It is very much like a stage play, (not surprising since that is where it came from). It is all in the dialogue rather than action; interaction between two or three characters only most of the time, sudden changes of mood and dynamics, more cerebral than visceral. It is more expansive than a stage play though, even though it has that feel about it. The screenplay includes nice cinematic touches like the car phone dialogues where one car over takes the other and he shouts at him as he goes past. A similar thing was done from the balcony of the flat earlier in the film. There are also some qualities of a Michael Mann about it with the use of architecture and music as film elements.The film grew on me as it went along. One of the things that made it difficult perhaps, was that none of the characters were very likable, but the acting by all of them was a tour de force. Nice to see Meg Ryan given a chance to do some real acting instead of being just pretty-pretty set decoration. It's a film that is hard to take in one sitting I think, and will bear repeated viewing with more coming out each time.This film is likely to appeal to people who liked such films as Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, Glengarry Glen Ross, Le Diner de Cons and others which have a stage play feel about them. Who said that theatre is dead?

As this movie went on, it became more and more painful. At first, the main characters (all unlikable) simply offend with their horribly misogynistic lifestyles. It becomes more offensive that these are people not presented as low life scums, but professional people who simply have messed up behind-the-scenes lives.About the time you start to wonder how this movie attracted such a cast, you start to notice the dialog. The original screenplay writer was obviously attempting to put profound commentaries in the mouths of these characters, but the words sound very strange coming out of characters who are so messed up. You have a hard time believing these characters put this much thought into anything.In the spirit of treating women badly, Meg Ryan gets the worst dialog of all (not to mention how this horrid gang of men treat her). It is hard to believe her character is simultaneously a prostitute seemingly willing to do anything and someone with such sophisticated observations coming from her head.Despite it all, I still gave this movie a 4. The movie wants to have a point, but doesn't. It wants to make you think, but doesn't. Still, even with bad material, how can you not appreciate the acting talents of Sean Penn and Kevin Spacey?

HurlyBurly arrived in cinemas in late 1998 and took less than 2 million dollars at the US box office, but HurlyBurly was never intended to be the next Hollywood blockbuster.Adapted from a David Rabe play by Rabe himself, the film stays faithful to the play by using few locations and much interplay between the main performers.Telling the story of several fictional actors trying to make their way in 80's Hollywood, HurlyBurly gives an insight into the desperation and fragility of the life of an actor.Penn, Spacey and Palminteri play the part of Eddie, Mickey and Phil respectively, and all deliver performances that make us believe in their characters. The problem with this film though is not the acting which is top notch throughout, its in the pace of the film. Long monologues and conversations are the cornerstone of a good play, but its difficult to hold the movie viewers attention with just interplay for two hours. Admittedly it can be done, just see Glengarry Glen Ross for a perfect example of this, but while the acting in HurlyBurly is almost up there with Glengarry, the script simply isn't.HurlyBurly can only really be recommended to those who enjoy plays, as the script simply isn't good enough to hold most movie-goers attention.http://www.filmcritic.zoomshare.com

There are lots of things to like about this. The constant stream of verbiage is great, a continuous barrage of words that almost make you want to run for cover. Like the people in the film, very entertaining for a couple of hours but you wouldn't want to spend your life with them. The texture of the film is dream like, as if the whole world was drugged up and though the camera doesn't move much from the main characters' house it all feels disjointed and not quite real.Then there is the acting. Sean Penn is the stand out. You can enter into his confusion, his needs, his despair and his fractured humanity. Kevin Spacey's role's comparative normality is well done too. He is a charming surface with a vacuum underneath. Chazz Palminteri is also great, never putting a rational thought together, scary and vulnerable at the same time.It is an actor's piece and all of them give a good account of themselves. Having seen the film one wouldn't mind seeing it on stage. It seems to need a live audience. As for what 'Hurly Burly' is really "about", well it was beyond me.