SnoopyStyle
Charlie (Mickey Rourke) is a slick restaurant manager who dreams of owning his own restaurant. His petty criminal cousin Paulie (Eric Roberts) is a waiter. The owner discovers Paulie stealing and fires both of them. Paulie has a scheme to break into a safe. He brings in locksmith Barney and a reluctant Charlie. A cop is killed in the heist. They steal $150k. Charlie is besides himself that Paulie kept the fact that the money belongs to mob boss Bed Bug Eddie (Burt Young) from him. Charlie's girlfriend (Daryl Hannah) tells him that she's pregnant.Wow! What a performance! The DVD comes with supposed praises like "Explosively funny." (LA Times) and "high-voltage movie that produces tears of laughter" (NY Daily News). The problem is that the movie doesn't come with jokes. The unintentional hilarity all comes from the ridiculous over-the-top Eric Roberts performance. It is an incredible thing to behold and crazier than Al Pacino's Scarface. It almost comes off as a spoof of a gangster movie. One should see this to believe it. I almost didn't believe it.
deemo31
I don't give tens. Just in case there is a better movie kicking around I haven't seen yet. Is The Pope a GREAT film? Probably not. But if you ever "banged around the Village for a dose of sanity" as Charlie says, you know how realistic this really is. People who live on the street...not homeless but on the street nonetheless...have a different code of ethics and loyalty that people who do, well do not. Paully and Charlie are Italian third cousins. But as Barnie the Clock guy says, that's like twin brothers in an Irish family. And this movie proves it.Roberts is a founding member of "Overactors Annonymous." But even in that context, he pulls off one of the greatest street guy performances I've ever seen. Charley is perhaps a bit more slick and intelligent, but he's still a street guy with a bit more responsibility. There is something magic to having no place to go. Banging around in the streets, shooting the breeze with Vinnie the Cheese Man and talking about Artificual Inspiration. (You gotta see it to know what I mean.) Two losers screw around with a psycho maniac. Maybe that's the plot. But trust me, it isn't the story.Great? I don't know. But a must see.
MartianOctocretr5
Two smart-alec losers in the Village want to be big shots, and so get messed up with some obnoxious loudmouth local crime boss. All of the actors you'll see in this thing have done much better, and even seem to be approaching their roles here zealously. Problem is, the script really offers nothing and the director's approach exudes an air of self-important wanna-be artistry.The soundtrack features some old Sinatra tunes, so if you like his music, you'll at least get a tidbit of entertainment value. Beyond that, though, there is little to see. The story trudges along as the two underdogs try to turn the tables on the crime lord guy. One has some brains, the other is a goof ball who spends his time mumbling or screaming, and the contrast is meant to be amusing--kind of a cross between the Abbott & Costello and and Bill & Ted approaches. The action is both metaphorical and improbable in the real world, meaning the director's intent apparently was for an offbeat allegory. It does not accomplish this, since there really is no ultimate point, even if the viewer tries to insert one on their own.One scene, for example, which is meant to have deep inferences, makes a big deal out of a guy drinking coffee. Hitchcockian tecniques such as close-ups and numerous different camera shots are used. But this director is no Hitchcock: it's awkwardly done and drags on forever. Worst of all: no substance to it.A movie that is noteworthy for its level of failure only.
htbt
I am now beginning to rent lots of movies and decided to rent "the Pope.." I've heard so many great things about it.I AM a Mickey Rourke fan - however if I see him in a shitty film - I have no qualms in stressing my opinion.A Rourke fan or not - this movie is a delight, from the shots of New York City back in 1984 - to Eric Roberts' acting, this movie was great.I think the major problem most viewers on this site had was Robert's acting, I felt that Roberts overacted sometimes - or perhaps that's what the script called for and if so he gave a memorable performance - almost hilarious at times - the thumb scene is a prime example. I felt that he almost stole the show.. not because I thought his acting was amazing. because it was almost like a parody - I found it strange at times.Rourke was cool, calm and focused - his acting was great.. and I LOVED his "come over here.." line.. almost seemed sexual to me.. I wondered what he was going to do.I think everyone who commented on this film is right in saying how incredibly sad it is how Rourke's and Robert's career went down the tubes the way it did. We all have our demons I guess. The focus is to overcome them. Roberts is a B- movie actor. Rourke was never a B-movie actor - he was always a great actor with enormous potential who still has a shot of living up to his potentialhe has recently been making a great comeback - "...my best work is still ahead of me" he commented. he came out of the grave. Amen to that!! The special things about this film are the Acting and the nostalgic feeling one gets when looking at scenes of New York back in 84 (if you are from the east coast and live close to the city or are from the city - you know what I'm talking about)Amen to the Pope - great little film, one in which I will buy to my collection.
AD
