which would have detracted from the real element of the storyline had they cast a perfect 10. Freeman functions as a foil to the story and with a vintage performance of his obvious range.

When I watched the movie Johnny Handsome, over again. I saw it from a whole new perspective. Other commentators that I've read here, looked at the movie only as to, character development, and ongoing plot continuity. They never looked at the movie as a human interest story! A glimpse into a possible life, lived in just the way it was presented! The story of a such a person, who may have actually lived, and who may have had the experiences that the character of John had, deformed as he was, and so may have had to re-acted in exactly the way he did? It's all the figment of some writer's imagination, but stretch your own mind enough to envelope this concept of this one man's life yourself? Saying Mickey Rourke cannot act, is a very short-sighted, and erroneous statement to make, after exploring the complexities of this character's existence overall. Mickey Rourke had the depth, and the finely tuned sensitivity, to convey the hopelessness of spirit, and also the continual confusion, of a totally scarred and horribly deformed, and therefore ugly and repulsive, singular human entity. John started out being socially unassertive,bereft of other contemporaries, visibly embarrassed, and yet, at the same time, pseudo-aggressive, and drawn to the criminal element. Understandably so, due to his low self-esteem, which is a by-product of his off-putting facial deformities. Mickey wore that face as if he truly had been born with it in reality. John's motivation, (for getting revenge on the two miscreants that had plotted against him, and his friend, in the robbery, and then killed his friend and wounded him), was the fact that, although he was hideous to the world at large, that one man had treated him as a person, a confidant, (due in part to John's unique skills), and befriended him, not as a horribly deformed freak, but as a peer, albeit, a peer in criminal activities. Even though, after his operation, John became a, "new man", just like everybody else, acceptable to the general population. This to the point of even attracting a "normal" caring woman to his new self. That wasn't enough to have changed his already well developed, "antisocial, unreasonable, and skewered" psyche. That part of him that would always be "unacceptable", in a so called "normal" world. So when the chance to avenge his only "true" friend, one who had included John (in his former incarnation), into his own bleak life routinely, how could John, with his scarred sensibilities, turn from the possibility of making a re-payment, he felt he "owed" this to Mikey? That alone would have driven John, at any cost, to figure out a way, in which ever way he could, to destroy the two characters, played so viciously and perfectly, by the actors Hendrikson, and Barkin. He fought their fire with his fire. Really this was the only way John knew, and the only option that was opened to him. A new face wouldn't have changed that. How could a person watching this movie expect rationality? I didn't comment on the Freeman character, Drones, because he just did what you would expect a cop to do. See a criminal, and try to find him doing something wrong. Then take him in. Freeman did this very accurately.He did his job, as usual. Still, the old adage applies here, with Mickey's character, John: Walk a mile in another's shoes before you judge him. I feel so sorry for people who watch movies with their mind, and leave their heart, and humanity completely out of it. They miss so much.

This is a minor Walter Hill film, partly redeemed by a couple of strong performances and an excellent score. Mickey Rourke (whose last good film perhaps this is) plays John Sedley /‘Johnny Handsome' and labours for the first part of the film under make up presumably inspired by the Elephant Man - as well as a handicapping mumble, recalling the actor's idol Marlon Brando. Hill, one time Peckinpah protégé, has seen better days with such films as The Warriors, 48 Hours, Streets of Fire etc, and here struggles to make a rather bald plot dynamic. Essentially it's a tale of crime gone wrong, betrayal, brooding and then final revenge, enlivened with rather peremptory love interest. The surgery side of the story, in which Sedley is miraculously remade into handsome Mickey Rourke, is no more than a detour from an underworld tale we've all seen before.

Hill characteristically provides memorable opening sequences for his films. This strength is apparent here, as details of the cast appear over the preparation for the initial robbery, cut together effectively and precisely. The director fades the colour on these opening planning scenes, and later also includes a brief and horrific flashback in black and white. There are two robberies in the film, central points about which much of the drama revolves, carried off with some flair by the participants and the editing department. There's something of the flair of Hong Kong crime cinema as the masked villains burst into shops and offices to make their ‘killing'. Elsewhere things flag a little - especially in the unconvincing Sunny – Rafe relationship, played respectively by an aggressive Ellen Barkin and the normally excellent Lance Henriksen. Sadly the character and motivations of the chief villain remains one-dimensional, and Rafe's bare-armed menace never rises above stereotype.

Sedley struggles to first rebuild his face, then his life, while courting the rather insipid Donna (Elizabeth McGovern) and hatching his master plan. Although his motivation for revenge is clear, in between surgery and larceny he rather languishes. Donna is a `nice girl': either naïve or forgiving, however one choses to see her, whose role in the final denouement is also deemed `nice work'. This vaguely pejorative epithet, as well as her ill-judged covering up for a former boyfriend, provide her character's most defining moments. Her presence fails to give Sedley the impetus he needs, and her final abduction is sadly predictable. The attempt to work up another major character, this time through the doctor-with-a-social-conscience who treats Sedley (a peculiarly be-whiskered Forest Whitaker) is only partially successful. After a brief couple of confrontations with the implacable, and splendidly named, police Lieutenant A. Z. Drones (Morgan Freeman), he disappears. On the plus side, Rourke gives a generally good performance, being especially affecting in the scene when he examines his new face. Despite the limitations of the script, and even with the affected mumble, the actor avoids dropping into bathos in this critical scene, actually convincing the viewer of his pleasure in his new identity. His convincing gratitude to those who have changed his appearance pays dividends at the end of the film, during his confrontation with the vengeful Rafe. Rafe's pummeling of Sedley's face and vicious attack on his newly-constituted features with a knife is truly disturbing, precisely because Rourke has so successfully communicated the humanity behind the criminal and surgical subject earlier.

As Drones (whose dogged perseverance reminds one of Inspector Javert in Les Miserables), Freeman is excellent. An actor whose distinctive tones and modulated performances give class to any film, he raises his part far above the lines he is given here, and goes a way in making up for weaknesses elsewhere. During his few prison scenes with Rourke, in fact, one can shut one's eyes listen to his voice, and summon up the much greater pleasures of The Shawshank Redemption (1994). It is he who recognises the reality at the centre of the film: that Sedley can change his appearance, but can never change what is inside of himself or where it will lead: ` I know what you are' he says to the felon at one point. `And we both know where you're going, don't we Johnny?' At the close of the film, after bullets have flown and dust settled, Sedly finally acknowledges this fact using an ironic phrase which implies both physical and moral assessment : `How do I look?'.

Fans of Rourke and Freeman will certainly want to see this film, although others will find there is rather less to it than meets the eye. Ry Cooder, a regular collaborator with the director, turns in a superb score full of slide guitar work, with dramatic bass lines for the action sequences. This makes one regret that the final package to which he contributed so valiantly is ultimately so unmemorable. Admirers of Hill, wanting to see one of his late urban thrillers with more interest, will be better off with Trespass of three years later.

Well renowned action director Walter Hill tackles a more moody, character driven crime drama in the shape of "Johnny Handsome" and it would have to be one of his under-the-radar productions. The story follows that of a deformed criminal John who stages a heist, however there's a double-cross which sees his best friend killed and him going to prison. There he is asked to take part in a rehabilitation program, where they clear him of his deformity while also getting him parole. Hoping now that he can start a new life, however John is still burning inside for vengeance.

Presenting an ideal cast, Hill really does cast a spell over his audience with solid (even if it does feel a bit underdone) story-telling backed up by credibly good performances from leading man Mickey Rourke (within the peak of his career) and equally so support by Morgan Freeman, Ellen Barkin Lance Henrikson, Elizabeth McGovern and Forest Whitaker. Everybody chips in, adding their own stamp to proceedings and establishing gripping character rapports or confrontations (e.g. between Freeman's detective and Whitaker's doctor).

Hill's cruise-like direction is crisp and tidy, engineering some intense passages and some well-oiled, edgy action set-pieces, although they are low-key (still violent) but this really does belong to its cast and the interestingly, smart story (that was adapted off John Godey's novel "The Three Worlds of Johnny Handsome"). The ambitious plot does have a lot going on and it might not all come together, but how it does play out stays constantly interesting and rather unpleasant in its details. Rourke's character Johnny is given a chance to start over and go straight, from this physical change brings much needed confidence but the hunger inside for revenge can't simply be cured or forgotten. Someone he cared for, who saw beyond his deformity deserved payback. Johnny would deliver it. So he carefully plans out the revenge, wanting to tease before actually ending it and things get even more suspenseful when the situation starts to go off the rails. Lance Henrikson and Ellen Barkin really do nail down their explosively sly parts of the two crooks who betrayed Johnny. The ever-reliable, Hill regular Ry Cooder adds a smoking touch to the music score.

One of those films I didn't know all that much of, but came away pleasantly surprised.

Johnny Handsome is directed by Walter Hill and adapted to screenplay by Ken Friedman from the novel "The Three Worlds of Johnny Handsome" written by John Godey. It stars Mickey Rourke, Ellen Barkin, Elizabeth McGovern, Lance Henriksen, Forest Whitaker, Morgan Freeman and Scott Wilson. Music is by Ry Cooder and cinematography by Matthew F. Leonetti.

John Sedley (Rourke), AKA: Johnny Handsome, has a severely disfigured face, when he and his only real friend are double-crossed by two accomplices during a robbery, Johnny is sent to prison and his life reaches a new low. However, hope springs in the form of Dr. Steven Fisher (Whitaker), a pioneering plastic surgeon who offers to give Johnny surgery that would give him a normal face as he attempts to integrate back into society. With a new face making him unrecognisable, there is scope to enact revenge on the two people who killed his best friend and had him put in prison...

Walter Hill knows his film noir, anyone who has seen The Driver knows this. Here for Johnny Handsome, Hill takes a lot of the fantastical elements of noir and dresses it up admirably as a violent revenge thriller. A box office flop and something of a kicking post for big hitting critics of the late 1980s, it's a film that now can be seen as being very much in tune with its influences.

The charges of it being too bonkers, too violent and too much of a "B" movie homage just don't add up, because what is on offer is good solid meaty neo-noir cinema. A protagonist with an affliction, medical shenanigans, hyper femme fatale, over the top villain and a stoic and sarcastic gumshoe type copper. All of which operate in a sweaty and luridly coloured New Orleans. Add in Hill's eye for aggressive action sequences and it's neo a go-go.

Hill gets strong performances from his cast, ensuring emotional bonds are not over egged and a clamour for sympathy and understanding kept to a bearable level by the actors playing the "good" guys "n" dolls. While giving Henriksen and Barkin licence to sizzle with sinister glee is astute and perfectly in tune with the material on the page. Leonetti's photography has the requisite pulpy noirishness to it, and the familiar twangs of Ry Cooder are never a bad thing in a Walter Hill movie.

It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but those complaining about missed opportunities regarding rehabilitation - or that the liberal doctor turns out to be clinically wrong in his reform beliefs - really are missing the point or unaware of the world where something like Johnny Handsome lives. From the kinetic misery at film's start, to the "ever so in tune with film noir" finale, Johnny Handsome is well worth a look by anyone interested in noir's updated version. 7/10