Johnny Handsome

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.

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 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!

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

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.