Hurlyburly (1998) User Reviews

You'll either love it or hate it

[Eagle1-6 · 7/10 · 25 July 1999]

This is definitely not a movie for everyone. Heavy drug use, discomfiting sexual situations, bad language, violence, a talky, "stagey" atmosphere, and generally despicable characters. Even if you like the actors involved, this may still not be the movie for you (my aunt rented it for my uncle and herself on the strength of Kevin Spacey's name, and he still hasn't forgiven her).

Having said that, I really liked this movie. I never saw the play, but when I read through it, I thought it was the most misogynistic piece of garbage I had ever encountered. Seeing it on screen, though, was a completely different experience. I felt that I understood what the playwright was trying to get at: namely, that this is a piece about how "Eddie, through the death of Phil, is saved from being Mickey." In short, a spiritual redemption of sorts.

Performances are uniformly strong. I have never been a big Sean Penn fan, but I thought he did a more than competent job with Eddie, particularly in the later scenes where he veers between arrogance and pathos. Kevin Spacey seemed uncomfortable with some aspects of the dialogue (i.e. "blah blah blah" etc.), but otherwise did his usual masterful job, in a role which raises the same questions that many of us would like to ask of him.

The role of Donna was, I felt, disfigured by the many cuts in the script--she is more of a victim than a wanton, IMHO--thus, the best thing I can say about Anna Paquin's performance is that she did well with what she was given. I had no strong objections to any of the other casting choices, except for Meg Ryan as Bonnie, who apparently cannot even play a stripper without resorting to her usual cutesy mannerisms.

FWIW, I liked the director's technical choice of "opening" the scenes by putting the conversations on cell phones, etc. However, I would have willingly sacrificed some of the added dialogue for some of the original lines that got cut. Final analysis: I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, and plan to buy it when it comes out on video,

An Underrated and Relatively Unknown Film

[Jaturday · 7/10 · 3 December 2006]

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.

a movie full of itself, which would be fine except...

[Quinoa1984 · 5/10 · 1 February 2011]

Hurlyburly is filled with characters whose vices are so thick that we're made to think we care for them despite everything. But the thing is, most of these guys, with some exceptions in scenes, they're without redeeming characteristics. The film might be a fine anti-Cocaine ad, to be sure, as there's barely a scene where someone isn't snuffing up the nose (it was filmed in 1998 but written back in the early 80's, which makes just a little more sense), but as far as giving any thing close to a (bleep) about these guys is tough. And I know that's not the main goal, I know it's not. We're meant to wallow in with these men who have all of this time to luxuriate in bulls*** and do their drugs and screw around with girls like Anna Paquin (who, I did like, is never identified by age making it all the more questionable), and how they are at best misogynistic and at worst... well, SVU handles guys like these sometimes pretty well.

Perhaps the intention in David Rabe's script, and certainly I could see it being that for the stage where it was originally done, is that they're in a nihilistic circle of their own making, filled with drug- laden anecdotes and partying and screwing around and all that stuff that Hollywood people "do" (and hey, it's the world by Mulholland drive so it's that kind of terrain), and they're just trying to get by each their own way. But it's how characters speak that becomes uneven. Sean Penn's Eddie is a paranoid mess who is fine for a few minutes when we see him clean and sober, and then right back to being a dick as soon as he's back on the powder. Kevin Spacey's Nicky seems more cool-headed and rational, but is so vindictive that, perhaps comparatively, comes off best but among the real world still fails at humanity (maybe by default). And Phil, that's a whole other ball of wax, a man so neurotic he makes Woody Allen characters look like the Beaver Cleavers.

The women are a little more of a mixed lot, with Darlene (Robin Wright Penn, not too oddly enough Sean's wife) the most sane and clear-headed and rational. It's mostly in Hurlyburly a question of being so thick into the muck of decay that it just becomes self-indulgent. And the way characters speak tends to go on and on, mostly with a guy like Phil who just has too many words up his sleeve for someone who should have more of an instinctual, guttural way of talking like a primitive beast. It's not the talk of movie people but theater, and that's one of the big slip ups here, and not an uncommon one with adaptations which is to not have the right tone for the screen. Sometimes the dialog can be agreeable, maybe close to funny (the scene where Phil throws Meg Ryan's character out of the car, and what leads up to it, is amazing). But too much of it is over-loaded with language.

The acting should be what saves it. Sometimes it does. I mean, look who is over here after all, Oscar winners and other notables. But when Garry Shandling ends up really taking the acting prize (and most notably with a scene where he talks with Penn through a glass table) you know there's something not quite right. Spacey is fine but he could do this part in his sleep; more curious would've been to see Christopher Walken, who originated the role on Broadway, in the role as it would've been so unusual for him. Penn has his moments where he connects emotionally, but the rest of it is in such predictable ham-bone mode that it becomes laughable; most excruciating is a scene where he keeps begging Meg Ryan for a BJ, and it gets to a point where Tommy Wiseau would be needed as a dramatic stand-in. You're tearing me apart, movie!

Palminteri seems the most mis-cast though; I never really believed much of what he was saying, and only once or twice did it look like he was even slightly well-off in the role. He keeps on making these things with how he speaks (though it might be akin to how Phil talks) and it's just odd and embarrassing, considering that the man can act in the right role, usually in urban street-wise stuff. A neurotic is not for him, and he has to play one to such a psychotic extent and looks a little dumbfounded in some scenes why he's even there! And it's not all on the director's fault, at least, maybe, I wouldn't think so entirely. He does keep some scenes moving along to try and bring some cinematic quality to it. But when it stalls into its theater-setting, it shows.

I don't want to be too hard on the movie, and yet it's tough when there's such high stakes: a dynamite cast, a drug-fueled set-up that allows for so much potential drama. The results should be fantastic. And instead it's the kind of hot-headed pretentious bally-hoo that makes people hate Hollywood people: they're heads are so far up their asses they don't know where the sun shines anymore.

Review

[MsVerbal · 2 January 1999]

This is a recipe for filmmaking at its finest... Get a dialog driven play, get the playwright to pen it for the screen, and toss in two of the most intense and talented actors (Kevin Spacey and Sean Penn) in the business, supported by a very talented and surprising cast. What do you get? Hurlyburly! Billed as a black comedy, this is more what I would term "black hole" comedy. It is VERY dark, very disturbing, and the humor comes from the characters' need to lighten up a moment or to justify their actions. This film is NOT for everyone... If you're looking for anything truly humorous, this isn't the film. But if you want to see amazing acting and professionals who work well together, this is your film. Read other reviews with cautions on this film--don't confuse the tone of someone who hates what the characters stand for, what they believe in, and how they behave with the quality of the work done by the entire cast.

What a Cast!

[Robbo-7 · 6/10 · 10 January 1999]

Hey, it's another movie about nihilism run amok in Hollyweird! Without the powerhouse cast this movie would be unwatchable, but with the likes of Sean Penn, Kevin Spacey, Chazz Palminteri and Gary Shandling(!) menacing the screen, how can you say no? Meg Ryan finally gets to play the hooker with the heart of gold and pulls it off nicely. And little Anna Paquin (The Piano & Flyaway Home) is maturing, er, well, never mind (she doesn't actually show anything...).

Penn is to the "way-too-wired sleaze-bag" what De Niro is to the "Mafia hood," and I guess this is his Godfather II. The movie makes men look as ridiculous as ever, but then aren't we?!? As in real life, women fare only slightly better...

Kindly phrased, this movie is pointless drivel.

[tblewis · 1/10 · 26 August 2000]

A stellar cast whines incessantly about their existentialist woes in a movie so bad it boggles the mind. If you have a choice between 2 hours of root canal surgery or watching this movie, it's a no-brainer: head for the dentist.

Omigod, I know these people!

[littlesb · 7/10 · 30 August 1999]

Eddie and Mickey must be pulling down some good bucks as casting directors, because they live in a fabulous pad up in the hills (where most of the scenes take place), drive BMW's and rack up horrendous bills on their cell phones. They are HAPPENIN', baby, living the high life in L.A. But, wait a minute...it looks like BEING high is pretty much what their lives are all about in the long run, because their existences are empty, futile and shallow, so they seem to do a lot of coke and weed to try to have a better time. Eddie (Sean Penn) is especially unhappy, so he does more drugs than anybody else and then goes into long, coked-out, nonsense raps.

Have you met anybody like these guys? Well, I have and they are dead-on. This play is real, as far as I can see, and maybe the people who didn't like it don't like to see the ugliness of everyday reality. The person who compared this to "Glengarry, Glen Ross" is absolutely right and as I watched this film, I thought of that movie, also...excellent ensemble cast throwing red-hot lines at each other like arrows.

Sean Penn especially was awesome, but I thought all the actors did incredible jobs. I loved the screenplay, too, but felt that it petered out in the last 15 minutes and never really had a resolution.

Favorite scene: Sean and Robin driving in the car trying to decide where to eat and escalating into a WWIII level argument...I've BEEN there!

Anyone who likes this movie is lying.

[quadrophan · 1/10 · 12 February 2000]

This is among the worst movies I've ever seen. The only reason anyone likes it is because nobody understands what the hell is supposed to be going on here so they just figure it's one of those "artsy" subliminal type films. Instead of admitting they don't understand this fine form of art, people give it a great review instead. Let me tell you that this movie sucks. There's no plot. It's boring as hell. If I wanted to watch a bunch of freaks doing drugs for 2 hours I'd stay in my dorm room. I admit that Sean Penn gives a good performance, but it's too bad that he has no role. Kevin Spacey: What's up with you? I love you, man, and you turn around and shove all the love I've given you where the sun don't shine! What's WRONG with you? And Meg Ryan should under no circumstances play a drug addicted whore. That's almost as bad as when she played Jim Morrison's girlfriend in the doors. Yeah, that was a great choice of character. Hurlyburly is a sucky movie. I'm sure the play is just dandy if you're into sitting in a theatre for hours watching something that makes no sense (hmmm, that's what the movie was like). Don't torture yourself if you haven't already seen this crap. And if you have, I feel for you, man.

Don't take it literally

[JohnSelf · 8/10 · 7 May 2002]

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.

THIS IS A GREAT MOVIE!!!

[matt-hendrix · 7/10 · 19 September 2004]

Don't be fooled by the negative opinions about this movie!

*** Warning, the following may contain slight spoilers *** Following this band of ironically (in?)compatible group of friends as they confront each other to the point where they question if their friendships are really worth the effort! And if so, is it based on anything that ISN'T self serving? And could it possibly be out of kinship and love?

I think this movie questions the value of friendships, and creates a subtle mirror for us to evaluate our own friendships.

I felt pity for all the characters in their bid to find love through means of friends, drugs, sex, hookers and girlfriends. Somehow they seemed hopelessly stuck in their emptiness.

A brilliantly acted film... i'm sure the actors were delighted to able to cut their teeth on something involving long dialogs and stage-like drama.

Don't miss it! 8/10

Ugly & Boring

[georgewilliamnoble · 2/10 · 27 September 2017]

This is not the worst film i have ever seen, but it is certainly the worst film that i have seen that had such a potentially great cast. This filmed play has ugly worthless people leading ugly wasteful lives, as the tedium grows ever more unbearable, the acting becomes ever more mechanical and laborious with stale lifeless direction.The story is one long Hollywood conceit,i hated all the characters so cared not one token for any of them, so the film just died in transit.I only got through the entire 2 hours of tedium by watching the DVD in 20 minute chunks.In A word a car crash bore.

Brilliant, but be warned, you must have a good command of English to understand what they are talking about...

[ZenShark · 10/10 · 9 January 2007]

HurlyBurly is one of those movies for me that i can watch over and over again, and each time see something different, each time connect to it in a different way. The movie captures one man's struggle for meaning and significance in his with a desperation that has rarely been caught on film before. The movie deals in archetypes, with nearly all the characters neatly sitting into one archetype or another. After watching the movie one cant help wonder which of the people he knows is like which of the characters in the movie.

The direction and cinematography are used to serve the characters, and thats what the movie is about, the characters. Nothing much happens in the movie, other than people meeting, and people talking. I always find brutally honest characters interesting to watch, and this entire movie might just be about that. The cast, and the acting is excellent.

Many people are bored by the movie because of its wordiness, and many people disparage it as a drug movie. Although the film is wordy, it is not a drug movie. I would say it is a philosophical movie if anything else. The movie forces you to be introspective, and the movie even acts like somewhat of a Rorschach test on the viewers. Some scenes, like the one where Eddie and Mickey describe the road trip, can be seen in different ways. I like to think that the way people understand this movie has a lot to do with the kind of people they are.

Do watch this movie, but remember that the movie is demanding. The characters talk fast, and talk a lot. The ideas expressed are complicated, and need to be thought about to be properly understood. In fact, watch this movie twice.

Better on stage?

[hengir · 7/10 · 26 March 2006]

There are lots of things to like about this. The constant stream of verbiage is great, a continuous barrage of words that almost make you want to run for cover. Like the people in the film, very entertaining for a couple of hours but you wouldn't want to spend your life with them. The texture of the film is dream like, as if the whole world was drugged up and though the camera doesn't move much from the main characters' house it all feels disjointed and not quite real.

Then there is the acting. Sean Penn is the stand out. You can enter into his confusion, his needs, his despair and his fractured humanity. Kevin Spacey's role's comparative normality is well done too. He is a charming surface with a vacuum underneath. Chazz Palminteri is also great, never putting a rational thought together, scary and vulnerable at the same time.

It is an actor's piece and all of them give a good account of themselves. Having seen the film one wouldn't mind seeing it on stage. It seems to need a live audience. As for what 'Hurly Burly' is really "about", well it was beyond me.

How bad is this?

[blaircam · 1/10 · 26 November 2001]

I was attracted by the incredible cast - but could only stand to watch the first 30 minutes and regret waiting so long. I cannot find a single positive comment to make about this film. True I wasn't really in the mood for a misogynistic, substance-fuelled, dialogue-driven examination of people I don't know and don't care about - but I usually stick any movie out until the end. I simply couldn't give this film a mark so I had to give it a one. Such a shame, a stellar ensemble cast is a terrible thing to waste.

Powerfully acted and compelling drama

[Ian Wallace · 30 April 2000]

Highlighted by emotional, believable performances by its cast (Sean Penn in particular is typically brilliant), Hurlyburly is not for everyone, but can be a powerful and compelling drama for those who approach it with an open mind. The film is frequently referred to as a comedy-drama, a misleading designation for what is a sometimes humorous, but ultimately emotional and sobering look at life in 1980s Hollywood. Particularly well-done are the cocaine-fuelled scenes which provide one of the most accurate depictions of the drug lifestyle and the effect it can have on interpersonal relationships. The film can seem over-the-top in parts, but the excess is necessary to convey the film's message. Emotional, witty, thought-provoking and on some levels deeply depressing, Hurlyburly is an underrated and under-appreciated character-driven drama that capitalizes on the talents of an all-star cast to deliver a top-notch product.

Stream of consciousness

[frankie_machine1 · 7/10 · 25 December 2019]

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.

Misogynistic, stagy, and about as funny as a root canal.

[Mephisto-24 · 2/10 · 14 July 2001]

A group of fine actors play utterly egocentric monsters in a testosterone-scented shared house where women are mere sex toys (with the occasional banal line of dialogue when a string is pulled). Spacey's character is the most sympathetic, possibly because we're used to seeing him as a villain, but Chazz Palminteri was much more likeable in the Usual Suspects. The closest this gets to comedy is when Eddie (Sean Penn) character tries to read some significance into Phil's (Palminteri) death. Apart from a few scenes in cars, it looks and feels like a stage play, and sounds more like a two-hour whine with occasional pieces of rant.

great ensemble cast, but...

[ofgods · 6/10 · 10 July 1999]

Although the great ensemble cast of Hurly Burly, including the nice Meg Ryan as a drug addict, delivers the story line excellently, the story itself lacks a hook. I found myself straying from the movie at times due to lack of interest. Nothing new was introduced to sustain my interest. The story itself is good, but what is lacks is substance. The movie is scene after scene of the same thing. Kevin Spacey is great as always and Anna Paquin's character is underused. If you want to see a movie with a great cast, this is the movie. If it's a great story, I'd suggest looking a different way.

SHUT UP!

[EdF135 · 1/10 · 31 March 1999]

That's what I felt like yelling as well as stomping out of the theater, but I restrained myself. Yes the acting was great, no this wasn't the typical hollywood film, but the dialogue just wouldn't end (or get interesting)! And despite all the gabbing, you never get to really know or care about any of the characters. Definitely the most boring film I've seen since Sphere, but I was expecting that one to be boring. I had to sit through it, but please, spare yourself

solid direction-terrific ensemble cast

[ween-3 · 8/10 · 7 August 1999]

You liked "Glengarry Glen Ross"? You're gonna love THIS one. Kevin Spacey doing his patented "snide" riffs. Anna Paquin growing up and showing some range. Garry Shandling? Who knew? Meg Ryan finally playing something besides America's Sweetheart. Disturbingly funny in some sequences (particularly the Sean Penn-Chazz Palminteri duets) and laugh-out-loud vaudeville in others (the Spacey-Penn cell phone bit is an instant classic). The ensemble cast, with excellent direction, gets all the rhythms of the script. It may look a little over-the-top here and there but it seems to be a conscious choice by the director in this epic send-up of 80's Hollywood excess.

While it's readily apparent that no one is going to go home humming the tunes from this one, it's still a bit surprising that the film garnered no major nominations. Same deal as "Glengarry". Give 'em a great ensemble in a black comedy with no discernible "star", a solid script and inventive direction and be prepared for the icy shoulder at Oscar time. It's an unjust world we live in. This movie deserves a wider audience but owing to the subject matter, it probably won't get one. But I'll give it an 85, Dick. It's got a great beat and you can dance to it!

Not for everyone

[safenoe · 6/10 · 12 May 2021]

I saw this ages ago at a film club and I think many were quite bewildered by this film with a stellar cast. If you're into fast and furious or hostel or saw or that genre, then please quietly excuse yourself from Hurlyburly please.

A dreadful excuse for a movie. I want my life back.

[turkeyonthehill · 1/10 · 23 June 2002]

This film is possibly the worst I have ever seen. It features a collection of very fine actors, but do not let this fool you. If you are thinking 'it can't be that bad' - IT CAN! It might even be worse. If you are tempted to watch this film, just sit in front of a blank screen for two hours and this will be more rewarding. I, and my two friends, felt sullied by this rubbish. The script is pretentious, pointless and not funny. The acting is hidden under a swamp of attempts to be cool or possibly satirical (we couldn't tell for sure). The film is soooooo slow, sooooo dull, and sooooo annoying. I want my money back! And my two hours! And my respect for all the people involved.

Great movie, more theatrical than cinematic

[imdb-5032 · 9/10 · 15 December 2004]

A touching movie about friendship and dependency viewed through the distorting lens of rampant nihilism.

There's a theatrical eloquence to the dialogue that lends it mesmerizing power. It has a literary quality that some people will find unbearably pretentious, but which I found deeply moving.

The movie starts out with a fast paced barrage of hilarious absurdities. As it gets slower and more ponderous it sometimes veers off course, but in a sense this just deepens the sense of human frailty. Similarly the somewhat grasping conclusion does not significantly detract from the film's main thrust.

Acting by Kevin Spacey, Sean Penn and Garry Shandling is absolutely top notch. Chazz Palminteri isn't always as convincing. Excellent showing by Meg Ryan.

Adapted from a play - so it'll be a bit talky

[jimmythegeek · 7/10 · 5 November 2003]

I think it's a strong ensemble cast. Sean Penn was pretty good as a total cokehead weasel. Much of the surprise is in just how depraved and empty they really are. It's not strongly plotted, but it does have strong characters.

Probably more appreciated by folks into acting than folks into the possibilities of film.

Awful, pretentious, wannabe drivel.

[rasty · 1/10 · 14 April 2001]

Terrible. This pretentious, wordy garble tries desperately to be what it is not -- a humanistic dialogue film in the vein of Magnolia. Good performances are helpful, but since all of the movie's characters are written exactly the same, they can't save it. Add sex, drugs, and violence to Dawson's Creek and you get Hurlyburly.