Conference bookie::movies

I saw it and I thought it was sort of interesting, a little bizarre and 
ultimately pointless - but then maybe that was the message.


Bob

    I didn't like it much.  I thought both Faye Dunaway's and Micky
    Rourke's characters were extremely *unlikeable* people.  He looked
    repulsive in those baggy, dirty, smelly boxer shorts that he wore for
    half the movie.  I can't stand him, anyway.  He's my 2nd least favorite
    actor of all time, after John Wayne.
    
    Besides that, I found the movie depressing, and almost boring.
    
    Lorna
    

I saw this about three years ago, didn't like it much either.  I 
did like the music at the start and at the end of the movie.  I can't 
recall who did the music for this, but that was the only thing I liked
about this movie. 
    
     

    I know what you mean about his being
    dirty..I kept thinking "Why would
    anybody get near him??  UGH...
    
    But he certainly plays unusual roles;
    roles, I guess that a lot of other
    actors turn down (This bit of trivia
    from Siskel and Ebert)....so I find
    him kind of interesting.
    
    I agree with the noter who said the
    movie seemed pointless, which I think
    maybe it was supposed to be....
    Their cycle would never be broken.
    
    

BTW, this movie is based upon a true story.  I can't remember the name of 
Rourke's character, but there really was a poet that lived like that.

I have seen the movie a few times and enjoy it a lot.  He plays a great 
drunk.  It was pretty funny in some parts too, like how he would always 
give the "studly" bartender a hard time and it would always end up in 
a fist fight out in the back alley.

-steve

it's semi-autobiographical - based on the life/writings of Bukowski (Charles, I
think).  He's a writer/poet.  I read a bunch of his short stories a while ago.
There's another film based on some of his writings that I saw a while ago called
something like "Love is a Dog from Hell"

    No kidding, based on fact; that makes
    it even better.
    
    

    I liked it a great deal. The characters were not glitzy off-the-shelf
    Hollywood characters, and there was very little that was formulaic in
    the movie. Instead, we had some (not particularly likable) people, in
    an environment that most of us would do our best to avoid; they do
    unpredictable things, and it's believable.
    
    spoiler (isn't that an airfoil on the back of your car? :)
    
    A previous noter had a good point, that the movie is inconclusive
    because they will never be able to break their cycle. I would go a step
    further, and say that they are to some degree also *unwilling* to break
    the cycle. If the hero ever got a little money, what did he do? Buy
    some nicer clothes, or save it for the day he had enough to move
    uptown? No, he would give it away fast enough so he only had enough for
    the next couple of drinks.
    
    One of the most disturbing scenes was that one in which a truly
    consuptive drunk orders a shot of whiskey, and spills it because he has
    the shakes so bad. Does the bartender tell him he has had enough, or
    send him to AA or a social worker? No, he gives him a drink on the
    house, which the drunk can only get down by tying his arm to steady it.
    The other patrons look on sympathetically.
    
    The movie as a whole just shows to what degree alcohol can become the
    focus of someone's life, and to what degree it is woven into our
    culture. I was dubious that anyone could put away the quantities that
    some of the characters did and and still be standing, but that didn't
    bust my suspension of disbelief. I was much more skeptical that the
    rich young woman (name of the actress?) would have invited Roarke back
    to her place, seeing how filthy and pathetic he was.

    I heard an interview with Steve Allen, in which he mentioned the fact
    that when he first saw the name of the movie, he read it as an adverb.
    
    The movie was so - so.
    
    carl