Shades

I liked this movie very much. Erik Van Looy is a good director. Proof is his other movie Ad Fundum. Shades is a very special movie. You must be familar with the (Belgian) movie industry to understand most of the story. In my opinion this movie is a biography of the Belgian director/screenplaywriter Guy Lee Thys and guess what ? He's also one of the 3 screenplaywriters of Shades :-) Coincidence or....???? I had alot of fun with this movie because I recognize alot of facts and urban legends about the Belgian Movie industry in it. If you never been 'an insider' in the Belgian Movie industry you'll find this movie a bit boring maybe altrough there're some great actors in it who play very nice like Mike Verdrengh and Gene Bervoets. Mickey Rourke is okay but I saw better movies of him. It's worth a try, but don't expect an easy movie. It's a special movie and that's why some people call it a bad movie, but I do not agree with that. Not the best Belgian movie ever made, but certainly not the worst movie either. That credit goes to 'De leeuw van Vlaanderen' but that's another story.

I am trying to see every movie ever made with Mickey Rourke playing a part in it, no matter how small. I watched this movie just two nights ago, and then came to IMDb to see who the other actors were. I believe this is a very good movie, just to see the workings behind a movie being made, the manipulations of the producers, and the fights that take place between the "stars", and the director were very interesting, and vicious(verbally)! I thought that Mickey played his part with complete believability, as to how a director would try to keep control of the way he envisions a character acting. As opposed to the way the actor playing the main character, see himself playing the part. This main actor seemed to portray somewhat, characteristics of Mickey Rourke, himself in early roles, and had the same personality conflicts that I have read about between Mickey and directors he was involved with while making his own career faux pas. I kept thinking, wow, is Mickey's character going to KILL this jerk-off? Then about the actor playing the producer, wow, is Mickey's character going to KILL this jerk-off? I don't know why, but I kept thinking that they were going to push the director over the edge. Mickey had made a statement that this was a huge opportunity for his character, to be directing this movie, so I thought that the character was going to snap! He didn't, and I breathed a sigh of relief when he didn't. The addition of the real mass murderer character, still alive and in prison, was an exciting insert, because now, his character could interact with the people making the movie of his crimes, and he could (and would) have some input, and also a lot of emotional display to the turns in the plot lines. Not only to his involvement with the way his part was being acted out, but to the way that the actor playing him, lived his own life, outside of the production!! I tell you, it was all very very well thought out and portrayed! By ALL the actors involved with this movie. I had no inkling that there were any "inside jokes". Nor anything about a favorite club, and how the whistled tune, or the radio show, alluded to it. Still this film caught my attention, and held it from first frame to last. I graded the actors thusly: Gene Bervoets:A. Jan Decleir: C+ (only because his part was so short). Mireille Leveque: B. Mickey Rourke: B+. Producer Guy: A-.

I am sorry that I don't remember who played the other parts, I mean what their names were, but I do remember the characters named Bob and Dylan. (How could I not, Bob Dylan is an American Icon)! They were funny and I laughed at that. I remember the actress that played Amy, but her part didn't really show if she could act or not. So, I didn't give her any grade. Over all, it was a good film, I would recommend it to anyone, who just likes good films, that have a very rooted plot, and a slick way with the script that is new and humorously done, to all jaded audiences.(Mainly us here in the good ole USofA).

Okidokie.

When Shades was first released, they marketed it like hell, or at least, so I've heard. Final result: high expectations, few adorations.

Time zap. Six years later. 'Shades' is practically forgotten; it seems to have retreated into the shadows of director Van Looy's acclaimed third film 'Alzheimer Case', a major blockbuster.

Thank god for Canvas, more or less the cultural TV station of Flanders, and its great show 'FilmFactory'. Thank god I got the chance to watch 'Shades'. No media attention, no high expectations, just me and a television set.

I loved it. Great acting, good story, good cinematics... A superb film, that hopefully can step out of the Alzheimer-shadows. Until then, enjoy this bashed but excellent cult film. Van Looy is truly one of Flander's finest.

I honestly don't understand why everyone hates this movie. I can see why Mickey Rourke took the project. This film came onto my radar because I am a "foreign film" fan and I thought, "hell, Mickey Rourke is in it...it can't be all bad." So I ordered it.

I was pleasantly surprised. It was an exploration of the film business as a business. That's what this film is about, ultimately. It isn't about anything else. The plot line is simply a hook to get people to watch it -- this is a movie about what it's like to make a movie, and more importantly, what it takes to make it in "Hollyood".

I took 2 stars away from the total because Bervoets is so annoying that he makes me want to enter menopause early and get it over with.

After watching the film, I understood completely why Mickey Rourke did the movie (and it wasn't just for the job or the money, which he probably desperately needed at the time.) Mickey carries the film, cast and crew (including make up artists and key grips all the way through from beginning to end. This film is a lesson in "Hollywood-ese" and "Hollywood Bullshit".

It was probably cathartic for Rourke to do it, to experience, even if it is just in a very small way, what it's like to have to direct himself! He saw it as an opportunity in therapy, to walk a mile in another mans shoes. He also got the experience of telling the truth about where his career was at, at the time. (Scene: "Look, there's a reason you and I are here in Belgium, doing this little movie and it's cuz we're not on top anymore" (or something to that effect.)

His scene with Michelle in his hotel room where he tells her to cut it out, and that at the "end of the day, you'll just be a two dollar whore" is spot on the money. And he's clearly not justtalking about actresses, or even the movie business in general. (Although that was probably his "motivation", if you will forgive the reference.) He's talking about YOU, or ME, or anyone, who does what they do, so they can just take the next rung on the ladder. When he tells Lily, the makeup artist, not to sleep with the star, his voice has the ring of truth to it...the sound of a man who's seen it all before: a crew member with stars in her eyes about to get used and abused by a "leading man". He looks at her with true pity and compassion --- like someone who has already seen the outcome of such a situation and he's genuinely trying to spare her the pain, because he thinks she's actually a nice person who probably doesn't deserve it.

In an interview with 'Inside the Actor's Studio", Mickey Rourke said that if he hadn't been an actor, he would have probably been a contractor (i.e. construction). Truly, there is a God, since that did NOT happen. Thank you God, for giving us Mickey Rourke.

I have not found any proof of what I am about to say, but I would be willing to lay down a paycheck, that Mickey Rourke not only had a hand in the script, but that he also "consulted" on this movie, for the actual director, in how the "real world" of Hollywood "works".

Mickey has to be the most under-valued, under-rated and un-appreciated actors/thespians of all time, and all because he refuses to bow to the golden calf that is the Academy. God bless Mickey Rourke....he's not just another artist. He's a true Artist, capital A, in a world of mediocre assholes (captial A) This movie proved it. What a waste.

Decent script, but Mickey Rourke carries the whole movie. And you will probably enjoy it, if you want to know what film-making and the politics and the bullshit are all about. This film will give it to you, on a silver platter, served by Mickey Rourke. Good on ya Mickey. (PS --nice little scene also, with Loki, Mickey's favorite dog...she has a nice cameo!)

I hope you take the chance on this one. I'm not sure what Mickey Rourke himself thinks of it, but if he ever sees this, I hope he will take my compliment in the spirit its intended: F'em , Mickey. You're right, and they're wrong. And you told the truth. God bless ya!

At first the film wasn't very interesting to me, but then I noticed the main point of it and changed my mind. Of course, "Shades" isn't a chef-d'ouevre though it's very real, brutal and sad. It shows up the wrong side of Tinseltown as it is, with all its dirt and meanness. This film doesn't give any hopes of real acting talents, sincere feelings and fairness in the movie industry. Everybody wants to use the others in the movie to get to his own intentions, from producer and main actor to the last studio's worker and lawyers. In the end everybody are very glad and satisfied that they could to use the others. One man whom I pity in the film is Freddy Lebecq because he was one honest person and just wanted to live free.

Mickey Rourke was himself as in real life - long hair, mixed clothes, many cigarettes, usual loneliness. and with one of his dogs. He was similar to an old man, clever and so tied, who watches mad world around him and doesn't interfere in nobody's affairs.

"Shades" has many dignities such as good play of actors, realistic plot, honesty, noir humour and many others. If you didn't appreciate this film you understood nothing.