hnt_dnl
In reality, DESPERATE HOURS (1990), a remake of the classic Humphrey Bogart-Fredric March film of the 50s, is a BAD movie, but still watchable due to it's badness! It boasts a talented cast of actors (Anthony Hopkins, Mickey Rourke, Lindsay Crouse, Mimi Rogers, David Morse, Kelly Lynch, Elias Koteas), all of whom had either had been in,or were about to be in, acclaimed works.It came out a year before Hopkins would do "Silence of the Lambs (1991)", for which he would take home the Best Actor Oscar, and go on to do several more acclaimed films in the 90s, receiving Oscar noms for most of them. Rogers would star in "The Rapture (1991)", for which she may have robbed a nomination for Best Actress. Lynch had just done "Drugstore Cowboy (1989)", one of that year's most acclaimed films. Crouse was 3 years removed from starring in arguably David Mamet's best film "House of Games (1987)". Morse was on his way to having a very successful career in small roles most notably, "The Green Mile(1999)". Koteas gave a scene-stealing performance a few years earlier in "Some Kind of Wonderful(1987)" and was among the army of cast members in one of the 90s most acclaimed films "The Thin Red Line (1998)". Last but certainly not least, is arguably the most famous (or should I say infamous!) of this eclectic cast, Mickey Rourke, who had just come off a dynamic decade in the 80s with hit and acclaimed movies such as "Body Heat (1980, his film debut)", "Diner" (1982), "9 1/2 weeks (1986)", "Year of the Dragon (1985)", and "Barfly (1987)". And to top it all off, "Desperate Hours" was directed by an Oscar-winning director, Michael Cimino (of "The Deer Hunter" fame). So what went wrong? I think the main problem with "Desperate Hours" is that it takes itself too seriously. There is no character filter or décorum. EVERYTHING is over-the-top, starting with the very loud and abrasive opening courtroom scene that sets the odd tone of the film. The judge yells. The lawyers yell. The accused gets to yell (which makes no sense). The accused in question is dangerous, sociopathic criminal Michael Bosworth (essayed by Rourke), who is about to be sentenced. His hot lawyer and lover (Lynch) helps him escape, then he goes on the run with his younger brother (played by Elias Koteas) and his brother's very big and very slow best friend (Morse).The 3 fugitives seek refuge in an affluent suburban neighborhood in the home of the fractured Cornell family, who are taken hostage by Bosworth and his cronies. The husband-father Tim (Hopkins) is just visiting as he and wife Nora (Rogers, who I actually believe delivers the most convincing performance of the film) are estranged and about to be divorced due to Tim's affair. The Cornells have 2 children, the teen-aged May (played by then-unknown Shawnee Smith, now of "Becker" and "Saw" fame) and Zack (played by Danny Gerard). In hot pursuit of Bosworth is FBI agent Brenda Chandler (Crouse), who end up using the lawyer as bait to help entrap Bosworth.This movie is incredibly awkward yet somehow, I find it immensely enjoyable! Everything is so over-the-top to the point it's hard to look away: the acting, the zooming camera shots, the hyper score. This remake came out in 1990, a year where movies were in transition of moving away from the dated look of 80s movies, but not yet adopting the dated look of the 90s movies. By having it's own unique style and not conforming to either decade, it actually makes the movie look kind of fresh when one watches it over 20 years later, as the focus is more on the beautiful scenery and setting, especially that huge mansion, than anything else.I know that a kidnapping-hostage situation SHOULD BE intense, but the actors' performances seem more like histrionics and hyperventilating acting than natural reactions to events. Characters are overly emotional at even the most minor moments that might call for subtlety. Yet the unintentionally laughable acting adds to this movie's watchability! I know it's wrong to laugh in a movie like this, but it's hard to avoid when the dialog and characters are so odd and weird. As Bosworth, Rourke pontificates with painfully long and confusing monologues. Hopkins basically does this odd-looking squint throughout the movie, I guess because his character is stabbed early on and so he must act as if in pain, but it seems over-the-top (honestly, though, I thought he carried this over-the-topness into "Silence of the Lambs"! LOL). Koteas plays it way too nice to be believable as a bad guy. Crouse sports an incredibly odd accent that I can't tell where she's supposed to be from! I don't know whether Morse is supposed to be stupid or mentally disturbed (maybe both). Smith and the other kid are terrible (but can be forgiven being essentially child actors). Lynch is an emotional mess in EVERY scene she's in. Rogers is the ONLY actor that rise to the occasion with a genuinely believable performance of a mother afraid for her family, yet that makes her out-of-place since everyone else is so off-kilter! And it's really all of this bad acting that makes the movie work. It's simply so BAD that it's actually GOOD! It's a fun ride watching these actors basically out-awful each other. The self-importance of the movie adds to it's awfulness. In particular, watching Rourke go nuts on everyone and needlessly pontificate is a hoot! Unfortunately, this movie signaled the downfall of his career as he literally started making nothing but crap in the 90s and even late into the 00s before a career-resurgence with an Oscar-nominated performance in "The Wrestler" some almost-20 years after this dubious film. Still, I have to say, if you want to be entertained and have a good laugh with a group of friends at a riff-able movie, this is one is definitely a contender!
raisleygordon
This is a very entertaining movie that delivers the goods from start to finish, and unlike other hostage movies, gives us some outdoor scenes, most notably a car (and plane) chase. It gives the film sone freshness. This is the first Mickey Rourke movie I've seen, and he makes an effective criminal. Also, the film does something with the cops (in the police car) I've never seen before: A 180 degree turn. And the finale is so over-the- top, it almost boggles the mind. It's a finale unlike anything I've ever seen. Lindsey Crouse, who plays one of the cops, goes over the top with her performance, that I couldn't tell if she was a mean cop, or one that took her job way too seriously.*** out of ****
squeezebox
This is one of those movies that is very difficult to give a star rating because its high entertainment value is due to the fact that it's almost completely terrible.A remake of the 1955 Humphry Bogart-Fredric March potboiler, DESPERATE HOURS is an unrelentingly bizarre piece of exploitation trash. There's virtually nothing "good" about it. The screenplay ranges from scattershot to just plain off-the-wall weird, the performances are some of the most over-the-top ever committed to film and the direction is borderline psychotic. Director Michael Cimino and producer Dino De Laurentiis once again prove that they are more capable than anyone else in the film industry of taking a potentially good idea and drowning it in excessiveness.Mickey Rourke and Anthony Hopkins are both excellent actors. They are also actors who go from mannered to berserk very quickly. Both chew the scenery as if their lives depend on it. Mimi Rodgers is wooden even during emotionally intense scenes, Shawnee Smith is distraught before the home invaders show up and Lindsay Crouse is both wooden and over-the-top at the same time.Kelly Lynch is the only actor who turns in even an appropriate performance, evoking a sense of hopelessness and panic from the start that makes you feel for her character, even if she has dug her own grave. This doesn't help a bewildering early scene in which her blouse spontaneously pops open to reveal her bare breasts make any more sense, however.There are a lot of interesting plot and characterization ideas floating around the proceedings but none of them are ever fully developed. It reminds me of Cimino's HEAVEN'S GATE and De Laurentiis's DUNE, two similarly flawed but occasionally brilliant disasters which have grown better with age. Maybe with time, viewers will begin to see the tight, complex thriller struggling to break through the mess that is DESPERATE HOURS.But all this analysis begs the question, would the movie have been more entertaining had it been put together more coherently? The answer is: probably not.
theshadow908
After seeing Sin City starring Mickey Rourke, I decided to set out and see all of Mickey Rourke's films. I heard from people that most of his films are terrible, but this one was pretty good. I bought it from the bargain bin, so I wasn't expecting much, but it was okay for 6 bucks. It tells the story of 3 escaped convicts lead by Michael Bosworth (Rourke). They take a woman, her family, and her estranged husband (Anthony Hopkins) hostage in their house. A game of cat and mouse between the two men ensues.I have never seen the original with Humphrey Bogart, but this movie is alright. I really enjoyed the plot, and even though Mickey Rourke isn't the greatest actor around, he's certainly a compelling villain. Anthony Hopkins is pretty good as the husband desperate to save his family, but he's not at his best. I think the biggest mistake anyone can make about this movie is to assume that it's a serious attempt at a thriller. In reality, I think this movie is a fun popcorn movie.Like any cheap action thriller from the early 90's, there's a lot of flaws. Two of the flaws are in the acting. The one playing Bosworth's lawyer/girlfriend is probably one of the worst actresses I've ever seen. Her character is pointless as well. The other terrible acting job was the cop in charge of taking Bosworth down. That actress must've come straight off a soap opera. A really bad and noticeable flaw in the movie was the shoddy editing. The film cuts to a new scene before the previous scene even has a chance to end.Overall, the movie is pretty enjoyable. It was worth a 6 dollar buy.6.5/10
