Hurlyburly

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.

This was an incredibly interesting movie. Besides an exceptional cast, the dialogue is sharp and witty and there are some very intriguing issues raised. However, it seems that these positive points are lost on most viewers. My guess is it's because you cannot remain a passive viewer or an idiot and expect to find any redeeming qualities in this movie. On the surface, Hurlyburly is populated by extremely unsympathetic characters that become more debased as the movie progresses. Eddie (Penn) provides the central thrust of the movie. Eddie is also almost continually snorting coke that fuels extended often seemingly disjointed dialogue. But most of the meaning is lost and the movie can become a bit tedious if you take this dialogue literally. The drugs and depravity serve to create a plausible environment for the expression of a much greater range of thoughts and emotions. It would be hard to swallow Eddie's neurosis and paranoia if he wasn't high all the time. And, Eddie's drug addled observations and frustrations are the glue of the movie. The drugs provide the writer with a device to verbalise many thoughts that normally would not be uttered aloud. More traditionally this type of problem might be solved by using a narrator. Eddie's problems and fears are not all that different from most people ... they are just extremely amplified.

I remember watching Sean Penn walking up to the podium, accepting his Best Actor Academy Award for his (in my opinion) decent and somewhat accomplished role in Mystic River, and thought to myself the award was more of an achievement for his body of work rather than for the particular film. His role in Hurlyburly is far more impressive than the Jersey-speaking gangster in Great Clint's emotional waterfall of a film. I've always been a fan of Hurlyburly since seeing a heavily edited version of it for the first time on UPN years ago, mainly for its writing and acting performances. The entire ensemble is wonderful - Penn, Spacey, and Palminteri especially - and the writing is believable and clear cut, even though I've never met or been exposed to anyone even close to characters like the ones depicted in the film. The low rating on IMDb surprised me, but maybe I can see why the majority of people either don't like or are rather indifferent about the film. The film-making is not ground breaking by any means, but the content and passion exuded from the actors involved stand out amongst other films like it that heavily rely on idiosyncratic and interesting dialogue. I'd like to see Rabe's stage version to see how he nails it - because the movie is a treat for anyone who enjoys a dose of something a bit off-beat and different.

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.

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.