Wizard-8
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.
drylungvocalmartyr
Man, how I regret wasting my precious time on this film. Fall Time is so awful that I kind of feel ashamed to have it in my DVD collection. Not for long though
Don't be fooled by the Sundance nomination (how this piece of junk achieved it is a mystery) and the promising cast: Fall Time is an annoyingly bad film. Its plot is contrived, the developments of the story border on the ridiculous and to top it off the acting is poor. Even those actors who proved elsewhere that they can do much better (Mickey Rourke, Sheryl Lee) fail to impress.When you feel that it is a movie that you are watching and not a story that you could immerse yourself in, when you see sweating actors instead of characters or cheap sets instead of real locations you know that the illusion you expect to get from a film will not arrive this time. Try as I might I would be hard pressed to find a single redeeming feature in this film. I only gave it 2 stars to reserve 1 for the absolute black holes of cinema. Avoid it like the plague!
Arthur vos Savant
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.
guilfisher-1
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.