Johnny Handsome

One word describes this film perfectly: miserable. It's not that the story isn't interesting, and actually the direction is great too. But it's one of those movies where seedy people are behaving predictably according to what their "hard lives" have taught them. Some people call it realistic, I call it stupid. Anyway, Elizabeth McGovern does an excellent job, and, it was worth it to see a sinewy Lance Henriksen in shiny, skin-tight garments! (I suggest just watching it with no sound!)

'Johnny Handsome' was Mickey Rourke's last chance to prove that he was actually the next Marlon Brando. Unfortunately, the script failed him halfway through and it's all way downhill since then. The concept is ingenious: A man born with distorted facial features, is caught during a heist. A second chance is given to him, when he is taken to a special program where they make him normal. But have they mended his soul as well? Up to a point the movie is brilliant. The dark atmosphere and the slow pace are elements that captivate the audience. But suddenly, this original idea makes such a cliche turn that disappoints. Mickey Rourke's performance is magnificent. Cool but not weird as he later became and very emotional, he makes the story absolutely believable. The script needed a little more work, but still this is a pretty good film. If more attention was given to the writing, this could be an Oscar nominated movie and Rourke would actually become the next Marlon Brando. Shame... 7/10

Great cast - Mickey Rourke ("Diner") , Morgan Freeman ("The Shawshank redemption") , Lance Henriksen ("Aliens") , Forest Whitaker ("Good morning Vietnam") , Ellen Burstyn ("Requiem for a dream") and Elizabeth McGovern ("Once upon a time in America") . Nice director - Walter Hill ("48 hours" , "Red Heat" ) . Together in one movie . It should have been a hit , right ? Unfortunately , you can't do much when the screenplay is flat. "Johnny handsome" has got a promising starting point. A deformed gangster gets a new face. He now must make a choice : a) search for people who betrayed him or b) try to live a normal life. I don't think the writer knew what to do next. Important characters from the first half of the movie (doctor,noon) should return in the second half.It would make the movie much more dramatic , if Johnny would feel shame for letting down people who helped him. The story needs more drama , more complex characters. I was able to predict movie to the very end. In the last twenty minutes the characters start to act illogically , which makes me think that the writer didn't know how to end this movie. Though the story idea is somewhat interesting, I don't think it was handled well by script-writer Ken Friedman. Walter Hill certainly creates a mood of noir movies here. The actors do good job , but also they feel wasted here. With a far better script they could give us awesome performances. Rourke and Burstyn are IMHO the best in the movie. It should be a heart-gripping entertainment . "Johnny handsome" has style , but not a heart.Too bad . I ended up unsatisfactory; not really frustrated, but in a longing-for-more position. I give it a 4/10.

Johnny Handsome is directed by Walter Hill and adapted to screenplay by Ken Friedman from the novel "The Three Worlds of Johnny Handsome" written by John Godey. It stars Mickey Rourke, Ellen Barkin, Elizabeth McGovern, Lance Henriksen, Forest Whitaker, Morgan Freeman and Scott Wilson. Music is by Ry Cooder and cinematography by Matthew F. Leonetti. John Sedley (Rourke), AKA: Johnny Handsome, has a severely disfigured face, when he and his only real friend are double-crossed by two accomplices during a robbery, Johnny is sent to prison and his life reaches a new low. However, hope springs in the form of Dr. Steven Fisher (Whitaker), a pioneering plastic surgeon who offers to give Johnny surgery that would give him a normal face as he attempts to integrate back into society. With a new face making him unrecognisable, there is scope to enact revenge on the two people who killed his best friend and had him put in prison... Walter Hill knows his film noir, anyone who has seen The Driver knows this. Here for Johnny Handsome, Hill takes a lot of the fantastical elements of noir and dresses it up admirably as a violent revenge thriller. A box office flop and something of a kicking post for big hitting critics of the late 1980s, it's a film that now can be seen as being very much in tune with its influences. The charges of it being too bonkers, too violent and too much of a "B" movie homage just don't add up, because what is on offer is good solid meaty neo-noir cinema. A protagonist with an affliction, medical shenanigans, hyper femme fatale, over the top villain and a stoic and sarcastic gumshoe type copper. All of which operate in a sweaty and luridly coloured New Orleans. Add in Hill's eye for aggressive action sequences and it's neo a go-go. Hill gets strong performances from his cast, ensuring emotional bonds are not over egged and a clamour for sympathy and understanding kept to a bearable level by the actors playing the "good" guys "n" dolls. While giving Henriksen and Barkin licence to sizzle with sinister glee is astute and perfectly in tune with the material on the page. Leonetti's photography has the requisite pulpy noirishness to it, and the familiar twangs of Ry Cooder are never a bad thing in a Walter Hill movie. It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but those complaining about missed opportunities regarding rehabilitation - or that the liberal doctor turns out to be clinically wrong in his reform beliefs - really are missing the point or unaware of the world where something like Johnny Handsome lives. From the kinetic misery at film's start, to the "ever so in tune with film noir" finale, Johnny Handsome is well worth a look by anyone interested in noir's updated version. 7/10

When I saw the cover of this movie, I knew that I had to watch it. It has an amazing cast. Mickey Rourke, Ellen Barkin, Morgan Freeman, Forest Whitaker and Lance Henrikson. 5 actors I really like, in one movie, I thought that this has to be good. Sadly, the actors have been the pretty much only thing worth watching. They did a great job, and saved this movie, from gaining 2 points, or less. The script is awful. I rarely saw a story as unconvincing as this one. It's really a pity, with this cast, an amazing movie would have been possible. Nothing is above average, not the action, not the conversations, not the music... The only reason to watch this flick, are the actors.

Well renowned action director Walter Hill tackles a more moody, character driven crime drama in the shape of "Johnny Handsome" and it would have to be one of his under-the-radar productions. The story follows that of a deformed criminal John who stages a heist, however there's a double-cross which sees his best friend killed and him going to prison. There he is asked to take part in a rehabilitation program, where they clear him of his deformity while also getting him parole. Hoping now that he can start a new life, however John is still burning inside for vengeance. Presenting an ideal cast, Hill really does cast a spell over his audience with solid (even if it does feel a bit underdone) story-telling backed up by credibly good performances from leading man Mickey Rourke (within the peak of his career) and equally so support by Morgan Freeman, Ellen Barkin Lance Henrikson, Elizabeth McGovern and Forest Whitaker. Everybody chips in, adding their own stamp to proceedings and establishing gripping character rapports or confrontations (e.g. between Freeman's detective and Whitaker's doctor). Hill's cruise-like direction is crisp and tidy, engineering some intense passages and some well-oiled, edgy action set-pieces, although they are low-key (still violent) but this really does belong to its cast and the interestingly, smart story (that was adapted off John Godey's novel "The Three Worlds of Johnny Handsome"). The ambitious plot does have a lot going on and it might not all come together, but how it does play out stays constantly interesting and rather unpleasant in its details. Rourke's character Johnny is given a chance to start over and go straight, from this physical change brings much needed confidence but the hunger inside for revenge can't simply be cured or forgotten. Someone he cared for, who saw beyond his deformity deserved payback. Johnny would deliver it. So he carefully plans out the revenge, wanting to tease before actually ending it and things get even more suspenseful when the situation starts to go off the rails. Lance Henrikson and Ellen Barkin really do nail down their explosively sly parts of the two crooks who betrayed Johnny. The ever-reliable, Hill regular Ry Cooder adds a smoking touch to the music score. One of those films I didn't know all that much of, but came away pleasantly surprised.

The only shred of originality I found was the use of a facially disfigured man as the main character in an action movie. The rest is all ho-hum territory. A jewel heist. Wow! A detective committed 100 percent to catching his man. Double wow! The characters are all flat and uninteresting. The disfigurement thing was simply thrown in to give this movie SOME emotional depth. Walter Hill is talented at directing action sequences, but the film doesn't have much action. So there wasn't much to get me stunned. Until the third act, the film is quite plot-heavy. I wouldn't mind if the plot were interesting! The plot is predictable with a sad ending pasted on to cheaply try to tug at the audience's heartstrings. However, I did find the briefcase gag to be quite nifty. THAT I didn't see coming. Morgan Freeman gives another fine performance, squelching whatever he can out of a one-dimensional character and not cringing with embarrassment. Mickey Rourke, on the other hand, who doesn't have much acting ability in the first place, gets jarring as he struggles to develop a Louisiana twang, while his New York accent is heard loud and clear. "Johnny Handsome" is dull and forgettable, and offers nothing new to the action genre. My score: 5 (out of 10)

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.

My review is divided into sections. Each paragraph is a new section whose name is in ALL CAPS. RY COODER is an excellent musician. For more of his best work see Crossroads starring Ralph Maccio and Joe Seneca. The score of the film is nice. THE HAIR, MAKEUP, AND WARDROBE people should all be fired and blacklisted from ever working again. Nuff said. THE MOVIE ITSELF fails. The story itself isn't original enough to be remarkable, but it has potential for entertainment. It's tragic enough to be interesting. It starts dramatic and brutal. In fact if I could take a razor and slice just before he is attacked in prison and just before he meets his girlfriend, I would take that section by itself and give it 5 out of 5 stars. In this section, the cheesy characters are out of sight and out of mind. Rourke has no dialogue. The section primarily focuses on Forest Whitaker and Morgan Freeman, who were the film's only real saving graces. For the most part, it's a barrage of cliches and exaggerated accents. THE DIALOGUE of the movie is just...horrible. The characters aren't characters. They're caricatures. Whoever wrote the dialogue should also be blacklisted. THE ACTORS MORGAN FREEMAN is, as usual, perfect. He plays a smart and cynical case officer and does it well. His fine, understated performance is out of place in this steaming load of crap they call a movie. FORREST WHITAKER's performance as the doctor is sympathetic and very convincing. His character is well written and adds some credibility to the picture, but doesn't save it from itself. LANCE HENRIKSON is a great actor. One of my favorites. But in this movie, he sucks. His involvement in this film is full of contradictions. He's great at playing smart characters like Bishop in "ALIENS" and Frank Black in "Millennium," but totally unbelievable as the moron he played in this movie. The character is sleazy and stupid, yet slick and powerful. It doesn't work. LANCE, never try a Southern accent again. Never. ELLEN BARKIN's character "Sunny" is stupid and stupid looking. Her lines are cheesy and her thick Southern accent is fake and forced. MICKEY ROURKE does a decent job. Not great, but decent. ELIZABETH MCGOVERN as Rourke's girlfriend is terrible. Her overdone, overly melodramatic performance is further marred by her exaggerated Southern accent. She plays a smart girl who consistently makes INEXPLICABLY STUPID CHOICES. She contributes considerably to turning the whole thing into a ridiculous cliched farce. I'm done here. I'm not writing another word about this piece of crap.

I saw this film when it was first released and then again recently, and liked it even more the second time. It's a very bleak, violent film about a deformed crook nicknamed Johnny Handsome. The film starts off with a botched robbery, two evil criminals (played with relish by Ellen Barkin and Lance Hendrickson) kill Johnny's old friend and leave Johnny to get arrested. While in prison, a friendly doctor gives Johnny the opportunity to get facial reconstructive surgery, and a chance at a new life. But all he wants is revenge. All of the actors in the film are great, Mickey Rourke's sullen and mysterious Johnny, Morgan Freeman as the detective who won't buy that Johnny has reformed, and best of all Barkin and Hendrickson as two criminals who seem to dislike each other as much as they dislike everyone else. My rating 8/10