How sad is this?

best movie i've ever seen.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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.

This better than average, this rather good and interesting '94 action drama has a good subject—the story, though, was not well written, it's underdeveloped, and the scenes are badly managed. But the movie is not necessarily bad or stupid, and it's not the worst thing that Rourke made in the '90s. It belongs to the second segment of his '90s output ('94—'96, i.e. before the truly awful part—the Double Team (1997)\ Love in Paris (1997) segment).(In my vision, Rourke's parts during the '90s can be divided chronologically into four groups, or tendencies.)Rourke's part in Fall Time is basically the same character he has in Shergar (1999), Out in Fifty (1999), Get Carter (2000), Picture Claire (2001) (but this category could include also his more upper—class and pseudo—sophisticated villains, like those from earlier films like Desperate Hours (1990), White Sands (1992) and Last Outlaw and Double Team ). His character in "FT" is a pretentious thug, and Rourke plays it with his baroque gusto for twisted compositions. Unfortunately the script is quite poor and his role almost small. Rourke makes here an extravagant apparition, that comes from Brando's extravagant entrances in the '60s (this extravagant aspect was well commented, in Brando's case, by Hopkins). Rourke and Brando have both the taste of these striking extravagant entrances.Such apparitions are meant to delight by themselves, by their mere power and appeal—this works well when the whole movie is directed towards this, or works in this special direction,or is meant to achieve such a thing (as in Desperate Hours (1990) or Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man (1991) or maybe even in The Last Outlaw ,1994) ;but when the movie sets itself up for an entirely different thing, they seem not to belong to that movie—they seem heterogeneous and useless and not in keep with the meaning of the film.We might note here that intensity and extravagance of this sort are different things. For a good _etalon ,see Hopper who makes intense but not strikingly extravagant roles.Rourke's apparitions like the one in the movie we are discussing might interest me, who am a Rourke fan and interested in seeing a Rourke role, a Rourke specimen ;and for me, it's meaningful; but they will not interest, or will fail to interest people who just want the movie for itself, who just want this particular movies on its own terms. Like Brando, Rourke tends to subordinate the movie to his own role; sometimes, if the role is suited and well written, this will work; sometimes, it won't. Fall Time is better than Double Team (1997), Love in Paris (1997), Point Blank (1997), Shergar (1999), Out in Fifty (1999),and maybe even than White Sands (1992) (where, anyway, Rourke's own role was junk).

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 really 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.

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 the movie; it doesn't get bored. Fall time fits in the new type of genre that is 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 look 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.