My Own Private Idaho (1991)

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

This movie is underrated, the story is very bold but real too. The directing and the acting all was on point. River's acting was extraordinary, brilliant, and beautiful. Such a talent gone too soon, he deserved another Oscar nomination for his role as Mike.

Gus Van Sant tends to make very strange, surreal yet extremely realistic movies like Elephant, Drugstore Cowboy, To Die For, Gerry and so on. Elephant has it's own flaws, but I think it's the magnum opus of these realistic stories of surrealism, but this is definitely a contender. This is probably one of the more surreal of the films, as it ventures into magical realism, dreams, drug trips, etc. Heartthrobs, River Phoenix and Keanu Reeves lead the show as Mike and Scott. Scott Favor comes from a wealthy upbringing, but decides to sleep on rooftops, streets and have sex for money. He doesn't need to, he wants to. On the other side of things is Mike, a narcoleptic, homeless bastard. These two have an unexpected friendship as they try and search for Mike's mother, steal from a man named Bob, drive through America on a moped. The film is filled with paintings of shots. It's an odyssey. Most filmmakers are unable to achieve such development of character in 4 hours, but this movie does it under two.10/10Gus Van Sant is a genius and is wasting his time with projects like The Sea of Trees, Promised Land etc.

Loosely based on Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part 1, Henry IV, Part 2, and Henry V, 'My Own Private Idaho' is A Difficult, yet Absorbing Story! Its a hard-hitting tale about human-relations, that has been Directed most effectively by Gus Van Sant. Also, the performances are top-notch!'My Own Private Idaho' Synopsis: Two best friends living on the streets of Portland as hustlers embark on a journey of self discovery and find their relationship stumbling along the way. 'My Own Private Idaho' deals with human tragedy & misguidedness. Its central protagonists, haunted by their childhoods, grow up as shallow & angry individuals. And when they embark on a journey together, much after developing a bond, even their friendship, sadly begins to decline. Its a heart-breaking, unsettling story of two lost souls in search of a better life. Gus Van Sant has made terrific cinema with 'My Own Private Idhao'. Although its not flawless, thanks to its dull pacing, but other-wise, it works wonders. The Maverick Filmmaker creates a bleak world, without any hesitations whatsoever. His Direction & Screenplay, both, are competent. Performance-Wise: The Late/Great River Phoenix & Keanu Reeves deliver amazing performances. Phoenix, especially, delivers a searing performance as a troubled soul. He embodies the part & stands out from start to end. Reeves is a revelation. He enacts a rather difficult part, with rare ease & understanding. A Special Mention for William Richert. He's fantastic in a supporting role. On the whole, 'My Own Private Idaho' is a strong effort.

I originally saw this movie years ago and I suspect that I knew that it had relations with Henry IV but until recently I had not see the original Shakespeare play. However, having read both parts, watched a BBC version of both parts, and also seen an amalgamation of both plays on stage I can say that I am much more familiar with it so that I can have a different understanding of this film.When I had first seen the film I had liked it, and I must say that I still like it, but the second time around, including being more familiar with Henry IV, I must say that it did not appeal to me as much. In part I think Van Sant has pulled away significantly from the original play with regards to the themes of the play as well as with regards to the character of Scott (played by Keanu Reeves and is Hal from the play). In a way Scott and Hal are both rebellious teenagers, but Scott is much more conscious of his desire to 'come good' when he turns 21 whereas this does not seem to be the case with Hal. In fact Hal has to prove to his father that he desires to become good, whereas it is clear from the film that Scott is in no danger of losing his inheritance.In Henry IV Poins is more of a supporting character who acts not so much as Hal's conscience but rather as a friend. In the film though Mike (River Pheonix, who corresponds with Poins) plays a much more important and central role. In fact the film is actually focused on Mike, as he goes on a fruitless search for his mother. There is tension between Mike and Scott because it is clear that Mike loves Scott but this love is not returned. This is something that we know is never going to happen, particularly when Scott says at the opening that as long as you do it for money then it is okay, but as soon as you begin to do it for free, you grow wings (and with that he then looks up at Mike as if suggesting that Mike has already grown wings). Another difference we see is that Scott readily deserts Scott when he gets his inheritance and finds the woman that he takes as his wife (though there is no indicating that there is any love, and we raise the question as to whether Scott is capable of love).Henry IV is many cases is about the right of passage that Hal takes from being a rebellious teenager to becoming a king, but this is something that we do not necessarily see here. Scott is not going through a rite of passage, nor is he learning, he is just having fun and behaving like a child while he is a child, and when he comes into his inheritance, he rejects his past and moves on. Okay, at the final scene, were the two funerals are contrasted (and one could say that both of Scott's fathers have died and are being buried) we see a part of Scott looking on at the other funeral. In a way the past has died, but one past, that of the wild and chaotic nature of youth, is also being buried to be replaced with the cold, clinical nature of adult life.I actually found Van Sant's attempts at Shakespearian language to be rather contrived. In the two scenes which are clearly taken from the play, that of Scott's rejection of Bob (who is the Falstaff figure) and the scene were he is mocking Bob after the robbery, we see that Van Sant is trying to create the poetic nature of the original play but using modern language in doing so. To me this fails completely. I can sort of see what he is going, and in a way he is using the play to build upon Scott's character, but the thing is that the movie is focused on Mike and not on Scott.Mike is vulnerable in many ways. Not only does he not understand himself, or even his sexuality (he confuses friendship with erotic love, and this is something that is not returned) he suffers from Narcolepsy. As long as Scott is around, Mike is safe, but as soon as Scott leaves we discover that he is more vulnerable than ever. In a way Mike's search for his mother is his search for security, in the same way that his quest for love is also his quest for security. We know that as long as Scott is around, Mike is secure, but when we see him on the street, back in Portland, we know that this is no longer the case.Then there is Idaho. The movie begins in Idaho, ends in Idaho, and visits Idaho in the middle. It is as if it is this tranquil place between the horrors of the world outside. It is the world of the unique, of the quite, and of the peaceful that pushes away the world of the street. We see the street in Seattle, in Portland, and even in Rome. Granted, we leave Rome for the country, but in a way it is not Idaho. Mike feels secure in Idaho, but not in Italy. However, we learn at the end that no even Idaho offers that protection, for when he collapses again, he is robbed. I guess the idea of the title suggests that is the case, one's search for peace, and that part inside of you were you can feel secure.