Desperate Hours (1990) User Reviews (74)

A perfect example of a movie being so bad it's good

[squeezebox · 5/10 · 16 July 2008]

This is one of those movies that is very difficult to give a star rating because its high entertainment value is due to the fact that it's almost completely terrible.

A remake of the 1955 Humphry Bogart-Fredric March potboiler, DESPERATE HOURS is an unrelentingly bizarre piece of exploitation trash. There's virtually nothing "good" about it. The screenplay ranges from scattershot to just plain off-the-wall weird, the performances are some of the most over-the-top ever committed to film and the direction is borderline psychotic. Director Michael Cimino and producer Dino De Laurentiis once again prove that they are more capable than anyone else in the film industry of taking a potentially good idea and drowning it in excessiveness.

Mickey Rourke and Anthony Hopkins are both excellent actors. They are also actors who go from mannered to berserk very quickly. Both chew the scenery as if their lives depend on it. Mimi Rodgers is wooden even during emotionally intense scenes, Shawnee Smith is distraught before the home invaders show up and Lindsay Crouse is both wooden and over-the-top at the same time.

Kelly Lynch is the only actor who turns in even an appropriate performance, evoking a sense of hopelessness and panic from the start that makes you feel for her character, even if she has dug her own grave. This doesn't help a bewildering early scene in which her blouse spontaneously pops open to reveal her bare breasts make any more sense, however.

There are a lot of interesting plot and characterization ideas floating around the proceedings but none of them are ever fully developed. It reminds me of Cimino's HEAVEN'S GATE and De Laurentiis's DUNE, two similarly flawed but occasionally brilliant disasters which have grown better with age. Maybe with time, viewers will begin to see the tight, complex thriller struggling to break through the mess that is DESPERATE HOURS.

But all this analysis begs the question, would the movie have been more entertaining had it been put together more coherently? The answer is: probably not.

relentlessly over the top

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 20 April 2015]

Lawyer Nancy Breyers (Kelly Lynch) is defending robber and murderer Michael Bosworth (Mickey Rourke) for killing a guard in prison. She helps him escape but she falls behind. Albert (David Morse) and his brother Wally Bosworth (Elias Koteas) drive the getaway. Brenda Chandler (Lindsay Crouse) releases Nancy to track down Bosworth. Tim (Anthony Hopkins) and Nora Cornell (Mimi Rogers) are splitting up their family with their children (Shawnee Smith, Danny Gerard). He's broken up with his girlfriend and looking to reunite but she insists on selling the house. Michael and his men take over the house and keep the Cornells hostage. He makes contact with Nancy as he waits for her to join them.

Director Michael Cimino remakes the 1955 film. He's trying way too hard to be stylish. Some of the acting is too over-the-top. If he could dial some of it back, the movie could be an intense crime thriller. Micky Rourke can be an intense bad guy without any help but Cimino insists on pushing it. Everybody is overacting. The worst is probably Lindsay Crouse. Cimino is using every camera move and dramatic music. It's a little ridiculous to release Nancy but the call to her apartment is a little more ridiculous. The cops could easily be listening on the other end. It's not as if the message is in code. The movie could have been great but Cimino's relentlessness squanders the work of some great actors.

Why.

[culwin · 5/10 · 12 March 2000]

How do you even screw this up? How do you screw up a script that was already a successful book and film? I don't know, but somehow Michael Cimino did it. This mediocre movie is a 100-minute snorefest about a bad dude (played by Mickey Rourke, who contributes nothing to the role), who kidnaps a upper-middle-class family. Most of the other actors do good to very good jobs, notably Michael Morse who plays one of Rourke's cronies, and Anthony Hopkins in a role which is far beneath him. But the plot is nothing but totally predictable filler and just when you think it has gone nowhere, it goes even more nowhere. Since we already know that the script can be done well, there is no one to blame here except Michael Cimino for the non-direction this movie took. 5 out of 10.

Cimino: high on style. low on logic. form=content. go figure.

[dmkuehn · 29 July 2002]

I think on a certain level this film works quite well. First, throw out everything you know about the 1955 version. Next, abandon paying too much attention to how the plot progresses (gee, Kelly Lynch's character seems to disappear for extended periods of time, and it's amazing that the FBI ever found following her to be worth it. And she is supposed to be one of the smarter characters, but then again, you took what Lindsay Crouse's character said about her too seriously.) The film has a most curious tone, and just when you think it's going to turn into an art film, we get a shoot-em-up or some other plot contrivance to bring it back to earth. The soundtrack is a moody pastiche of 50's style orchestrations (no rock music!) and recalls moody post-noir thrillers of the late 50's-early 60's.

And what a fascinating line-up of players, performances, and characters. Kelly Lynch's acting directions must have been "look snappy, especially topless, act like you just ingested a gram of cocaine, and all will go well."

One of these first years Cimino will put together all the pieces and come up with a really good, coherent film. For a really good obtuse film, reference Walter Hill's "The Driver" with Ryan O'Neal.

Oh, and if you ever thought you could mess with Lindsay Crouse, this film should dispel that notion. She's much badder than Mickey Rourke - and that's the biggest surprise of the whole picture! And with a lot less screen time, too. And by golly I guess Mickey Rourke's character is just an obsessive lover of the enigmatic Lynch. That explains a lot.

Coolest line in the film: FBI agent says to Crouse (after she got shot in the leg) : "Where are you hit?" Answer: "In the ego."

Over-Stylized and Hurried.

[happipuppi13 · 3/10 · 14 November 2010]

Why is it that Hollywood believes that taking an old movie and putting a modern spin on it,is going to make it "even better than the original?"

I've seen and reviewed the original Humphry Bogart movie and now that I've seen this version on the "THIS" network last night,it only makes me like Bogie's even more.

The original slowly built up it's story and every bit of the action was well timed and gave you that sense of urgency and fear for the family in question.

In this one,it's was quite obvious that they were going for more focus on action and a slick look,than they were for acting.

Even a great actor like Anthony Hopkins,has his performance diluted by all of this mayhem. His role is okay but really doesn't get interesting until the last 30 minutes or so. The rest of the family pales in comparison to the 1950's version. In that one,they all took a shot at out-witting the bad guys.

Nora,the mom/wife,when first confronted by the gang of three is told by one of them,"I found someone's bikini by the pool." She stupidly tells them,"That's my daughter's". Good mom,tell these desperate criminals you have a daughter.

The little boy only cries for his mom or dad and only defies Rourke by saying"I'm going to bed". The son in Bogart's,hit,kicked and screamed at them.

Their daughter,while crying and emotional over the situation,is otherwise not a very interesting character. Her boyfriend,unlike in the original where he gets clued in, seems to somehow know she needs to be rescued,when really,he knows nothing of what's happening in the house.

Rourke's acting does not evoke a sense of fear and urgency like Bogart's did. I realize two different actors,two different styles but Rourke's doesn't even have a "style". All he does is act a little smug,or very angry and even his anger made me laugh.

The female lawyer he supposedly "loves" is a pretty thin character but even thinner and worse than that is the female FBI agent. Her performance is without a doubt the worst acting from a female I've ever seen. She spouts her lines like a female auditioning to be The Terminator or maybe making it obvious she's a member of the Jack Webb fan club! ...but ,her lines are so hollow and virtually emotionless ,she'd make Webb sound like Sir Laurence Olivier.

The only thing that kept me watching this film was to see the differences between the two films and to get to the anticipated climax. I knew how it would end but I had to see it through.

3 stars (and I'm being kind here) for a few good scenes of action and the ending. The end of 2 desperate hours. (END)

Mickey Rourke and Anthony Hopkins - winning combination!

[al-harris · 7/10 · 30 July 2006]

I am a big Mickey Rourke fan from his string of hits in the 80's. I kind of fell off the bandwagon during the 90's, finding his choice of films to be somewhat uninspiring. Still a great actor, just seemed to be having some trouble picking quality projects. Seeing 'Sin City' brought me back (great role, great acting, great film!), so I picked up 'Desperate Hours' and watched it last night. While the supporting characters could have been better written (Kelly Lynch & Mimi Rogers' characters fell flat), the scenes between Rourke & Anthony Hopkins were wonderful! Elias Koteas as Rourke's brother was forgettable, but David Morse's character of Albert was very interesting. Somewhat like a big dumb 'Lenny' to Rourke's 'George'. Like another reviewer I was reminded of Humphrey Bogart's 'Duke Mantee' in the 1936 film 'Petrified Forest', but Rourke's 'Michael Bosworth' was a little more homicidal and more of a loose cannon. If you like Rourke & Hopkins, you will enjoy watching 'Desperate Hours.'

Desperate is right!

[preppy-3 · 1/10 · 28 January 2014]

Horrible remake of a Humphrey Bogart film. Mickey Rourke plays a criminal who escapes from jail with help from his lawyer (Kelly Lynch). He decides to hide out in the house of a heavily dysfunctional family (played by Mimi Rogers, Anthony Hopkins and Shawnee Smith). Lindsay Crouse pops up as a police chief trying to capture him.

I caught this in a theatre back in 1990 and, try as I might, I can't forget how TERRIBLE this film was! Director Michael Cimino frankly can't direct. "The Deer Hunter" was a fluke. After that he did "Heaven's Gate", "Year of the Dragon, "The Sicilian" and this--all box office bombs. The direction in this is beyond belief. Badly lit, terribly staged and weird camera angles. He single-handedly destroys any visual quality the film might have had. The plot is bad--full of loopholes and bad dialogue. The acting couldn't be worse. You have talented actors like Lynch, Rogers and especially Hopkins giving their all time worst performances. Rourke and Crouse never could act so their bad acting is expected. Worst of all was Smith. She is so incredibly annoying you'll be rooting for Rourke to shoot her dead! This was quickly forgotten and (thankfully) has stayed that way. Avoid.

Not all bad

[smatysia · 6/10 · 31 August 2001]

This film had a lot of problems, such as not having Humphrey Bogart playing the lead. It had a few positives. Anthony Hopkins does every role well. Mickey Rourke carries that air of quiet menace as well as anyone. Mimi Rogers is as good as her part lets her be. But now the negatives. Lindsay Crouse pushes her tough-girl act way too far. Not believable. I hate to criticize Kelly Lynch. She is usually so good. But I just couldn't buy what she was selling in this role. I'm not sure why, but she detracted from the film. Well, except for her looks. She is great scenery anytime, but she usually comes across as a far better actress than she did here. The direction seemed lacking. I hated that little touch where David Morse was whistling "Red River Valley". Didn't work. Nice photography of Utah scenery.

Desperate Movie

[Maciste_Brother · 1/10 · 28 May 2003]

After the financial disaster that was HEAVEN'S GATE, Michael Cimino was on a warpath to prove he was still a legitimate filmmaker. He subsequently made the overwrought YEAR OF THE DRAGON, THE SICILIAN and a remake of DESPERATE HOURS in the 1980s. All of those films bombed at the B.O. and his credibility never really recovered. Of all three films he directed in the 80s, DESPERATE HOURS is, by far, the worst. The movie is bad, bad, bad. The movie actually reflects its title. It's truly desperate.

Like the director, the film wants to be taken seriously and yet it's woefully misguided with overwrought acting, leaden direction that rarely makes any sense and a script that's totally outdated and is divorced from logic. As I've said, the movie wants to be taken seriously but every attempt of seriousness is quickly shot down with remarkably ludicrous details. For instance, when David Morse is alone in the wilderness and he's running away from the police, the whole moment is (oddly) directed with reverence but then, as Morse is heading towards a gas station, he meets two buxom bimbos who are dressed in such ridiculous clothes (they look like they just stepped out of a Playboy spread) that the director's attempt at reverence is destroyed by the unexpected sight of those two women who just didn't belong in the movie. I'm sure someone got laid from hiring those two women. Arf!

And then there's the whole way Kelly Lynch is treated in the movie. What an embarrassing role. She didn't deserve to be treated like that. I love Leonard Maltin's description of what is done to her character: kamikaze disrobing.

But topping everything, even the dreadful music or scenery chewing from Mickey Rourke or Anthony Hopkins, is Lindsay Crouse's performance, which can only be described as being out of this world. The way she talks, enunciates her dialogue, the way her character is directed, well, the whole thing is totally perplexing. I've tried to come up with a way to describe her acting/role but I can't. Remember Dolores Fuller's acting in GLEN OR GLENDA? Well, Lindsay Crouse must have taken some lessons from Dolores because her acting is identical. Personally speaking, Lindsay Crouse's acting in DH ranks up there as one of the weirdest performances ever put on screen.

I haven't seen the original version of DESPERATE HOURS but I can't imagine it's remotely close to being as dreadful as Michael Cimino's version.

Entertaining & Pacy But Lacks The Intensity & Impact Of The Original

[seymourblack-1 · 7/10 · 30 September 2015]

Michael Cimino's remake of William Wyler's "The Desperate Hours" (1955) is given the 1990 treatment by increasing the amounts of violence, nudity and strong language and adding colour and a number of beautifully-shot outdoor sequences. The gang leader's character has been significantly changed and as a reflection of the period in which this movie was made, the husband and wife whose home is invaded, have become estranged because of the husband's infidelity. The action starts off impressively and its lively pace is maintained throughout the entire film.

Michael Bosworth (Mickey Rourke) is a convict who escapes from a courthouse with the help of his defence lawyer and lover, Nancy Breyers (Kelly Lynch) who'd smuggled a gun into the building for him. After killing one of the guards whilst making his getaway, Bosworth is picked up by his brother Wally (Elias Koteas) and his friend Albert (David Morse) and together they drive off to a pre-arranged location to switch to a different car which had been left there by Nancy.

Nancy's participation in the escape is made to look enforced and Bosworth and his gang decide to hide out in a rich suburban neighbourhood until she can join them. The house they pick is occupied by Nora Cornell (Mimi Rogers) and her two children, 15-year-old May (Shawnee Smith) and 8-year-old Zack (Danny Gerard). Bosworth conducts himself with a combination of politeness and threatening behaviour and when Nora's cheating husband Tim (Anthony Hopkins) calls by to attempt a reconciliation with his wife, he also becomes a hostage.

FBI agent Brenda Chandler (Lindsay Crouse) who's in charge of the manhunt, doesn't buy Nancy's story for a minute and has her watched around the clock in the certain belief that she'll eventually lead them to Bosworth. At the Cornell's house, Albert becomes overwhelmed with anxiety and decides to leave but is soon found and killed by the FBI. When Nancy finally decides to co-operate with the FBI so that she can be given a reduced sentence, the authorities are quickly able to close in on Bosworth and bring their mission to its violent conclusion.

The most disappointing feature of this movie for anyone who's seen the 1955 version is that the tension, claustrophobia and intensity of threat that the family are under in the original are all so heavily diluted in this version. Bosworth's character is also a problem because, as a man with an exceptionally high I.Q., he never does or says anything that's even remotely intelligent let alone brilliant.

Mickey Rourke provides the movie's best performance as he conveys his character's unusual combination of charm and volatility so well and although it is generally entertaining, "Desperate Hours" never achieves the intensity or impact of the 1955 original.

A "Desperate" one "Hour" and forty-five minutes....

[Mister-6 · 1/10 · 5 December 1999]

Once, Michael Cimino was a great director. Now, he's just a Hollywood joke.

Why?

Here's a good example.

"Desperate Hours" is a remake of a similar movie which starred Humphrey Bogart. I've never seen the original. Wish I could say the same about the remake.

Rourke plays the mad dog killer this time out, who is on the lam with his attorney (Lynch, who should probably sue Cimino for defamation of character) and holes up with his cronies in the house of a distant man (Hopkins) and his equally distant family. Screams, fights, violence and blood all share equal screen time.

Then Crouse shows up to head the manhunt for Rourke and every last shred of belief jumps out the window to escape her. Are FBI agents really this stupid? Don't they have entrance exams? Isn't it against the law to endanger innocent peoiple just to capture an escaped convict? Isn't it? Didn't Cimino and his writers suspect as much?

Wait, I forget: this is the same man who made "Heaven's Gate".

This is, without a doubt, one of the most blatantly stupid, tasteless, egomaniacal trips through Idiot-Land I've even seen since "Dumb and Dumber". But at least THAT one was supposed to be funny.

No stars. Not a one. Watching "Desperate Hours" is like witnessing a car accident, only more painful and with more victims.

Strangely Hypnotic

[cleather · 8/10 · 9 July 2002]

A peculiar piece of entertainment, Michael Cimino's Desperate Hours feels rather odd for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is the off kilter performance of Lindsay Crouse as the FBI agent from another galaxy. Was that lady weird or what? I couldn't understand 50% of what she said throughout this very watchable mess of a movie. Not surprisingly, Cimino's pacing is somehow frustrating and gripping at the same time. This aspect of his films seem to linger in my memory for awhile. Fans of Kelly Lynch should realize that she's topless for much of her screen time. Finally, I found the score to be very unique in flavor. Most movies of this type have a dark, menacing soundtrack. The music here is often lush,ethereal sentimental even. Not much tension sustained, but this alternates nicely with the over the top performances of Rourke, Rogers and Hopkins. All in all I think this an enjoyable flick for those looking for something slightly different in their suspense movie.

Cimino and Rourke play the hostage game

[NateWatchesCoolMovies · 6/10 · 15 August 2016]

Michael Cimino's Desperate Hours, despite only really being a serviceable home invasion/hostage thriller, still has a lot of fun with it's two leads, brash sociopath Mickey Rourke and even brasher estranged family man Anthony Hopkins. Based on a creaky old Humphrey Bogart film, Cimino obviously vamps up the violence and eroticism that simmers beneath it quite a bit, and when you have Rourke as your antagonist you know it's not going to be anywhere near a relaxed affair. He plays Michael Bosworth, a dangerous felon on the run with two other goons, his volatile brother (Elias Koteas) and another creepy lowlife (David Morse). He crashes into the home life of Tim Cornell (Anthony Hopkins) a boorish father visiting his wife (Mimi Rogers) and children. The film mainly takes place inside the house, as the creep factor rises along with the threat of blaring violence which we know will come, made all the more likely by the growing police presence outdoors, and the tensions of everyone involved, threatening to snap at any moment. Rourke walks a tightrope between amiable and unstable, a man sure of himself, who always gets his way, and is capable of bad, bad things if he feels he won't. Hopkins plays Cornell as a man used to being in control, but his inability to hold his family together is made worse by the gang's arrival, rubbing salt in an already festering wound. Cimino has a brawny style to his violence, a trademark that's seemingly born of both De Palma and Peckinpah, rich bloody gun battles and accentuated slow motion death scenes. Most of the film is held back, but the flood gates do eventually open and action hounds will get what they came for. Watch for Lindsay Crouse, Kelly Lynch, Shawnee Smith, James Rebhorn and Dean Norris as well. Not groundbreaking in the least as far as thrillers are concerned, but still an entertaining little piece made memorable by Rourke and Cimino's ever interesting pairing.

Michael Cimino - Ed Wood Reincarnated

[qormi · 1/10 · 19 March 2011]

Michael Cimino was heralded for "The Deer Hunter", which was an inspired, powerful film, the complete opposite of the disastrous "Heaven's Gate". Now, Cimino breaks new ground with "The Desperate Hours". The whole movie is a mess. I'll list just a few examples:

The head of the FBI unit was, of course, a woman. She had the most ridiculous 80's blonde, curly "big hair" imaginable. It was always blowing in her face. She spoke with the most phony southern accent I ever heard. She always was yelling and giving orders. We get it; she's in charge.

The scene where one of the criminals, covered in blood, came across two college girls who were standing by their truck at a gas station. These girls had bodies so hot that they were x-rated. One of them had the most outlandish denim shorts on. No woman could ever have worn them in public. 99% of her buttocks poured out of them.

In another scene, the girlfriend of one of the criminals was being fitted with a hidden microphone. So there she is, in a room full of people, completely topless, as a man tapes a microphone between her breasts. She was talking to the woman FBI leader like this was an everyday occurrence as the FBI man carefully taped the mike on her skin. I'm not making this up. And her breasts were the most perky money could buy.

The scene where the fugitive is walking through the picturesque wilderness. The theme from "Red River Valley" is playing. The cops tell him to drop his gun from 100 yards away. He holds the pistol in the air and they shoot him at least 100 times with automatic weapons.

Mickey Rourke runs out of bullets, so Anthony Hopkins, who is 20 years older than Rourke, out of shape, and covered in blood from a chest wound, holds a pistol in one hand and drags and tosses Rourke around like a rag doll. Not once did Rourke think of grabbing the gun from Hopkins' hand. As Hopkins throws Rourke down the stairs with one hand, the entire banister rail, which runs the length of the stairs, breaks off. Now this is a grand staircase in an upper class mansion. So much for craftsmanship.

That's just the tip of the iceberg. This movie is just as bad as anything Ed Wood put out.

Well done, sometimes tense and sometimes exciting thriller

[vchimpanzee · 14 September 2003]

Michael Bosworth is on trial and clearly not a nice man in the courtroom. When he goes to another room to talk with his beautiful lawyer Nancy, he steals a gun she has hidden under her skirt (how anything can be hidden under THAT skirt is a mystery) and escapes, joining his brother and another man.

Meanwhile, Tim Cornell, a lawyer whose family lives in a nice house, is trying to make peace with his wife Nora after an affair, but she is convinced the marriage is over and she is in the process of selling the house, as the sign out front makes clear. Bosworth and his associates show up and take the family hostage, and they use whatever information they can find for their benefit.

There are several exciting scenes in the beautiful wilderness of what is said to be Utah. Nancy is chased because she is suspected of helping Bosworth, though exactly what happened with that chase is not clear. We only see what happened later. And the process of finding out what happened to Bosworth is fasscinating.

Mickey Rourke does a good job, thoroughly evil in court but calm and almost kind with the family most of the time. Anthony Hopkins also delivers, keeping his cool throughout most of the ordeal and coming across as intelligent and even caring. Mimi Rogers did a great job as well playing Nora. Despite their problems, it was clear this was a loving family and they all cared about each other.

This is not a particularly violent movie, though at least one person does die. This is more of a psychological thriller than a Schwarzenegger action movie, though at one point a comparison to an action movie would make sense.

avoid this mess

[jetwimp · 1/10 · 29 January 2002]

This movie is an embarrassment. It should never have been released. It should have been consigned to the stuporous netherworld of HBO reruns. Mickey Rourke and Anthony Hopkins are redoubtable talents, but they require a firm directorial hand to deliver satisfying performances. That hand is absent here. Hopkin's accent varies all over the place, and his theatrical bellowing is in weird contrast to the serpentine hissing of Rourke. The relation between him and his brother is never fleshed out; this was the most emotionally satisfying aspect of the Humphrey Bogart- Dewey Martin relationship in the classic movie. Lindsay Crouse, as a dippy Southern accented FBI agent, conjures up outlandish ad hoc schemes which cannot be understood by the viewer and perhaps were not understood even by the scriptwriter. The struggles, the theatrics, the emotion-tinged outbursts seem improvised. The sole actor to escape unscathed is Philadelphia's own David Morse, although an unintended moment of high comedy is provided when, after disposing out of a body and drenched with his own and the other's blood, he stumbles out of a creek to encounter two nubile lasses loading merchandise into a pickup. "What college do you go to?" he asks brightly.

Good, solid crime film

[mim-8 · 7/10 · 8 March 2016]

I liked this movie since it came out. The cast is really good, and their performances are strong all around. Cimino is good director, and I don't think that he made a bad movie. He was given a bad reputation by the industry since "Heaven's Gate" incident, simply because he wouldn't readily adhere to production guidelines, and wanted too much to be an "auteur", in a European cinema sense of the word. He was mostly not allowed to present his movies, as he wanted them to be, and the flickers of his talent just sparkle through the studio assembled films he made, visible to those who look for them, understanding visual poetry preserved in exterior scenery, his director's trademark.

I haven't seen the original, but "Desperate Hours" of 1990 is no worse than any far better rated crime or thriller movies that were hailed as a "box office hit". The plot is not weaker, and there aren't any goofs to report on this film, which means that it was done professionally or simply done well. It's aim to entertain, and involve it's audience in the plight of the family whose home is invaded by assortment of thugs, the main one being a truly disturbed individual, is fully served, helped by fantastic performances of Anthony Hopkins, whose gentlemanly grace in a desperate effort to protect his family is essential, along with Ann Archer, who is simultaneously strong and beautiful, as the mother caught in between the failing marriage and threat to her family. To understand Lindsay Crouse's performance, often labeled as overacting, it is essential to know what kind of a female would join police forces and be prepared to shoot, and be shot at. Not a femininely damsel for sure. So she is what she's supposed to be, hard talking, and behaving awkwardly in a sense that she is a military man's spirit, inhabiting female body, all to serve the story in each and every aspect that it has. It is hard to understand today, that Mickey Rourke was a unique kind of character actor back in the 80's, but we have filmed proof, one of which is Cimino's very own "Year of the dragon".

This is a good solid film that didn't age at all, but preserved it's qualities, beautiful cinematography, fierce acting performances, intensity and atmosphere, 26 years on, looking and feeling as good today, as when I first saw it. Not many more films of the genre, with far better rating, reputation of their director, and income, could say that about themselves now. Worth revisiting. Recommended.

Laughably bad

[bleex · 1/10 · 18 October 2009]

Cimino is a hack.

There, I said it. Deal with it.

So he gets lucky with one film, The Deer Hunter - having great actors like De Niro, Steep and Walken doesn't hurt. But Desperate Hours is like a High School film project - only worse.

It is terribly put together with jump cuts, poor camera angles and perspective, terrible continuity, poor story, time-frame mismanagement, unbelievable plot holes and poor characters.

The action sequences are a joke too. For example, one minute you have squads of highly trained and armed professionals who literally can't shoot the bad guys right in front of them with automatic weapons. Then a couple of scenes later said professionals now all have red-dot sights all over bad guys and can shoot with pinpoint accuracy - all in the very same location as the scene before. Stupefying.

I could go on and on with the problems in many scenes but I have better things to do. Like count the number of piles in my living room carpet.

Bottom line: Desperate Hours is one of those movies that's so bad it becomes an unintentional comedy.

Not bad.

[theshadow908 · 6/10 · 18 April 2006]

After seeing Sin City starring Mickey Rourke, I decided to set out and see all of Mickey Rourke's films. I heard from people that most of his films are terrible, but this one was pretty good. I bought it from the bargain bin, so I wasn't expecting much, but it was okay for 6 bucks. It tells the story of 3 escaped convicts lead by Michael Bosworth (Rourke). They take a woman, her family, and her estranged husband (Anthony Hopkins) hostage in their house. A game of cat and mouse between the two men ensues.

I have never seen the original with Humphrey Bogart, but this movie is alright. I really enjoyed the plot, and even though Mickey Rourke isn't the greatest actor around, he's certainly a compelling villain. Anthony Hopkins is pretty good as the husband desperate to save his family, but he's not at his best. I think the biggest mistake anyone can make about this movie is to assume that it's a serious attempt at a thriller. In reality, I think this movie is a fun popcorn movie.

Like any cheap action thriller from the early 90's, there's a lot of flaws. Two of the flaws are in the acting. The one playing Bosworth's lawyer/girlfriend is probably one of the worst actresses I've ever seen. Her character is pointless as well. The other terrible acting job was the cop in charge of taking Bosworth down. That actress must've come straight off a soap opera. A really bad and noticeable flaw in the movie was the shoddy editing. The film cuts to a new scene before the previous scene even has a chance to end.

Overall, the movie is pretty enjoyable. It was worth a 6 dollar buy.

6.5/10

Frustrated at a wasted opportunity

[jmorrison-2 · 2/10 · 11 April 2002]

What a wasted effort. A story with real possibilities, and probably the perfect actor to portray the psychopathic lead in Mickey Rourke. He was probably the only thing that was able to keep this thing from completely sinking.

Anthony Hopkins was simply the wrong choice for the role of the husband here. It's really hard to understand this; he simply didn't belong in the role. He may be one of the finest actors in the world, but that doesn't mean he is the right choice for any character. He was simply out of place. This was probably the biggest distraction, in a movie pretty much full of them. I can't even begin on Lindsay Crouse's FBI agent character. This has to be one of the most bizarre acting jobs in memory, and her accent is from a solar system we haven't visited yet. Shawnee Smith's leering, sneering teenager was laughably naive and idiotic.

Was ANYBODY directing this?

Some of the dialogue was bad, some of the acting was bad, and the pacing, atmospherics and camera cuts were choppy and jarring, and poorly thought out.

There was, obviously, a real opportunity to make a very good suburban horror story, and this was completely scuttled by lazy, slap-dash film-making.

Cimino have better films than this.

[diego_garcia · 6/10 · 31 July 2003]

This is the kind of movie that you see one time and after you forget. It's an entertaining thriller,with good performances (except an overacted Rourke),and nice music by David Mansfield.But there is no doubt that Cimino have better films than this,like "Year of the dragon" or "The deer hunter".

Pure garbage

[Skywaybound · 2/10 · 14 January 2012]

Oh wow. In a bad way. This one was a real groaner. It was somewhat tolerable until near the end. And then it was one headshake moment after another. And I had high hopes in the beginning, with Rourke, Rogers and Hopkins in the cast. And the cable movie guide had given it three out of four stars. So I thought why hadn't I heard of this movie? And then I found out why.

This is just pure Hollywood, formulaic, intelligence-insulting crap. Don't engage your brain. But even then you'll be suffering through it. Why weren't the producers and the director embarrassed to make this trash? Egads!

Great remake of a Humphrey Bogart psycho drama

[Mikew3001 · 8/10 · 7 October 2002]

"Desperate Hours" is a 1990 remake of William Wyler's psycho drama of the same name from 1955 featuring Humphrey Bogart and Fredric March as original cast. Michael Cimino directed this story of a blood-thirsty gang raiding an upper class suburb house on their run from the police after a series of ambitious big projects like "Heaven's Gate", "Year of the Dragon" and "The Sicilian" in the eighties.

In this remake, it is Mickey Rourke's turn to play Bogart's leading role, and he turned Bogart's coolness into a portrait of a psychopathic gentleman gangster whose violent dominance is about to erupt like a volcano every second. His counterpart is lawyer Anthony Hopkins, an upper-class citizen and head of a broken family. Both men are fighting against each other in every possible way, starting with psycho duels and witty conversations to hard fights and pure wars of nerves.

Most of the plot takes place in Hopkins' house, and as soon as the story is settled out of this apparent suburb paradise hell breaks out, starting from Rourke's violent escape from a courthouse prison in the beginning of the film to the final showdown when the police arrives.

Cimino's direction works well with his whole ensemble often placed in the living room like actors on a static theater stage, and the camera views the psychological warfare often from a very distant ankle like in a documentary. The great cast of all actors featuring Mimi Rodgers, Kelly Lynch, Elias Koteas and David Morse and the minimal and seducing sound track score by David Mansfield add much tension to this well-dome remake of a great fifties crime drama.

Desparation

[willrams · 6/10 · 26 July 2003]

A psychotic criminal about to go on trial seduces his lawyer into helping him escape. As they try to make their escape she is left behind, but he waits for her to come to him. He hides out in a beautiful house owned by the Cornells who have problems of their own; they are separated, and the FBI is after them. An exciting psychotic film directed by Michael Cimino, with great suspenseful acting by Michael Rourke, Anthony Hopkins, Mimi Rogers and Linda Crouse. This one makes you sit up and listen! 6/10

Too many rules in this house....

[FlashCallahan · 5/10 · 23 June 2012]

Michael Bosworth is a psychotic criminal who is about to go on trial however, he seduces his lawyer into helping him escape.

But as they try to make their getaway, she's left behind. He decides to wait for her to come to him, so he decides to hide at the house of the Cornells.

Now it appears that the Cornells have problems of their own. The husband and wife are separated.

And there's an FBI agent after them who is using the lawyer to lead them to Bosworth....

If this film were made today, it would have twice the budget and probably be more of a major release, even with the two leads intact.

But twenty years ago, Rourke was a falling star, and it was a whole year before a country other than England thought Hopkins was a huge star.

And not just that, the film is pretty mundane after a very exciting opening. Once we begin the second act with the house under siege, and the two alpha males at logger heads, it falls flat.

Maybe it's the fact that there is no urgency at all in the film, or maybe it's to do with the fact that this has the worse editing I have ever seen in a major motion picture. It's so bad that a character doesn't even get to finish a sentence before we move to the next scene.

And then the final fifteen minutes just throws all plausibility out of the window. I was expecting at least a fight from Rourke when he found out the gun was empty, but no, he lets Hopkins, someone older and smaller than him who is injured, drag him out of the house while he is sobbing.

It ruins the film, and everything else about it.

So all in all, the first fifteen minutes are great, and then it all goes downhill from there.