Hollywood Sunrise

Kevin Spacey does his usual mannered priss; Meg Ryan and Chaz Palmintieri are unsubtle and poor; the direction is unexceptional. But David Rabe's play is superb (and the cut-down, however it may displease fans of the play, is adequately expressive of the play's meaning). And Sean Penn is absolutely extraordinary--it's the best performance of the year. He gives the play a reason to have been sitting around for years. He wouldn't have done it as well as a younger actor; and I honestly don't think there is an actor working today who could have played it better.

This was an incredibly interesting movie. Besides an exceptional cast, the dialogue is sharp and witty and there are some very intriguing issues raised. However, it seems that these positive points are lost on most viewers. My guess is it's because you cannot remain a passive viewer or an idiot and expect to find any redeeming qualities in this movie. On the surface, Hurlyburly is populated by extremely unsympathetic characters that become more debased as the movie progresses. Eddie (Penn) provides the central thrust of the movie. Eddie is also almost continually snorting coke that fuels extended often seemingly disjointed dialogue. But most of the meaning is lost and the movie can become a bit tedious if you take this dialogue literally. The drugs and depravity serve to create a plausible environment for the expression of a much greater range of thoughts and emotions. It would be hard to swallow Eddie's neurosis and paranoia if he wasn't high all the time. And, Eddie's drug addled observations and frustrations are the glue of the movie. The drugs provide the writer with a device to verbalise many thoughts that normally would not be uttered aloud. More traditionally this type of problem might be solved by using a narrator. Eddie's problems and fears are not all that different from most people ... they are just extremely amplified.

This is definitely not a movie for everyone. Heavy drug use, discomfiting sexual situations, bad language, violence, a talky, "stagey" atmosphere, and generally despicable characters. Even if you like the actors involved, this may still not be the movie for you (my aunt rented it for my uncle and herself on the strength of Kevin Spacey's name, and he still hasn't forgiven her).

Having said that, I really liked this movie. I never saw the play, but when I read through it, I thought it was the most misogynistic piece of garbage I had ever encountered. Seeing it on screen, though, was a completely different experience. I felt that I understood what the playwright was trying to get at: namely, that this is a piece about how "Eddie, through the death of Phil, is saved from being Mickey." In short, a spiritual redemption of sorts.

Performances are uniformly strong. I have never been a big Sean Penn fan, but I thought he did a more than competent job with Eddie, particularly in the later scenes where he veers between arrogance and pathos. Kevin Spacey seemed uncomfortable with some aspects of the dialogue (i.e. "blah blah blah" etc.), but otherwise did his usual masterful job, in a role which raises the same questions that many of us would like to ask of him.

The role of Donna was, I felt, disfigured by the many cuts in the script--she is more of a victim than a wanton, IMHO--thus, the best thing I can say about Anna Paquin's performance is that she did well with what she was given. I had no strong objections to any of the other casting choices, except for Meg Ryan as Bonnie, who apparently cannot even play a stripper without resorting to her usual cutesy mannerisms.

FWIW, I liked the director's technical choice of "opening" the scenes by putting the conversations on cell phones, etc. However, I would have willingly sacrificed some of the added dialogue for some of the original lines that got cut. Final analysis: I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and plan to buy it when it comes out on video,

If you are in the mood to watch a play turned into a film, much like, "My dinner with Andre", this is the movie for you.

This is definitely a PLAY written for the screen. Most of the reviews I read here kept using a particular word to describe this film. WORDY. In my humble opinion, that is because the writer wrote the play and wrote the screenplay for this film.

This film is also written in a style most of the reviewers never mentioned, mainly because I dont think they have ever heard of it. Most haven't. Mainly because it is definitely not the style of writing someone would normally use for a film. It is called STREAM OF CONSCIOUSNESS writing. You start with one thought and go, naturally letting your mind just take the reigns and not stopping, no punctuation, just words.

That is this film. Just lots and lots of words. Maybe if they had chosen someone other than the guy that wrote the play, to write the screenplay, maybe it would have been more palatable.

Hey, it's another movie about nihilism run amok in Hollyweird! Without the powerhouse cast this movie would be unwatchable, but with the likes of Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, Chazz Palminteri and Gary Shandling(!) menacing the screen, how can you say no? Meg Ryan finally gets to play the hooker with the heart of gold and pulls it off nicely. And little Anna Paquin (The Piano & Flyaway Home) is maturing, er, well, never mind (she doesn't actually show anything...).

Penn is to the "way-too-wired sleaze-bag" what De Niro is to the "Mafia hood," and I guess this is his Godfather II. The movie makes men look as ridiculous as ever, but then aren't we?!? As in real life, women fare only slightly better...