Hurlyburly

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,

a lot of the negative reviews of this movie are a consequence of the viewers simply not enjoying this type of work. it aint a happy movie and its not for everyone. if you've never spent serious time in NYC, LA, SF or some similar city, then you probably do not 1) know and interact with people like this on a regular basis, 2) understand the true to life social context of the scenes/plot or 3) comprehend the use of drugs amongst nearly every ladder rung within certain industries and hence can't recognize that the writer/director is making a parody of it all. the writing is clearly very witty (you try writing it) and if you know people like those portrayed, then you would also see that the acting also first rate. if you don't like this because of its repetitive babble, self absorbed characters, harsh realities and use of nose candy then perhaps you just don't know that this movie is a near documentary. i recommend you visit your friends in any big city and see if you can't get to a few banker / journalist / academic / consulting / advertising / acting parties. experience, re-watch, then review.

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.

Kevin Spacey does his usual mannered priss; Meg Ryan and Chaz Palmintieri are unsubtle and poor; the direction is unexceptional. But David Rabe's play is superb (and the cut-down, however it may displease fans of the play, is adequately expressive of the play's meaning). And Sean Penn is absolutely extraordinary--it's the best performance of the year. He gives the play a reason to have been sitting around for years. He wouldn't have done it as well as a younger actor; and I honestly don't think there is an actor working today who could have played it better.

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.