Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Billie Morin This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Quiet Muffin This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

PimpinAinttEasy I reread Mailer's book recently. So I decided to check out the film too. Tough Guys Don't Dance begins with some great establishing shots of the beautiful seaside American small town called Provincetown. It is very much a film of place.Mailer has played with the novel's structure while making the movie. Ryan O Neal is not very convincing as Tim Madden. In the book, Madden was a lot more funnier. Debra Stipe as Patty Lareine was also miscast. Wings Hauser looked the part of Alvin Luther Regency but fails during the climax scene. Anyway, it was wonderfully over the top with Mailer retaining some of the hilarious and dirty dialogs from the book.There were issues with lighting with too many scenes using way too much light. Mailer gives a lot of attention to the film's supernatural elements. I wish somebody would remake the film. Coppola was the executive producer maybe he should have a go at it. Or maybe David Lynch ought to do it. It would be as interesting as Twin Peaks.

vandino1 Norman Mailer used to mean something, literary-wise. He was a Big Noise back in the fifties and sixties trying to be the heir apparent to his hero Hemingway, but since Mailer was really just a small-statured city boy with no interest in the outdoors he resorted to games of thumb-wrestling and head butting men (and assaulting women) instead of hunting and traveling. Like this movie, Mailer is a juvenile, woman-hating, gay-hating, faux-tough guy obviously obsessed with his fragile masculinity. Decades of hype and bad writing and activities (including the notorious Abbott disaster) have reduced his noisy reputation to virtual silence. He has become as pathetic as this movie, based on another one of his terrible novels. Granted this film is more coherent than his previous directorial attempts way-back-when (i.e. 'Wild 90,' 'Maidstone') there is still no reason to give it any more credibility considering its supreme awfulness. Of course, there IS the 'Showgirls'-like aroma of a risible good time to be had for those inclined to cheer on the execrable disasters of filmmakers who thought they were making something worthwhile and were so very wrong. For other viewers this is a stupefying experience mirrored by the consistently haggard look of Ryan O'Neal throughout. Like Spike Lee, Mailer MUST include his obsessions on screen. Ala Spike, consider this a 'Norman Mailer Joint.' That means you will hear men grousing to other men about "being men" and "not being fags" and how spiteful and cruel all women are, and it will be spoken in purplish film-noir-meets-gym-locker-room dialogue (my favorite: "Don't tickle my stick.") There will be countless scenes of women degrading themselves for no reason or men complaining/crying because those ruthless harpies have emasculated them. Since it's directed by a rank amateur, naturally the actors look either lost or unhinged. In short, this film, like its author, is an embarrassment.

patrickboyle-1 I read the book last year. After so many years of disappointments I tried once again to find a piece by Norman Mailer that had the impact on me of "The Naked and the Dead". Alas "Tough Guys" is not that book. However it is a genuine hoot. A hard boiled mystery with a rapid succession of over the top scenes and characters. Not by any means an important book but a a great light (or lite) read.The movie however is just a mess with the exception of Wings Hauser. I was charmed that Mr. Hauser the King of the B Movies finally got a part that let him eat the scenery. John Bedford Lloyd is a problem as the protagonist's effete and ineffective rich college buddy. Lloyd is a big guy and a superior actor. He has been type cast as the the big guy in "The Abyss" and several other roles. He towers over poor little Ryan O'Neal. The nerdy Lloyd character was supposed to have always looked up to the physical O'Neal character. Mailer the director wouldn't change the lines written by Mailer the writer. Poor Lloyd spends all of his scenes hunched over trying to look smaller.It's even worse than the Shawshank Redemption where a 6'5" Tim Robbins tried to be the small weak guy the other cast members talk about.We keep hearing that most of directing is casting but why do we get Peter O'Toole a foot to tall for Lawrence and Mel Gibson a foot to short for Wallace?

hugoconductshugo I always quote this as one of my two favorite movies (the other being "The Ninth Configuration"). Like that film, it's unpolished, awkward and brilliant.Ryan O'Neal, a brilliant empty vessel, as in "Barry Lyndon", is the perfect receptical for Mailer's essentially passive protagonist. Grotesque, awkwardly paced and fascinating, this should be considered manditory viewing.Mailer's hand is so heavy and the film feels so writerly that the experience is play-like and unusual. This exploratory quality is to be hugely prized (see "Kids", "Ninth Configuration", "Safe", "Dancer in the Dark" to see vastly different but equally praiseworthy examples of what can happen when Hollywood outsiders are allowed access to decent budgets and distribution).