Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Console best movie i've ever seen.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

LeonLouisRicci Ambitious in its use of Gay leads (no overtones here, completely in your face), period setting, and crazy goings on. The Movie starts sort of weak with overacting by the three teenagers wildly flailing about and trash talking incessantly. But once our two ferry-land psychos enter, the thing sort of becomes entertaining in a low rent hoodlum kind of way.Although it goes to some length to be 1950's kitsch some of the props look like modern thrift shop and antique store borrowings as they are worn out and do distract somewhat from believability. But that is a minor quibble because things do perk up and turn into some fun.The convoluted plot and some of the explanations of some of the behavior develop confusion, it is the violence and the Gay behavior of the characters that bring this home with a different feel and is a near winner despite some of its missteps. This is one of Stephen Baldwin's best performances and Mickey Rourke is, well the always interesting Mickey Rourke.

Cristi_Ciopron 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).

John Seal Fall Time is an incredibly absurd crime drama that fails on most levels. David Arquette, Jason London, and Jonah Blechman star as three teenage lads who decide to play a prank on the grownups in their boring 1950s backwoods town. Normal, run of the mill teens would TP town hall, put itching powder in the school principal's undergarments, or short sheet each others beds. These bright sparks decide to stage a phony assassination outside the local bank, where, just by chance, two real cons (Mickey Rourke, who phones in his performance, and Stephen Baldwin) are about to hold up the joint. The prank and the robbery go the way of a Reese's Peanut Butter Cup ("you got your practical joke in my two-bit heist!" "No, you got your two-bit heist in my practical joke!") and mayhem, torture, gunplay, and a homo-erotic subplot take us the rest of the way. Though someone clearly spent a lot of time making sure the period details were right, someone else--presumably screenwriters Steve Alden and Paul Skemp-- larded their absurd story with too many handy dandy coinkidinks. The film also suffers from a portentous score from composer Hummie Mann, which elevates the final scene--involving a fresh baked pie from good ol' Mom--to the overdone levels of a Richard Harris and Jimmy Webb collaboration. Fall Time also features the world's least believable sex scene (involving Sheryl Lee). This is one of those American indies that thinks it's being deep, but merely buries itself in pretentious tomfoolery.

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.