User reviews

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

Mickey Rourke gives an astonishing performance as John Sedley a deformed thug who gets a chance at a normal life when a kind Doctor (Forrest Whitaker) asks to do plastic surgery on Sedley. Sedley accepts and is torn between going straight or getting revenge on the two(Lance Henriksen and Ellen Barkin) that killed his friend Mikey (Scott Wilson)in this compelling yet slightly long drama. Some very exciting actionscenes and a good ear for dialog make Johnny Handsome stand out from other revenge flicks in the genre.

"Johnny Handsome" is a flawed but fascinating work from Walter Hill. Mickey Rourke is great as a deformed criminal who returns to avenge the people (Ellen Barkin and Lance Henriksen) who wronged him. The conceit of the premise is that Johnny's enemies will not see him coming with his new face, a face rebuilt after his ugly one was cut to pieces. Unfortunately, this potentially rich premise is quickly discarded and the film becomes a more standard crime yarn with a pointless love story thrown in. Johnny's love interest, Elizabeth McGovern, who was great in a similar role in "Racing With The Moon", is wasted and just doesn't belong in this material.

Lance Henriksen and Ellen Barkin are great as two of the oiliest lowlifes to impact with a movie screen in years. Barkin's pronunciation of the word "geek", when referring to Rourke's character, is hilarious, as is the crime couple's incessant badgering of each other. If the film had focused more on this duo and less on McGovern and another subplot involving Forest Whitaker, who is saddled with a dreadfully written role as a doctor who tries to help Johnny, it would have been a true contender.

The opening robbery scene is classic Hill -- brutal and economical -- and sets high expectations for the mayhem to come. Ry Cooder's slide guitar score is mesmerizing, and Mathew F. Leonetti's cinematography is moody and beguiling.

Ultimately, the film is a gritty pulp crime novel compromised by studio concessions. Which is such a crying shame.

This is an engrosssing,pulse pounding thriller. It has depth not often found in many Hollywood movies in its characters. Even though it was made in 1989, this is classic Film-Noir. It has that dark, edgy, disturbing feel that is typically found only in Detective Movies of the 30s and 40s. It reaches down into the dark recesses of the soul and displays them for the audience. The way it plays out is much more in the style of Old Movies. It displays the powerful extremes that come in the nature of Good and Evil. This movie isn't just a simple thrill-ride of a movie, it is powerful, gripping entertainment.

I really like this movie. Ellen Barkin's performance as a foul mouthed moll to Lance Henrickson's depraved killer club owner is striking. Even Mickey Rourke gives a true interpretation of the title character. Check out the scene where Johnny sees his completed new face for the first time, he captures the scene perfectly.

Hey...isn't this really a remake of "A Woman's Face" with Joan Crawford? (Itself a remake of an earlier Ingrid Bergman face.) And thus the novel it's based on, too, I guess. Think about it: In "A Woman's Face" Joan Crawford is a horribly scarred criminal given a new lease on life by a kindly doctor who offers to repair her face. Hmmmm. Anyway, for fans of Mickey Rourke who can't see enough of his face getting wrecked, here you are. (Hey, Mickey's been making a comeback lately. You go, Mick.) Good support from Morgan Freeman, Forest Whitaker, the always reliable Lance Henriksen, and an especially evil Ellen Barkin. These days the New Orleans settings should be even more nostalgic than ever.

Walter Hill is usually associated with rugged, high-testosterone movies. Here teamed with the author of 'The Taking of Pelham 123' the testosterone is amply in evidence but the plot actually more resembles that old Joan Crawford film in which her life is transformed by one of those operations you only get in the movies that gives her a beautiful new face.

Mickey Rourke starts out looking like the elephant man (with pretty stiff competition from the reptilian Lance Hendrickson). Although technically the hero - he's the one called 'Johnny' after - he sacrifices the audience's goodwill by cheating on nice Elizabeth McGovan with peroxided gun moll Ellen Barkin.

Seen today today the film's biggest irony is that if it was made today he wouldn't need any makeup for the scenes before he has the surgery.

Adapted from the novel "The Three Worlds of Johnny Handsome" by John Godey which opens as already disfigured man .John Sedley (Mickey Rourke) planning a heist with some new supposedly trusted recruits of Sunny (Ellen Barkin) and Rafe(Lance Henrickson). Once he is double crossed and is sent to prison, doctor (Forest Whitaker) informs him he could do a proper dis-infiguration on his face with an entire new identity. He is then looks like any normal human being so he names himself Johnny Handsome seeking retribution on the 2 people who double crossed him.

I did not care for the movie upon watching it back in 1989, I did not care about it upon watching it again in 2022. The movie is predictable if you've seen enough enough movies about the subject like "Point Blank" 1956 "The Killing", "The Getaway" with McQueen, and newer movies like "Baby Driver", "The Italian Job" to "Ronin".

It is rare that a movie with a premise as far-fetched as Johnny Handsome could wind up being so memorable. It helps when a top notch action director is assisted by an outstanding ensemble cast firing on all cylinders to make this story believable.

Johnny Handsome hit theaters in the fall of '89. It bombed, largely due to a weak promotional campaign by Tri-Star pictures. 19 years later, it is still unavailable on DVD. The excellent cast includes Ellen Barkin, Scott Wilson, and future Oscar winners Morgan Freeman and Forrest Whittaker. However, it is Mickey Rourke in the title role and Lance Henriksen as his arch-nemesis who truly hit grand slams with their performances. The heartbreaking original score by Ry Cooder and the rich atmosphere of the New Orleans setting also elevate this material considerably. This is not your typical revenge action picture.

The movie can best be described as a gritty, noir-ish crime drama with a sci-fi twist that maintains plausibility instead of running off the rails into comedic territory as with 1997's Face/Off. The film moves at a brisk pace, which is fine, but this fact ultimately winds up being the only flaw with Johnny Handsome. One almost gets the impression more was filmed but the studio demanded a 90 minute cut. A Special Edition director's cut DVD is warranted. A longer run time allowing for more scenes to flesh out the characters portrayed by the great supporting cast would have made this already outstanding film a true classic.

It would really be nice to see Walter Hill direct another action film one of these days. Hill and Peckinpah were the real deals. Other filmmakers (such as John Woo) strive to match the perfection of these two, but have yet to achieve it.

Walter Hill' filmography is always engaging at first sight.Stirred up by a screenplay promising action, sex, betrayal and revenge, you sit on your couch and insert longingly your DVD.Cast is good,no technical flaws,New Orleans'heat, should be a great movie....well, i ended up unsatisfactory; not really frustrated, but in a longing-for-more position.Watching this film helped me whiling away the time, but i won't watch it again, because it lacked elation.Two actors save this flick and owe the credits for not turning it into a B-movie. Ellen Barkin plays so well a hell of bitch and Morgan Freeman portrays effectively and jubilantly a cynical cop.As for Mickey Rourke, i don't know what to say for his acting as his role requests almost no acting, wearing a mask on his face for half the movie....

Sordid movies usually don't appeal to me but this was worth two looks before finally having to say, "That's enough."

The story is interesting and involving, which is why it was worth a couple of viewings. Revenge tales are always satisfying, too, unfortunately. This one gets kudos for the realistic ending which has something you rarely see in films.

What made me trade this DVD in for something else? Two actor's characters: Ellen Barkin's and Lance Henriksen's. Question: is the there a modern-day female actress, outside of Jennifer Jason Leigh, who has had a more foul mouth than Barkin? She is brutal. Henriksen isn't much better. Their dialog in here is straight out of an x-rated cartoon.

Even the "nice" character in this film, played by Elizabeth McGovern, is sleeping with the hero in no time - of course, and making one stupid decision after another. Speaking of foul mouths, one of Hollywood's best in that department, Mickey Rourke, plays "Johnny Handsome." He's a little hard to understand in the beginning, doing his Elephant Man imitation, until he has his plastic surgery, so prepared to strain to understand him for awhile.

The story also features Morgan Freeman, Forest Whitaker and Scott Wilson making this a deep cast. Ry Cooder provides a good soundtrack.

If you like sordid stories, garbage-mouth people and brutal revenge with stupid dialog, then this is your movie. Otherwise, consider it Johnny Ugly.

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.

Mickey Rourke is the titular thug, a criminal with very profound facial deformities including a cleft palate that renders his speech unintelligible to most folks. He's approached by old friend Scott Wilson who needs money to get himself out of debt to unsavory types, so Rourke plans a robbery that will yield that cash. Wilson brings along completely untrustworthy couple Lance Henriksen and Ellen Barkin, who predictably betray them ... killing Wilson, taking the money and leaving Rourke for the cops.

Rourke refuses to tell cop Morgan Freeman anything, and goes to jail. In jail he's approached by doctor Forest Whitaker who offers him experimental reconstructive surgery and speech therapy and a possible new life. Soon Rourke looks like Rourke, and he's out on a work release where he falls into a romance with Elizabeth Montgomery.

With this pretty phenomenal cast and Walter Hill at the helm, this film should work like gangbusters, but it only barely works. The problem is that you damn well know Rourke is going to go after Henriksen and Barkin, and you don't just know because you know how movies like this work ... you know because everyone in the movie just repeatedly tells you he's going after them.

So the really quite lengthy segments with Whitaker and Montgomery are just treading water, and by the time you get to the meat of the film and Rourke approaches Barkin, there's no time left to have anything more than a fairly dull, perfunctory revenge play out. Rourke's plan is really quite weird and never fully explained, and it feels like it would have been 1000 times easier for him to just shoot the pair in the half dozen scenes where they are alone.

It's not a bad film. It's difficult to believe that Hill could make a bad film with a cast this great. It's stylish and often fun ... just not fun enough.

John Sedley (Mickey Rourke) is derisively called Johnny Handsome for his disfigured face. During a jewel store robbery in New Orleans, he is double-crossed by fellow criminals Sunny Boyd (Ellen Barkin) and Rafe Garrett (Lance Henriksen). with his friend dead, he is sentenced to five years of hard time. Rafe tries to get him killed in prison but he still refuses to give Rafe up to police Lt. A.Z. Drones (Morgan Freeman). The newspaper falsely reports his death. Dr. Steven Fisher (Forest Whitaker) gives him an experimental surgery to fix his face and give him a new life. With his new face and new name Mitchell, he goes straight with a regular shipyard job and sweet girl Donna McCarty (Elizabeth McGovern) but revenge is always close to his mind.

Before there was Face/Off, there was Johnny Handsome. I'm kidding. I'm not really comparing the two. The premise has its predecessors. This movie does need a better title. Johnny Handsome sounds silly. It should be closer to Pretty Boy Floyd. This movie is also an overlap between the two phases of Mickey Rourke's career. He's the troubled dark pretty leading man from his early days. He's also the malfigured worn down character from The Wrestler. As for the caper, I don't think Sunny would allow the money to leave her sight. There are a couple of questionable moves by some of the characters. It needs a bit of cleanup with the last act.

I first learned of this movie from exposure to other Ry Cooder soundtracks, notably "Paris, Texas." This score somehow echoes that older film, even though it's different with more instrumentation. There is nothing else quite like this music and it holds up long after the movie is forgotten.

The film itself has strong moments but it could have been great with different pacing and more character detail. Some of the supporting actors are too campy to make it realistic. The Henriksen role seemed cartoonish and the bad guys/girls are too outwardly evil, which makes for less realism. It's ironic that today's Rourke is almost as unrecognizable as his pre-surgery look in the film.

The iconic action director Walter Hill made great pictures as HARD TIMES, THE DRIVER and 48 HOURS before Johnny Handsome, starting by a far-fetched premise followed by some blatant mismatches enforced in a weirdo narrative, to getting worst come up some stereotyped characters as gangster Lance Henriksen in kitschy outfits and the flamboyant B-girl Ellen Barkin portraying a cold double-crossing.

It's painting with Noirish style, gloomy atmosphere inserts in several sequences, nonetheless the deformed Johnny upon many surgeries becomes finally handsome as the title implied is too much implausible, so all remaining fall apart, instead the savvy and sarcastic Lt. A. Z. Drones (Morgan Freeman) worthwhile a look, actually he steals the show as serious role, Mickey Rourke never fooled anyone as dubious criminal, just the romantic mindset of Doctor Forrest Whitaker believes in Santa Clauss.

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First watch: 1994 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-Youtube / Rating: 7.

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.

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.

Mickey Rourke has to be one of the greatest, yet most under-rated,

American actors alive today. This film proves it. He plays this

character with layers and a depth few could accomplish or would

even dare. Unfortunately, most people regard his personal life

(and abrasive personality itself) with such disdain that they refuse

to fairly judge his professional accomplishments.

Rourke plays a grotesquely facially disfigured man who's life of

ridicule, non-existent home-life, and resultant self-guilt have led

him to a life of crime. Nothing original there, I'll admit. But one

must watch Rourke's subtle portrayal to see not a man of rage, as

most actors would give, and be expected of, from the audience, but

a man quietly locked into his world of pain. The way he holds his

cigarette from the top, so as to cover part of his face; the downward

tilt of his head, eyes averted from anyone's gaze; or the curt, quiet

speaking so as not to draw too much attention. The example of

speech is in itself remarkable. Not only does Rourke affect a

severe speech impediment as the disfigured Johnny Handsome,

but he then takes on a new one as a man who is now capable of

proper diction, but who is completely unused to being able to

speak properly. And he is constant in his portrayal throughout.

The story is simple but good, driven with excellent visual editing,

and a wonderful sound track (provided by Ry Cooder), that really

sets the pacing. The cast is largely wonderful, as well, with quite a

few recognizable "stars". Forest Whitaker as the sympathetic but

driven and demanding doctor, Lance Henrikson and Ellen Barkin

in amazing performances as two completely greedy "scum-bags",

and Morgan Freeman, in a real role reversal, as a rotten, taunting

parole officer. Probably the only weak link in the cast is Elizabeth

McGovern, who's attempted Louisiana accent never holds up and

over-all acting just suffices.

This film remains a favorite of mine that I watch every now and

again, always enjoying it both for the excitingly building tension of

the story, and the great performances (and performers) littered

throughout the film. If you like this film, I also suggest "The

Elephant Man", by David Lynch (for the life-with-disfigurement

aspects), or "The Warriors", by Walter Hill, as a great, early

example of this same director's work.

8/10 Mickey Rourke at his best!

So I've been doing this 100-movie marathon in 2019 to "prove" 30 years ago was the best year in cinema and I chose movies I've seen and loved, seen once and needed another viewing 3 decades later or always curious about. This was one of the latter and so sorry I did. This nearly stopped the entire marathon at NUMBER 72 because I actually didn't want to see it after all. (I halted the marathon for 2½ months to avoid seeing this.) And, boy, I was right. This movie is sh/t. Boring, unoriginal, unbelievable and just plain dull. Thank God no one else has even heard of this and rightfully so: no one should ever see this bad heist/revenge film. Bah!

I pondered why Mickey agreed to do this movie. To work with the respected Walter Hill? Or because of the sincerity he saw in portraying a man resurrected? He plays his character with conviction, yet you know Handsome is emotionally wounded, a quality hard to project. You will be impressed by the film's monumental scene where Forest Whitaker reveals Handsome's new face, in turn revealing the jubilation he certainly has dreamt about his whole life. I believe that scene to be hallmark Mickey, very hard to mimic. He handles the role with a sensitivity you can believe about a man in his predicament. A good reason why casting is vital to a clichéd story! Walter Hill directs Mickey to his fullest. I also thought Liz McGovern to be a good choice as a clinging, excessive optimist with a heart for bad boys. It's a suitable choice that she's not lustfully beautiful- a regular, dull, secretarial girl puts the attention on Rourke, which would have detracted from the real element of the storyline had they cast a perfect 10. Freeman functions as a foil to the story and with a vintage performance of his obvious range.

In spite of the cast the story had potential but the revenge caper turned out goofy and could not rise above a made for TV movie. The bad bad guys where predictable and stereotypical. I would have given it 5 stars if they had killed off Morgan Freeman and the good girl to.