Hollywood Sunrise

I remember watching Sean Penn walking up to the podium, accepting his Best Actor Academy Award for his (in my opinion) decent and somewhat accomplished role in Mystic River, and thought to myself the award was more of an achievement for his body of work rather than for the particular film. His role in Hurlyburly is far more impressive than the Jersey-speaking gangster in Great Clint's emotional waterfall of a film. I've always been a fan of Hurlyburly since seeing a heavily edited version of it for the first time on UPN years ago, mainly for its writing and acting performances. The entire ensemble is wonderful - Penn, Spacey, and Palminteri especially - and the writing is believable and clear cut, even though I've never met or been exposed to anyone even close to characters like the ones depicted in the film. The low rating on IMDb surprised me, but maybe I can see why the majority of people either don't like or are rather indifferent about the film. The film-making is not ground breaking by any means, but the content and passion exuded from the actors involved stand out amongst other films like it that heavily rely on idiosyncratic and interesting dialogue. I'd like to see Rabe's stage version to see how he nails it - because the movie is a treat for anyone who enjoys a dose of something a bit off-beat and different.

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.

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,

Highlighted by emotional, believable performances by its cast (Sean Penn in particular is typically brilliant), Hurlyburly is not for everyone, but can be a powerful and compelling drama for those who approach it with an open mind. The film is frequently referred to as a comedy-drama, a misleading designation for what is a sometimes humorous, but ultimately emotional and sobering look at life in 1980s Hollywood. Particularly well-done are the cocaine-fuelled scenes which provide one of the most accurate depictions of the drug lifestyle and the effect it can have on interpersonal relationships. The film can seem over-the-top in parts, but the excess is necessary to convey the film's message. Emotional, witty, thought-provoking and on some levels deeply depressing, Hurlyburly is an underrated and under-appreciated character-driven drama that capitalizes on the talents of an all-star cast to deliver a top-notch product.

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.