The Pope of Greenwich Village (1984)

Pretty Good

Am i the only one who thinks........Average?

A Masterpiece!

Blistering performances.

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.

The story of two unlucky cousins inspired to do anything to obtain a little lucky success, set against an odd, yet lovable soundtrack.Rourke describes this film as the one 'he had the most fun working on', a film which precedes his turbulent career downfall and his sad loss of beauty. Eric Roberts, Julia's once-estranged brother plays the role of Paulie, a dumb, easily led yet strangely likable character who's echoes of 'Charleeee' will be inprinted in your mind every time you think of this film. This is the first 80s film I have seen featuring Daryl Hannah, in fact the first film other than the Kill Bill films I have seen her in. Her looks and figure in the 1980s were darn near perfection, how she didn't break out into a full on A-Lister based on natural looks alone baffles me.Ultimately there is something I find fascinating about watching Mickey Rourke 1980s films, perhaps it is because he was so near to full blown stardom before he ruined it all, perhaps it is the surprise at just how ugly he has managed to become, to the point of being virtually unrecognizable.Overall The Pope of Greenwich Village is a film featuring two rogues who you cant help but love with a storyline you should really hate, but somehow end up loving. So the same applies to the soundtrack, the cast and everything else involved in the film then...

Nobody would accuse this tale of being taut. It meanders around sufficiently that we get to know the characters, their families, their values -- and therein lies its charm. Eric Roberts is Pauli, the reckless Italian optimist, and Mickey Rourke is his more sensible, principled Irish cousin. The milieu is New York City and it is captured most impressively. These two street proletarians -- waiters and busboys -- ooze with the desire to own a Coupe deVille. Roberts brags that he never ordered a brandy that wasn't Courvoisier VSOP. Their ambition and their taste are palpable. I say this despite having grown up in the area without the slightest desire to live their life styles and lacking any intense affection for Frank Sinatra.Basically, the plot is a cross-cousin of "Mean Streets", with Rourke in the Harvey Keitel role and Roberts as the maniacal DeNiro. Not to suggest that this is an imitation of anything else. The writer, Vincent Patrick, has street lingo down pat, even to the smallest parts, and Stuart Rosemberg has executed it flawlessly. Even "mozarella" comes out properly as "moozarell." The two cousins alternately joke and fight with one another, depending on their position on the regression line between Robert's wild schemes and Rourke's more banal impulses. Roberts puts a "horse physic" in the drink of a ruthless cop. He engineers a lucrative burglary with the help of Rourke and a locksmith, Kenneth MacMillan, that results in the accidental death of a corrupt police officer, Jack Kehoe, whose only motive for being corrupt was to make enough money to move him and his sickly mother, Geraldine Page, to Phoenix in order to improve her health. (As I said, the script meanders, but meaningfully.) Geraldine Page gives a fine performance, by the way, as the self-destructive tough-as-nails street-savvy Mom.The money from the burglary belonged to the neighborhood Mr. Big, a villainous and revengeful Burt Young, who forces MacMillan to leave his family and blow town. He also removes one of Eric Roberts' digits. And just as he is having a duel of wits with the third party to the crime, Rourke, Roberts feeds Burt Young a cup of espresso filled with lye. The poisoned Young leaps through the storefront window and runs off down the street. The last shot has Roberts and Rourke strolling off, carefree, down the street, arguing about whether it would be better to live in Miami. That's a bit of a weak ending. Given Burt Young's vengeful nature and his position in the organization, I wouldn't give two cents for either of their well-clad behinds. If they wind up as lowly waiters again they'll be lucky.Well, I suppose I've made the film sounds like a terrible tragedy, but it's not. The street lingo and many of the incidents make it as much comic as anything else. One of Roberts' schemes has to do with betting a bundle on a horse that absolutely cannot lose. But Roberts' knows as little about racing as he does about keeping out of trouble. He's confused about which part of a stallion must be removed to turn it into a gelding. He's concerned about the colors of the jockey because it makes him look like a fairy. Roberts bets the whole shebang on a win, and the horse loses in a photo finish. The more prudent Rourke has made twenty large by betting on the horse across the board.It's a pretty good movie, full of well-drawn colorful characters and considerable suspense and humor.

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.