To me, this movie is perfection.

How sad is this?

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

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).

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.

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***Someone wrote on his comment before that the movie is homo-erotic. It totally is, and I absolutely loved it. We need more movies like this. There's a huge demand for this sort of thing. Females enjoy a bit of male action just as much as guys like lesbians. Too bad they only make a film like this once in a decade. Damn. Mickey Rourke is brilliant and unbelievably sexy, and who could resist those blue eyes of Stephen's? ;) I was blown away by the great acting of these gentlemen but the plot wasn't very credible, although it didn't matter much. But why did Florence tell Leon that the third man was dead and left at the bank in the end when he could have walked in the door any second? And why did Florence have to kill Leon? And what the hell was Patty up to in the end? Anyway, good flick. Highly recommendable.