Johnny Handsome

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.

I really like this movie. Ellen Barkin's performance as a foul mouthed moll to Lance Henrickson's depraved killer club owner is striking. Even Mickey Rourke gives a true interpretation of the title character. Check out the scene where Johnny sees his completed new face for the first time, he captures the scene perfectly.

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.

This is an engrosssing,pulse pounding thriller. It has depth not often found in many Hollywood movies in its characters. Even though it was made in 1989, this is classic Film-Noir. It has that dark, edgy, disturbing feel that is typically found only in Detective Movies of the 30s and 40s. It reaches down into the dark recesses of the soul and displays them for the audience. The way it plays out is much more in the style of Old Movies. It displays the powerful extremes that come in the nature of Good and Evil. This movie isn't just a simple thrill-ride of a movie, it is powerful, gripping entertainment.

Mickey Rourke has to be one of the greatest, yet most under-rated,

American actors alive today. This film proves it. He plays this

character with layers and a depth few could accomplish or would

even dare. Unfortunately, most people regard his personal life

(and abrasive personality itself) with such disdain that they refuse

to fairly judge his professional accomplishments.

Rourke plays a grotesquely facially disfigured man who's life of

ridicule, non-existent home-life, and resultant self-guilt have led

him to a life of crime. Nothing original there, I'll admit. But one

must watch Rourke's subtle portrayal to see not a man of rage, as

most actors would give, and be expected of, from the audience, but

a man quietly locked into his world of pain. The way he holds his

cigarette from the top, so as to cover part of his face; the downward

tilt of his head, eyes averted from anyone's gaze; or the curt, quiet

speaking so as not to draw too much attention. The example of

speech is in itself remarkable. Not only does Rourke affect a

severe speech impediment as the disfigured Johnny Handsome,

but he then takes on a new one as a man who is now capable of

proper diction, but who is completely unused to being able to

speak properly. And he is constant in his portrayal throughout.

The story is simple but good, driven with excellent visual editing,

and a wonderful sound track (provided by Ry Cooder), that really

sets the pacing. The cast is largely wonderful, as well, with quite a

few recognizable "stars". Forest Whitaker as the sympathetic but

driven and demanding doctor, Lance Henrikson and Ellen Barkin

in amazing performances as two completely greedy "scum-bags",

and Morgan Freeman, in a real role reversal, as a rotten, taunting

parole officer. Probably the only weak link in the cast is Elizabeth

McGovern, who's attempted Louisiana accent never holds up and

over-all acting just suffices.

This film remains a favorite of mine that I watch every now and

again, always enjoying it both for the excitingly building tension of

the story, and the great performances (and performers) littered

throughout the film. If you like this film, I also suggest "The

Elephant Man", by David Lynch (for the life-with-disfigurement

aspects), or "The Warriors", by Walter Hill, as a great, early

example of this same director's work.

8/10 Mickey Rourke at his best!