Director: Stuart Rosenberg
There's a certain type of film where the writing is not meant to stand out, the plot's nothing particularly special, and the director is not pulling a lot of fancy tricks. I've reviewed a lot of them here - The Last Detail and The King of Marvin Gardens are two that I can think of. The Pope of Greenwich Village is unquestionably in this vein. A largely shapeless film, it concerns Rourke and Roberts as guys trying to hustle just a little more money out of their workaday lives.
Films like this are acting setpieces, and neither Roberts nor Rourke disappoint - Roberts as the jumpy, impetuous, well-meaning idiot, and Rourke as his wiser, put-upon cousin. There are a few standout scenes and a few that drag, and ultimately the film seems too long at 2 hours. I almost always say this about this sort of film, but I always say there should be more of this type of film.
Here's a fun game to play. Eric Roberts and Mickey Rourke starred in this film in 1984, and here is what they looked like:
They also starred in The Expendables - here is what they looked like there:
Eric Roberts: http://tinyurl.com/4s5stmg
Mickey Rourke: http://tinyurl.com/493wug6
O Time, must you ravage us so?
Though I'm enjoying this movie, I'm having trouble deciding which is more incomprehensible: Daryl Hannah tying her life to Mickey Rourke or Mickey Rourke tying his life to Eric Roberts. Maybe the whole point was to have Rourke say, "Hit me again; maybe I'll change."
ReplyDeleteI've got one for you: Le Trou (The Hole), Dir. Jacques Becker, 1960.
ReplyDeleteyeah, the characters don't really make any sense. they're just a vehicle for the performances. very cassavetes.
ReplyDeletea friend of mine said that pope... would've worked better as a tv show or a mini-series. that both makes sense and is somewhat insulting.
will have to check that one out.