Desperate Hours

How do you even screw this up? How do you screw up a script that was already a successful book and film? I don't know, but somehow Michael Cimino did it. This mediocre movie is a 100-minute snorefest about a bad dude (played by Mickey Rourke, who contributes nothing to the role), who kidnaps a upper-middle-class family. Most of the other actors do good to very good jobs, notably Michael Morse who plays one of Rourke's cronies, and Anthony Hopkins in a role which is far beneath him. But the plot is nothing but totally predictable filler and just when you think it has gone nowhere, it goes even more nowhere. Since we already know that the script can be done well, there is no one to blame here except Michael Cimino for the non-direction this movie took. 5 out of 10.

I am a big Mickey Rourke fan from his string of hits in the 80's. I kind of fell off the bandwagon during the 90's, finding his choice of films to be somewhat uninspiring. Still a great actor, just seemed to be having some trouble picking quality projects. Seeing 'Sin City' brought me back (great role, great acting, great film!), so I picked up 'Desperate Hours' and watched it last night. While the supporting characters could have been better written (Kelly Lynch & Mimi Rogers' characters fell flat), the scenes between Rourke & Anthony Hopkins were wonderful! Elias Koteas as Rourke's brother was forgettable, but David Morse's character of Albert was very interesting. Somewhat like a big dumb 'Lenny' to Rourke's 'George'. Like another reviewer I was reminded of Humphrey Bogart's 'Duke Mantee' in the 1936 film 'Petrified Forest', but Rourke's 'Michael Bosworth' was a little more homicidal and more of a loose cannon. If you like Rourke & Hopkins, you will enjoy watching 'Desperate Hours.'

This is a very entertaining movie that delivers the goods from start to finish, and unlike other hostage movies, gives us some outdoor scenes, most notably a car (and plane) chase. It gives the film sone freshness. This is the first Mickey Rourke movie I've seen, and he makes an effective criminal. Also, the film does something with the cops (in the police car) I've never seen before: A 180 degree turn. And the finale is so over-the- top, it almost boggles the mind. It's a finale unlike anything I've ever seen. Lindsey Crouse, who plays one of the cops, goes over the top with her performance, that I couldn't tell if she was a mean cop, or one that took her job way too seriously.

*** out of ****

Michael Bosworth is on trial and clearly not a nice man in the courtroom. When he goes to another room to talk with his beautiful lawyer Nancy, he steals a gun she has hidden under her skirt (how anything can be hidden under THAT skirt is a mystery) and escapes, joining his brother and another man.

Meanwhile, Tim Cornell, a lawyer whose family lives in a nice house, is trying to make peace with his wife Nora after an affair, but she is convinced the marriage is over and she is in the process of selling the house, as the sign out front makes clear. Bosworth and his associates show up and take the family hostage, and they use whatever information they can find for their benefit.

There are several exciting scenes in the beautiful wilderness of what is said to be Utah. Nancy is chased because she is suspected of helping Bosworth, though exactly what happened with that chase is not clear. We only see what happened later. And the process of finding out what happened to Bosworth is fasscinating.

Mickey Rourke does a good job, thoroughly evil in court but calm and almost kind with the family most of the time. Anthony Hopkins also delivers, keeping his cool throughout most of the ordeal and coming across as intelligent and even caring. Mimi Rogers did a great job as well playing Nora. Despite their problems, it was clear this was a loving family and they all cared about each other.

This is not a particularly violent movie, though at least one person does die. This is more of a psychological thriller than a Schwarzenegger action movie, though at one point a comparison to an action movie would make sense.

I think on a certain level this film works quite well. First, throw out everything you know about the 1955 version. Next, abandon paying too much attention to how the plot progresses (gee, Kelly Lynch's character seems to disappear for extended periods of time, and it's amazing that the FBI ever found following her to be worth it. And she is supposed to be one of the smarter characters, but then again, you took what Lindsay Crouse's character said about her too seriously.) The film has a most curious tone, and just when you think it's going to turn into an art film, we get a shoot-em-up or some other plot contrivance to bring it back to earth. The soundtrack is a moody pastiche of 50's style orchestrations (no rock music!) and recalls moody post-noir thrillers of the late 50's-early 60's.

And what a fascinating line-up of players, performances, and characters. Kelly Lynch's acting directions must have been "look snappy, especially topless, act like you just ingested a gram of cocaine, and all will go well."

One of these first years Cimino will put together all the pieces and come up with a really good, coherent film. For a really good obtuse film, reference Walter Hill's "The Driver" with Ryan O'Neal.

Oh, and if you ever thought you could mess with Lindsay Crouse, this film should dispel that notion. She's much badder than Mickey Rourke - and that's the biggest surprise of the whole picture! And with a lot less screen time, too. And by golly I guess Mickey Rourke's character is just an obsessive lover of the enigmatic Lynch. That explains a lot.

Coolest line in the film: FBI agent says to Crouse (after she got shot in the leg) : "Where are you hit?" Answer: "In the ego."