|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|Index||17 reviews in total|
Rebellious post-high school buddies Tim (Jason London), Dave (David Arquette), and Joe (Jonah Blechman) are in the middle of their last summer together. Tim is off to college in the fall, and wherever the other two wind up, it will not be in the same place he will be. So the three of them, the bored threesome decide to pull of their most elaborate prank of all time. The plan is simple. Tim, all decked out in a nice suit that makes him slightly more than conspicuous in a small town like Caledonia, Wisconsin, will stand on a street corner near the bank, while the other two pull up fast in their black Buick (stolen from Dave's cruel father) and pretend, with blanks, to gun him down in the street, toss him into the trunk and speed away. After this reports about the Buick will be all over the news, and Dave's father will have a heavy dose of explaining to do. But while they plan the lark, ex-cons Florence (Mickey Rourke), and Leon (Stephen Baldwin) are planning to rob the very same bank. When the boys mistakenly abduct Leon (who is dressed in a suit similar to Tim's), and in effect, foil the crime, the stronger Florence immediately hunts down the suspicious Tim, and strong-arms him into assisting in the heist without Leon. Leon, meanwhile, once out of the trunk, easily detains Dave and Joe, and begins a paranoid investigation of their true motives before forcing Dave to reel off a conspiracy tale about himself and Florence, exactly what the very edgy Leon wants to hear. Leon, who is shown through his homosexual relationship with Florence (which began while the two served time) as being subservient and pliant, explodes when given the opportunity to call the shots for the two young boys, and becomes unhinged to the tune of torturous interrogation scenes that are almost too emotionally painful to watch. What follows is a violent, icy depiction of loss of innocence in the Eisenhower America, which ends the only way it can, with bodies on the floor. Though the film, made in 1995, was denied a theatrical release by co-stars bickering over billing, director Paul Warner spins a tightly wound tale of a adolescent joy-ride that goes awfully wrong. And perhaps the most interesting spin on the script is the parallel between the subservient relationship of Leon to Florence to the hero-worship Joe holds for Dave, and even paralleling Leon's treatment of the boys with the relationship of Dave to his father. This amounts to a perverse little twist of script that Freudians would love, where the two criminals do serve to provide a sort of perverse fathering of the children. The young cast is outstanding, exuding the requisite disbelief and innocence we expect from these boys. A particular standout is Arquette, who I previously did not feel could act his way out of a paper bag. Mickey Rourke is absolutely chilling as Florence, and Baldwin gives perhaps even a better performance than he did in The Usual Suspects, an absolutely brilliant turn as the explosive Leon. In all, Fall Time is a very good movie that snuck through the cracks, and is well worth a look if you can find a copy.
This is the kind of movie which makes you wondering all the time how the
madness created by coincidences will end, which is also the strength of
movie; it doesn't get bored. Fall time fits in the new type of genre that
introduced in the 90's: 'nouvelle violence'. The character of these movies
are formed by the excessive use of hard violence, mostly in the crime
circuit. As you'll probably know, the leading man in this genre is Quentin
Tarantino, with movies like reservoir dogs and true romance (movies who
a bit like fall time).
The role of Mickey Rourke is almost made for him, and also Baldwin gives honor to his name.
It surprised me a bit that so few people voted for this movie, hence I would suggest that if you don't mind hard violence and you like a surprising end, go rent this movie, it won't let you down.
All right I've read the other comments and feel I'm one of those who
had a hard time with this movie. Director, Paul Warner, brings three
young boys together with a chance meeting with two not so young men.
It's all about a prank gone wrong and the aftermath of the game.
Mickey Rourke, who always seems to get these weird roles of emotionally disturbed people, once again, talks in whispers. He also manipulates others, as he's done in past films. In other words, there doesn't seem to be any change in his style. However, Stephen Baldwin, his victim, gets a chance to show more than his usual tough guy image, with a sensitive performance. Is he gay? It's never made clear, but through Baldwin's performance you would assume he is. This is why he becomes weak in the knees when Rourke commands him.
Of the three young boys, Jason London got more to do with his part. The other two, David Arquette and Jonah Blechman, were somewhat less convincing.
The girl, Sheryl Lee, didn't impress me. Except when she began to undress London. I thought finally something is about to happen. But unfortunately it didn't.
The violence, blood and bruises were abundant throughout this movie. As though this was what audiences would be impressed with. When you have as much as this film presented, after awhile it becomes boring. The mother baking the pie, without words, was all camp. Was she for real? Placing the cherry on top of the pie and tripping as she was carrying a birthday cake, were among my favorite moments. And Baldwin's acting. 6 out of 10 is my vote, in favor of Baldwin, London and Arquette.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Fall Time is an incredibly absurd crime drama that fails on most levels. David Arquette, Jason London, and Jonah Blechman star as three teenage lads who decide to play a prank on the grownups in their boring 1950s backwoods town. Normal, run of the mill teens would TP town hall, put itching powder in the school principal's undergarments, or short sheet each others beds. These bright sparks decide to stage a phony assassination outside the local bank, where, just by chance, two real cons (Mickey Rourke, who phones in his performance, and Stephen Baldwin) are about to hold up the joint. The prank and the robbery go the way of a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup ("you got your practical joke in my two-bit heist!" "No, you got your two-bit heist in my practical joke!") and mayhem, torture, gunplay, and a homo-erotic subplot take us the rest of the way. Though someone clearly spent a lot of time making sure the period details were right, someone else--presumably screenwriters Steve Alden and Paul Skemp-- larded their absurd story with too many handy dandy coinkidinks. The film also suffers from a portentous score from composer Hummie Mann, which elevates the final scene--involving a fresh baked pie from good ol' Mom--to the overdone levels of a Richard Harris and Jimmy Webb collaboration. Fall Time also features the world's least believable sex scene (involving Sheryl Lee). This is one of those American indies that thinks it's being deep, but merely buries itself in pretentious tomfoolery.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I'm not really sure what to think of "Fall Time", because in a number
of aspects it's quite bizarre. As others here have noted, there is a
significant homoerotic edge, one that is more pronounced than you might
think since the story is set in the more conservative 1950s. There are
also no characters to be found that you feel comfortable liking or
identifying with, even with the three so- called innocent youths who
are center in the action; they are quite stupid and irresponsible. And
the ending is quite a downer.
Yet at the same time, the strangeness of the entire package does to a degree make the movie compelling. The story is so unbelievable, and the characters commit so many unbelievable actions, it does get you curious enough to watch the movie until the very end. As sloppy and hard to swallow the movie gets, it's certainly never boring.
I'm not saying this is a GOOD movie - my eyes were rolling throughout - but it's offbeat enough that it can't be easily dismissed. I would recommend the movie to a select audience, to those who are fans of indie cinema who also want to see a story that's far from predictable. If you are not that certain audience, you'd best stay away.
Ambitious in its use of Gay leads (no overtones here, completely in
your face), period setting, and crazy goings on. The Movie starts sort
of weak with overacting by the three teenagers wildly flailing about
and trash talking incessantly. But once our two ferry-land psychos
enter, the thing sort of becomes entertaining in a low rent hoodlum
kind of way.
Although it goes to some length to be 1950's kitsch some of the props look like modern thrift shop and antique store borrowings as they are worn out and do distract somewhat from believability. But that is a minor quibble because things do perk up and turn into some fun.
The convoluted plot and some of the explanations of some of the behavior develop confusion, it is the violence and the Gay behavior of the characters that bring this home with a different feel and is a near winner despite some of its missteps. This is one of Stephen Baldwin's best performances and Mickey Rourke is, well the always interesting Mickey Rourke.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
**WARNING MAJOR SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW**
3 stars out of 10
I had the choice of this film and another film to watch this evening, and unfortunately, I chose this one.
If I hadn't previously read some reviews here on this film, I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on, as it was, the film was somewhat confusing.
Part of the problem was the characters, except for Florence, played by Mickey Rourke, all dressed almost alike. Okay, I'm not good at telling people apart at best, and when they're all young men, about the same ages, general build, and height and all wearing very similar suits, my ability at identifying them goes waaaaay down. I know that plays into the plot, but it also added to my confusion as a viewer.
The film also failed to clarify why the characters were doing what they were doing.
First we have the three young men, who are borderline still boys, who are wearing suits and hats and driving one of the lad's father's black Cadillac, without permission. Beautiful car - as this film was set in the late 1950's, back when cars were cars, if you know what I mean.
The boys think it would be great fun to pretend to shoot someone and then stuff him in the trunk and drive off - shocking numerous people who will witness the incident. One of them is to play the part of the man who gets shot.
However, their prank goes awry.
Then we have more confusion. Like why does Leon (Stephen Baldwin)hold the two boys captive and torture them? Why doesn't he just drive off in the Cadillac and carry on with the planned bank robbery? I never understood that.
Why the bit with a gangster coming into the bank and pretending he's with the FBI? Was that the way Florence thought he could get away with the money without being pursued by the police, or what?
Then we have a totally unbelievable sex scene between one of the boys and a female bank employee, following him kidnapping her and waving a gun at her. Yeah, the guy was nice looking, but gee whiz I'd think making out wouldn't exactly be the first thing on their minds given their tense situation, and the fact he has some cuts and bruises. The cops are out looking for them, and they've double-crossed some dangerous criminals.
Then when Florence finally shows up out at the fort where Leon is, Leon, who has already been blubbering, which seemed completely out of character for him, does still more bawling around, and Florence sort of comforts him in a rough kind of way. So were the two of them lovers, or what?
We discover Carol is really Patty, and then she hops a freight train?! She didn't even know she was going to be out there by the train tracks - after all the original plan didn't involve driving out to the fort. So what was her original plan? Or did she just see an opportunity and take it?
Whoever decides to watch this film, I wish them luck in getting more out of it than I did.
My goodness. I thought for a moment there that these five guys were going
to take off their clothes and have a orgy. The Plot Summary in the IMDB
database said there were some homosexual overtones in this movie. I
don't think they were overtones. They were out loud thrown in your face,
and you just had to smile to yourself. The three younger boys, with their
grab ass and pulling down underwear and slow dancing and coming within a
half an inch from each other mouths putting on each others ties in their
little "Fort", which is what David called it. It seemed more to me that
this was their little secret hideaway. Now as far as the two ex-cons, the
very cute Steve Baldwin and the ever beautiful Mickey Rourke. These guys
just made you feel like you were about to spill your beans. It was so
obvious that these two had to be lovers. With all of the "You know I love
you" and the hand holding and mouths coming only inches away from each
other, and the feeling each others bodies, I was just waiting for them to
take off their clothes in the middle of the road and do it on the cement.
This is how powerful the "Homosexual Overtones" came off.
One thing that really kind of p***ed me off about this movie, is this jerk water town were everything was supposed to take place. These people in this town were just lockjawwed morons. I mean one example was when this guy with a Johnny Suede/Elvis Presley haircut, ran to call the police when he thought something was going to go down at the bank. He runs to the pay phone in this town, I don't remember the exact name, something like Colidine, anyway he calls the operator and ask, "Give me the Colidine Sheriffs Department". I mean duh, this guy lives in Colidine, why in the world did he not just ask for the "Sheriffs Office", or even dialed the number himself. It's not like when he dialed "0" he got the International Operator in Istanbul, I mean come on.
All in all with all of the stupid town people, including the Sheriff himself, it had a pretty good story line. Rent it on a weekend, something to smile and think about.
So extraordinarily bad on so many levels. It made no sense at any
juncture. Characters never did one thing a normal person would do. The
script doesn't explain anything. It actually made me hurt in my
stomach. Didn't one single person who had a level of power over this
film look at it and say it is incomprehensible? Didn't anyone like the
producer think it might be a good idea to let a small group of people
see it just to make sure it made sense? I needed extra lines to make
this review long enough so I'm sticking them here. This film doesn't
deserve any more discussion. It deserves to buried in an active
volcano. Is this enough lines for this baby to get published? How about
One thing you will learn from this film: Steven Baldwin is actually a functioning mongoloid.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Three life-long pals stage a gag at a bank and run into some criminals planning to rob the bank. The criminal boss is Rourke a creepy psychopath exploiting his gunsel, Baldwin, the piteously warped product of a prison upbringing. The pals have Arquette as their ring leader, who's escaping the rage and numbness his parents model. To Jason London these guys are brothers, his surrogate family. Blechman, the lowly little guy, hero worships Arquette, who in his crazy way is his mentor. (If these guys seem gay to you, get well so maybe you can have a friend someday.) The two gangs get mixed up and separated at the bank, then Rourke makes a bad situation desperate and, for Baldwin, tragic. When Sheryl Lee shows up the power balance goes seismic in the best noir style. Rourke controls with intimidating innuendo that shocks by turning the tables on us and our usual voyeuristic experience of some cliché villain leering while he cuts a bra away. To say you'll be the one who feels discomfort doesn't begin to describe the debasement and violation he exerts with his cold games. (Those who find these any kind of erotic need to get well also.) The acting, direction, and writing go beyond the now familiar story of a botched bank heist to explore how the hunger to be with others spares from danger only the least human.
|Page 1 of 2:|| |
|External reviews||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|