Reviews (15)

One Bad Cop
Why is it that some of our best actors give their best performances when they are playing bad guys? Maybe it's the change of pace; one probably gets tired of being the hero in film after film; but they clearly seem to revel in the opportunity of playing a straight-up jerk once in a while. In "Internal Affairs", we have Richard Gere coming down off his movie idol pedestal and giving a devastating performance as Dennis Peck, a cop who gives corruption a whole new definition. This guy makes Satan look like a boy scout. He carries on a brazen affair with his partner's wife; arranges to have his partner whacked when the police department's internal affairs bureau begins investigating his partner's extracurricular activities a little too closely and his partner is about to implicate him in the mess; agrees to execute a wealthy businessman's elderly parents who are taking too long to die so that he can come into his inheritance (meanwhile seducing the businessman's wife as part of his fee for service); and tries to seduce the wife of Raymond Avila, the internal affairs cop played by Andy Garcia, when Avila starts to suspect that Peck isn't the poster-boy cop his precinct command has made him out to be. The movie tries to show us what Peck thinks is his softer side; he's a devoted father to his offspring, but we can see that to Peck his children are nothing but trophies; he's still in his thirties but he already has 8 by three former wives and his fourth wife is expecting his ninth. Peck's children are extensions of himself; his wives are baby-making machines, and his partners and co-workers are pawns to be used for his own nefarious purposes. When Avila realizes that Peck has tried to destroy him as a cop and as a man by attempting to seduce his wife, the battle lines are drawn; Avila, of course, will be Peck's nemesis, but it's fascinating to watch each of them try to bring the other down. There are excellent performances by the supporting cast, particularly Nancy Travis as Avila's wife; Laurie Metcalf as Amy Wallace, Avila's partner who proves she's a tough a cop as any man, and William Baldwin as Van Stretch, Peck's hapless and ultimately gutless partner, brave enough to beat up on his wife but not strong enough to stand up to Peck and the venality he represents. Peck is one of the more intriguing anti-heroes on film; just when we think he's hit rock bottom, he takes a shovel and starts to dig himself in even deeper; he sees Avila's decency as a weakness he can manipulate just as he has played and destroyed everyone who crosses him. Some people, especially those who don't like to see law enforcement portrayed in a negative light, are going to be offended by this movie, but the film doesn't tar all policemen with the same brush; it's a fascinating and disturbing voyage into the mind of one very bad cop.

One of my faves
What makes thsi movie so good is the mind war going on between Andy Garcia and Richard Gere's characters. Garcia is tryign to unravel the labyrinthe of villainy and insanity that Gere has created as a corrupt cop. Gere is actually at first tickled that he's under investigation (thru his young partner Billy Baldwin) because he controls so much of his life. Multiple women/wives all living together, lots of kids, drug money, police power. But when Garcia of Internal Affairs starts getting too close Gere actually sets up a seduction of his wife that looks like one thing, is another thing and leads up to a very erotic, emotional scene between Garcia and his wife. Laurie metlcalf also plays a lesbian cop who Garcia briefly butts heads with as they team up. The nice thing about this movie is how everyone makes sense as a character and no one is entirely comfortable with the other characters. Loyalty is shown as a natural growth and betrayal a likely outcome. Very mature, strong film from gere, who makes an effort it seems to choose characters that have an internalworld going on that the watcher has to fathom about as he slowly lets possibilities, concepts slip out of what the motivations may be. Garcia is fantastic too. An incredible actor himself who chooses movies that allow his sublte, slightly repressed intensity to boil to the surface. Garcia, I hate comparisons, is very much like Al Pacino of the 70's.

Going Toe To Toe
Fresh off his supporting roles in Black Rain and The Untouchables, actor Andy Garcia teamed with Richard Gere, in a thriller for director Mike Figgis. The end result is a solid film, that is able to rise above its cliches, thanks to its cast.

Raymond Avila (Garcia) works for the internal affairs division of the LAPD and has been assigned to investigate Dennis Peck (Gere), a corrupt officer. The two men circle each other, like hunter and prey, certain that each will take the other down. It's discovered that the stakes get more personal when Peck uses Avila's wife Kathleen (Nancy Travis), and his partner Amy (Laurie Metcalf), as a way to get him off the trail.

Figgis plays the movie like a boxing match as the two leads go head to head. Gere plays it Peck like a total scumbag. He's a smooth operator--who happens to have a God complex. He is so sure of himself that he's bold enough to have 4 wives and eight kids. But as horrible as the character is, he plays it so well that, despite that, he's also quite magnetic. Also, by now, Garcia has come into his own as an actor and is able to hold his own. Some of the script suffers a bit from a stale smell. Thankfully, Gere and Garcia keep your attention throughout the movie, to soften those issues.

The DVD may not have any extras, but it is overflowing with enough of everthing else--all in all--for me to recommend this film.

Gere is so good when he's bad
Gere is so believable in this film. Initially, he is nearly sympathetic. Baldwin does a fine job Gere's partner. Garcia delivers what may be his finest peformance. Travis holds her own and definitely steals some scenes. This is an older movie, but it still smoking today. Well worth watching over and over. A keeper for the collection!

Didn't 'Faire' well with me
Internal Affairs is nothing more than an early 90's B Movie gone bad. Richard Gere may have had his worst performance in his career, and Andy Garcia definitely did.

Why people are so drawn to this movie is beyond me. Maybe I missed something, but I don't think so. Sex played a vital role in the movie, and to me, there was nothing steamy about it. It just sizzled right out.

Gere and Garcia so obviously walked through their parts and they must have needed the money, because they were just jokes. Garcia was incredibly stiff. There was no emotion in his character until the end, and even then it was mild. Gere was awful as the "villain". He's obviously progressed immensely as an actor.

The directing was just plain bad. It seemed the actors didn't know what to do for moments in the movie. There were awkward silences and pauses that were either put into the film on purpose for some insane reason or the actors had nothing better to do.

Internal Affairs is a complete disaster with storybook qualities. Don't waste your time with this mess. 2 Stars ... Read more

Amazon.com

Richard Gere is pretty convincing as a severe manic-depressive whose episodes of euphoria sometimes find him dancing on a two-by-four far above the street or climbing onstage during a symphony performance to "conduct" the orchestra. When the pendulum swings the other way, he is practically catatonic. As a character study, this film by Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas) has its truly compelling moments, but Mr. Jones isn't just a character study. Inexplicably, Figgis ushers in a preposterous romance between this poor fellow and his psychiatrist (Lena Olin), a relationship that is supposed to raise interesting ethical and dramatic issues. All it does is make one wonder what the devil the doctor is thinking of, and why Figgis felt it necessary to go down this lose-lose path. With Delroy Lindo in a nice part as a sympathetic construction worker who tries to help Gere's character. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Funny, Charming and Romantic
This is a pretty good movie I thought. Richard Gere plays Mr.Jones a man who suffers from manic depression who has suicidal tendencies. When I saw it I thought this is one of Richard Gere's best performances in a long time. He really did a great job and it is probably the best acting that I've seen him do in quite awhile. Lena Olin is also very good as the psychiatrist who takes an interest in him both as a patient and in the personal sense. I really liked this movie and have added to my movie collection. It is one of those rare movies that you can see just about anytime. Overall is a good movie but if you need more convincing than that then see it beause of Richard Gere he is excellent in this film and that should be reason enough I think.

Wonderful movie about a fascinating mental disorder
I am a fan of Richard Gere, and I came across this gem a few years ago by word of mouth. This is a wonderful movie that tackles a thorny mental disorder that is receiving much attention today -- bi-polar, manic depressive disorder. It seems that bi-polar sufferers, despite their having a classified "mental disorder", are often exceptionaly creative, brilliant individuals. Many of our great artists, writers, painters, and musicians were (are) manic.

Mr. Gere does a fantastic job of portraying such a brilliant/unstable manic sufferer, and really brings the disorder, with all of its twists and turns, to life. The story is true to the struggles and realities of manic sufferers, and uses wonderful images of planes crashing overhead, tightrope walks, and grandiose symphonies that metaphorize what it must be link to be manic. The story veers only in its hollywood insistence on the highly unlikely patient-therapist romance.

Five stars for a compelling and original performance by Richard Gere, and a movie that brings to light the fascinating and devestating consequences of manic depression.

MUST get past that she's his psychiatrist to enjoy the movie
Gere does an amazing job as Mr. Jones, a man suffering from Manic-Depression. The big flaw in the movie is having he and his psychiatrist involved in a sexual relationship. Why they couldn't have made her just a woman he meets, I don't know. Gere's performance is madly wonderful and his relationship--just pretend she ISN'T his doctor, and it will be o.k.--is full of heat and chemistry. There are some worthy moments between Gere and Olin. This is a nice film

Excellent with many funny, touching moments
I'm M-D so take that into consideration. Gere doesn't get enough credit for his acting because he has his own persona like John Wayne and critics can't get over this. His is an outstanding performance, trust me. Lena is my favorite actress to watch and listen to so factor that in also. There are just so many funny scenes in this movie! (And a few oddities; Gere is no carpenter--you hammer nails with your wrist, not your arm.) Fun moments: Gere quoting from Alice In Wonderland while playfully teasing Olin's stock psychologist demeanor, the dialogue in and around the car ride, the table tennis sequence is priceless, in fact all of the dialogue between these two excellent actors is worth watching. Two outstanding dramatic moments are 1)the point of Gere's discovery of Olin's prying into his past(and catching him in a chilling lie)and 2)the subsequent confrontation in the rain; this is Olin at her--or anyone's--best...economical and searing. The only major misfire in this movie is the sexual involvement...should have been platonic but this is easily one of Hollywood's best efforts from the 1990s. I bought it. Aaaahhh, Leeena!! Yum

Surprise :)
This movie looks as though it will be another one of those trite, over-simplified stories of a mentally ill man. Surprise! Barring the Hollywood idea that all therapists sleep with their patients, this is a great movie that accurately depicts a serious and complex mental illness. I will say that were a therapist to become romantically involved it would probably be with a bipolar patient because their manic cycle is so exciting and exhilirating after endless lifeless burdened people. Gere is astoundingly accurate in his portrayal of both the manic and depressive cycle of bipolar - impressive. A great movie!!! ... Read more

Reviews (113)

Good movie, but not a great film score: 74 (out of 100)
Nicholas Cage's character, Ben Sanderson, has apparently lost his wife, family, and job. He decides to take his severance check and buy tons of alcohol in order to drink himself to death in a Las Vegas motel room. He meets Sera (Elizabeth Shue), a prostitute that he picks up along the way, and they develop a love affair in the process. Sera's love for Ben is reflected in the way she lets him complete his goal. He wants death and no rehabilitation. As a result, she sacrifices herself in prostitution in order to make ends meet and raise money for Ben's booze habit. In the process, Sera meets some terrible experiences, which makes her character more interesting.

DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES and THE LOST WEEKEND may have an edge on this movie because they have characters that grow and develop over a long period of time. There is not much that we know about Ben or Sera. All we see are his momments of drunkeness and Sera's trying to cope with it. There is very little room for character development in this movie, and the end result is a depressing atmosphere.

Pros: Acting
Cons: Screenplay

Score: 74 (out of 100)

Leaving Las Vegas- A Moving and meaningful film
This film is not for most people; it's very morose and gruesome at times, and it won't be entertaining and satisfying in the same way most mainstream movies are. It does however provide a very shocking and revealing look at the lives of a hopeless drunkard and a lonely prostitute.

Nicholas Cage and Elizabeth Shue are superb portraying their characters and their skill is the driving force of the film. That isn't to say, however, that the directing, music, and screenplay weren't excellent as well.

One particularly important aspect of the film is the relationship that forms between Cage and Shue. Some reviewers describe it as sincere love, however, I don't agree. Both Cage and Shue are desolate and vulnerable. The natural thing for both of them to do when they meet is to seek refuge in each other. Shue might love Cage, but it's more out of desparation for company than what she sees in him. Cage's interest in Shue is somewhat more confusing. Before his introduction to Shue, I got the impression that he was completely detatched from anything earthly. The relationship he maintains with Shue suggests otherwise though. I'm not really sure, yet, what to make of Cage.

I never really knew what alcohol could do to a man until seeing this movie. Sure, a random drunk on the street is a common sight, but most people, who don't have a friend or family member with the problem, don't realize the extreme extent to which the obsession can develop. I'd recommend this film to anyone older than 17.

THE ONLY MOVIE TO EVER MAKE ME CRY
i could go on and on but i wont, the facts are a) this is probably the most dramatic movie ever made and b) nic cage is the best actor on the planet. holy smokes was he amazing in this and elisabeth shue is perfect by all standards. i also dig "the third man" tributes in there - good job all around tonite i decided this is my favorite movie....which might last a week but it will remain top five forever. I know its a little late but seriously...congrats nic cage you kick ass.

Something different-not for the kiddies.
I like this movie and recommend it. Something to watch when you're alone late at night. Good acting by the talented Cage
& Shue. Makes an impression on you.

BOOOORIIING
This movie is one of the most boring ones I have ever seen. Cage is drunk through the entire movie, and the woman he's with is a prostitute. I normally love Nicholas Cage movies, but this one was an insult to his talent as an actor. Instead of renting this movie, slam your fingers in a door repeatedly. That's free, and less painful than sitting through this stinker. ... Read more

Reviews (44)

Ignore the plot to enjoy the film's technique.
In the mind of director Mike Figgis, a vision has been born. That vision is "Time Code," a film that is not one, but four different stories going on at the same time, all seen in an innovative method of filmmaking using handheld cameras and a screen that shows four pictures at once. Never has anything quite like this been done before; it's one of the most impressive movie-making ventures I've seen in a long time.

It's only too bad that Figgis pays more attention to his style than to the substance behind the four cameras. The movie is divided into separate storylines, some weaving into the other, though none of it ever has any emotional impact when the last frame rolls.

The overall plot begins with Emma (Saffron Burrows), the wife of movie producer Alex Green (Stellan Skarsgard), and while she contemplates leaving him, he is having an affair with aspiring actress Rose (Salma Hayek). Rose is involved in a rocky relationship with wealthy lesbian Lauren (Jeanne Tripplehorn), whose jealousy and suspicion drives her to place a bug in Rose's purse so she can monitor her actions during Rose's audition. As all this goes on, Alex's partners and employees are busying expressing their concerns to one another about his instability.

The interaction of each plot line allows for some very unique filmmaking touches, some of which are very impressive. The cameras are constantly rolling, and throughout the course of the film, characters will find themselves in several differing screens, something interesting to see happen. One scene that sticks out in the mind is the scene in which Rose and Alex meet behind the screen in the studio's screening room. Their interaction goes from two different screens to one; it's completely inspired.

Yet, any emotional feeling or understanding of the events at hand is diminished due to the constant grappling with trying to watch four screens at once. Some characters walk on screen and off so quickly that there is little knowledge as to why they are there, while our interest in one story tends to take away from all others. Figgis attempts to draw our attention to one story at a time by using the sound as a focal point (one screen will be clear while all others are almost completely muted), but it hardly works.

The film is interesting enough to watch it for its splendid four-screen division, though the plot seems to be muddled and misunderstood as we try to concentrate on one thing at a time. Still, "Time Code" is a movie that will go down in history due to its introduction of a dazzling new technique.

Watch it four times, and it might make sense
Timecode is a behind-the-scenes look at Hollywood life - the business, the politics, the jealously, and even the drugs, sex, and rock 'n' roll. Salma Hayek plays Rose, an aspiring actress who will do anything to get an audition - even if it means cheating on her jealous lover (Jeanne Tripplehorn) with a male film exec (Stellan Skarsgard).

But I said that Timecode is unique, right? Well, it is. It had no script - just a story, four digital videocams, and a bunch of actors who could improvise their way through 90 minutes of filming. The four cameras shot non-stop - no cuts, just one take. The entire film was shot 15 times - and the final one was released. No editing was required because viewers see the footage from all four cameras - simultaneously. The screen is divided into four quarters, and it's up to the viewer to decide which one to watch. Believe me - it's not exactly an easy task. Though you're often given audio hints (the sound of one quarter will dominate for a while), you'll still keep jumping from quarter to quarter, trying to figure out what's going on - and what you've missed. It's definitely not a movie to watch if you're not completely alert. It is, however, very interesting. And while I wouldn't say that this is one of my favorite movies, it's still an interesting experience. If you're looking for something out of the ordinary, it's worth checking out.

If you happen to pick up a copy of the DVD, you'll find all kinds of goodies. The special features include the entire Version 1 of the film (and yes, it really is different) and an audio option that allows you to choose which dialogue you want to listen to. Perhaps, then, if you watch the entire movie four times, you'll be able to make sense of it all...

Clever, but also a bit narcissistic
Whatever. I mean, I appreciate the experimental nature of the film -- the screen split into four separate-but-interlocking screens, each shot in a continuously-running tracking shot, filmed on digital video. The "action" shifts from scene to improvised scene, and gradually we figure out how each of the characters know each other. Still... did the story really have to be set in (yawn) Hollywood? Can't modern filmmakers think of something else to make movies about? Couldn't the actors improv their way through somebody else's life, for once? Regardless, this is one of the better uses of DVD technology I've seen -- they kept the audio tracks intact on each camera's footage, so after you soak up the edited version of the film, you can go back and see (hear, actually...) what they had to work with... Rarely do we get such a clear-cut chance to get into the headspace of the director and editor, so that at least was kind of cool.

brilliant execution, lame story
Timecode is quite simply a well-executed but failed experiment.
The concept is brilliant, but it is not supported at all by a good plot. What we have is basically mindless hipster dross; jet-set stereotypes stabbing each other in the back with their cell phones, and not much else. And yet, I was entertained by the film on a technical level. Certainly worth a look, but I would love to see this idea done again, even by Figgis, with a more engrossing story.

Blah
When I rented this, I was under the impression it was a good movie. Well, I was wrong. True, the four-screen idea is innovative and couldn't have been easy to do, so I'll give Mike Figgis credit for that. In addition, the movie was shot in continuous takes, so the actors involved have proved that they have the chops to pull off something like this. And in case you're wondering if you can follow four stories at once, the volume is usually muted for three of the screens, so it's obvious which one you're really supposed to focus on at any given time. On the minus side, any time actors are given the chance to improvise their dialogue, the viewer learns anew that we really do need screenwriters, and this movie is no exception. Most importantly, this movie doesn't have ANY interestng stories or characters. Movies need those things! So, if you're interested in the techniques Figgis used, by all means check this out. But don't expect to be entertained. ... Read more

Reviews (26)

thinks it's more clever than it is
The film itself, on an aesthetic level, is quite stunning and beautiful, but the non-linear narrative, which weaves in two modern (? ) tales with an inventive representation of Adam and Eve starts to unravel a bit as the story progresses--which is unfortunate, because the film does such a subtle job of telling a story without spelling it all out for the viewer. My only strong reservation is that the funeral scene characters were never woven back into the narrative concerning J. Sands--a frustrating omission that derails an otherwise compelling essay on the issue of desire, sex, love, and loyalty. But it's definately interesting and beautiful to watch.

paradise lost
You've got to admire ambition. The Loss of Sexual Innocence is a meditative, impressionistic, mostly dialogue-less, deeply beautiful and aggressively non-linear exploration of various forms of innocence lost--or shattered. The chopped-up plot structure at first is confusing, but as the threads start to come together the parrallels drawn and metaphors presented are provocative. A film that makes its audience really think ought to be appreciated in our age of brainless blockbusters. Though it is best to keep in mind that there is no solid main point, no overall meaning you're meant to find in the film. In the end it is more like a piece of music than a story: weaving themes in and out, leaving the audience to form their own opinions and interpretations. While it doesn't succeed with flying colors, it is certainly worthwhile and interesting, and stunningly gorgeous to boot.

Gotta see it to believe it.
2001: A Space Odyssey meets Blue Velvet. It's as carefully paced and music-laden as the former, as far from redemption as the latter. Don't read any blurbs or summaries, just watch it.

why original sin anyway
There is so much symbolism and obscure reference in this film that I am not at all certain I grasp what the producer/director had in mind. There are some wonderful moments - like the twins who almost meet - well, they do meet but the moment of recognition is shattered by a breaking bottle of wine. There is quite a lot of nudity in the film - but it's certainly not erotic.

The most obvious interludes relate to the Garden of Eden and original sin. I don't think the intention of the film was to shift my perspective, but it did. Why was the tree of knowledge forbidden, and the serpent the tempter? Why wasn't the tree of knowledge intended for man's indulgence, and the serpent the opposition man (and woman) had to pass through? The reward would then be the gift of life - the greatest gift of all (even though it is tainted inevitably with death) - and sex, far from being the corruption it is so often seen as, would be the wonderful instrument of acceptance and the mantra of life.

Too artsy and boring
After his masterpiece "Leaving Las Vegas" I was looking forward to the next film from the talented Figgis but this is one of the most boring films ever made. I love slow, art-house films and having more music than dialogue was intriguing but this one just put me to sleep. A cure for insomnia. How could the twins at the airport not talk to each other? Maybe I missed something. ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of the most critically acclaimed films of 1995, this wrenchingly sad but extraordinarily moving drama provides an authentic, superbly acted portrait of two people whose lives intersect just as they've reached their lowest depths of despair. Ben (Nicolas Cage, in an Oscar-winning performance) is a former movie executive who's lost his wife and family in a sea of alcoholic self-destruction. He's come to Las Vegas literally to drink himself to death, and that's when he meets Sera (Elisabeth Shue), a prostitute who falls in love with him--and he with her--despite their mutual dead-end existence. They accept each other as they are, with no attempts by one to change the other, and this unconditional love turns Leaving Las Vegas into a somber yet quietly beautiful love story. Earning Oscar nominations for Best Director (Mike Figgis), Best Adapted Screenplay (Figgis, from John O'Brien's novel) and Best Actress (Shue), the film may strike some as relentlessly bleak and glacially paced, but attentive viewers will readily discover the richness of these tragic characters and the exceptional performances that bring them to life. (In a sad echo of his own fiction, novelist John O'Brien committed suicide while this film was in production.) --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (113)

Good movie, but not a great film score: 74 (out of 100)
Nicholas Cage's character, Ben Sanderson, has apparently lost his wife, family, and job. He decides to take his severance check and buy tons of alcohol in order to drink himself to death in a Las Vegas motel room. He meets Sera (Elizabeth Shue), a prostitute that he picks up along the way, and they develop a love affair in the process. Sera's love for Ben is reflected in the way she lets him complete his goal. He wants death and no rehabilitation. As a result, she sacrifices herself in prostitution in order to make ends meet and raise money for Ben's booze habit. In the process, Sera meets some terrible experiences, which makes her character more interesting.

DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES and THE LOST WEEKEND may have an edge on this movie because they have characters that grow and develop over a long period of time. There is not much that we know about Ben or Sera. All we see are his momments of drunkeness and Sera's trying to cope with it. There is very little room for character development in this movie, and the end result is a depressing atmosphere.

Pros: Acting
Cons: Screenplay

Score: 74 (out of 100)

Leaving Las Vegas- A Moving and meaningful film
This film is not for most people; it's very morose and gruesome at times, and it won't be entertaining and satisfying in the same way most mainstream movies are. It does however provide a very shocking and revealing look at the lives of a hopeless drunkard and a lonely prostitute.

Nicholas Cage and Elizabeth Shue are superb portraying their characters and their skill is the driving force of the film. That isn't to say, however, that the directing, music, and screenplay weren't excellent as well.

One particularly important aspect of the film is the relationship that forms between Cage and Shue. Some reviewers describe it as sincere love, however, I don't agree. Both Cage and Shue are desolate and vulnerable. The natural thing for both of them to do when they meet is to seek refuge in each other. Shue might love Cage, but it's more out of desparation for company than what she sees in him. Cage's interest in Shue is somewhat more confusing. Before his introduction to Shue, I got the impression that he was completely detatched from anything earthly. The relationship he maintains with Shue suggests otherwise though. I'm not really sure, yet, what to make of Cage.

I never really knew what alcohol could do to a man until seeing this movie. Sure, a random drunk on the street is a common sight, but most people, who don't have a friend or family member with the problem, don't realize the extreme extent to which the obsession can develop. I'd recommend this film to anyone older than 17.

THE ONLY MOVIE TO EVER MAKE ME CRY
i could go on and on but i wont, the facts are a) this is probably the most dramatic movie ever made and b) nic cage is the best actor on the planet. holy smokes was he amazing in this and elisabeth shue is perfect by all standards. i also dig "the third man" tributes in there - good job all around tonite i decided this is my favorite movie....which might last a week but it will remain top five forever. I know its a little late but seriously...congrats nic cage you kick ass.

Something different-not for the kiddies.
I like this movie and recommend it. Something to watch when you're alone late at night. Good acting by the talented Cage
& Shue. Makes an impression on you.

BOOOORIIING
This movie is one of the most boring ones I have ever seen. Cage is drunk through the entire movie, and the woman he's with is a prostitute. I normally love Nicholas Cage movies, but this one was an insult to his talent as an actor. Instead of renting this movie, slam your fingers in a door repeatedly. That's free, and less painful than sitting through this stinker. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

Early Figgis, dark-themed, worth a look
One of Mike Figgis' first films, Stormy Monday fuses an intriguing mix of American greed, crudeness, and innocence with British coolness, toughness, and civility. But added to the mix, interestingly enough, is a Polish element (more on that later).

One American is Melanie Griffith as a cocktail waitress and vaguely defined moll (or former moll) of the other, Tommy Lee Jones, a ruthless moblike businessman who plans on making Newcastle, England his own--commercially, of course. (Political takeover is a little hard to imagine circa 1988). Melanie emits a sexy blend of sensuality and innocence, pretty much irresistible. The British are Sting, as the owner of a club (a role he neatly reprised in Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels), and Sean Bean as his cleaning person/gofer. Both are civil and, as it happens, tough as well. And Sting's coolness is in the ultra category, a real neat piece of work.

Sean and Melanie meet and then do a whole lot more; they do the romantic thing, all the while being pursued, as is Sting, by Tommy's henchmen. Tommy plays rough, as it turns out. The mingling of Yank and Brit romantically (Melanie and Sean) is paralleled by battling of Yank and Brit commercially (Tommy and Sting).

The Polish element? Melanie's character is half Polish, and, as well, the band slated to play in Sting's club has an accident so the Cracow Jazz Ensemble (or some such), all Poles, steps in instead, among which is Andrej, a sympathetic band manager, the only one who speaks English. Andrej is destined to play a critical role in the film, but rather than provide a spoiler here, see the film to understand what this means.

Violence plays a large part in the proceedings, as is obvious from the above description. This is a well-plotted film that put Mike Figgis on the map. Doesn't hurt that he not only wrote and directed it, but also composed the music for it, an effectively moody jazz score.

Recommended.

Like Falling Rain
Director Mike Figgis made this somber noir over a decade ago and hardly anyone noticed. This whole film is like falling rain at night. It is dark and somber, and very stylish. Everything works perfectly in this unusual film.

Tommy Lee Jones gives his typical wry bad guy performance as a developer involved in politics who wants to take over an entire town in England. The only thing left standing in his way is jazz nightclub owner Sting. Sting gives such a cool performance here you've got to believe he spent hours watching Steve McQueen films. Tangled up in this battle of wills is drifter Sean Bean (Boromir in Lord of the Rings) who meets waitress Melanie Griffith, who may do more than just waitress. As Irish drifter Bean begins a tentative romance with Griffith things turn dangerous and when Bean thwarts an attempt on Sting's life he goes to work at the club.

There are a couple of suprises in this film. Melanie Griffith tones down that sex kitten persona and gives a realistic performance as she tries to change her past and stick with Bean. The real revelation is Sting, who nearly steals this film with his ultra cool and natural performance. Maybe being in his home town of Newcastle brought out his best, not wanting to let the blokes down. He certainly doesn't.

There are solid performances from the always great Tommy Lee Jones and Sean Bean, and a memorable noir atmosphere. This has always been hard to find, and little known, but now that it is coming out on DVD maybe it will find the audience it deserves. This is a terrific film and you'll want to take a look at this one...

A film noir to enjoy again and again.
Because I like the genre (film noir) I sought out this film on advice of a friend. Although, at the time, it was scarce, I am glad I persevered! The cast is a surprise - imagine Sting as the standout in a dark drama! He nearly steals the show! The setting is interesting and the direction superb. This is one of those films that lets you fill in the blanks and causes you to concentrate on each scene so as not to miss a nuance or clue. I found that the second viewing was more than twice as entertaining! I have now seen it four times; each time very enjoyable. Sean Bean was an unknown to me when I first saw the film, but has now become just about my favorite actor - you can see him at his present best in LOTRFOTR as Boromir. In Stormy Monday, made in 1988, he plays a young, blonde, strangely naive fellow with a mystery past (never revealed). Tommy Lee does his expected great turn as the villian (among several in the tale), while Melanie Griffith makes the most of a role-type for which she is well known, the girl-gone-wrong who overcomes her bad luck. You will find a lot to enjoy in this dark story and a chuckle or two also - from the wild Polish rock band!

A must-see for fans of Mike Figgis, Sean Bean, or Sting.
A slick noir piece set in Newcastle, England (yes, Sting's hometown), Stormy Monday is a little-known but beautiful film by Mike Figgis (also the director of "Leaving Las Vegas"). When guileless Irish drifter Brendan (Sean Bean) arrives in town, he befriends a shady nightclub owner Finney (Sting) and falls in love with a ill-used waitress, Kate (Melanie Griffith). As the film's off-beat, strangely elliptical plot advances, all three characters find themselves at odds with a villainous real estate developer, Cosmo (Tommy Lee Jones), who is busy snatching-up an entire portion of the city. (Presumably, Cosmo plans on turning it all into one giant shopping mall, and the film works nicely as a commentary on American-style "globalism" masking good-old American greed.) When Brendan thwarts an attempt on Finney's life (Finney is the last business-owner refusing to sell-out to Cosmo), he and Kate become bystanders in a power struggle between the two men-a situation complicated by Kate's moonlighting as a call girl for Cosmo. As the love story between her and Brendan unfolds-played out against a darkly lyrical backdrop of underworld violence-the film perfectly captures both the promise and menace of the 1980's.

A Newcastle movie rivalling Get Carter
...This is a gangster movie with a twist. Alongside Tommy Lee Jones and Melanie Griffiths you find Sting ( carrying coals to Newcastle indeed) and Sean Bean. The plot is pretty straightforward, mafia boss comes to do a deal on Tyneside and tries to get rid of the minor obstacles in the process. The movie goes along a la Long Good Friday but without the mystery and menace. Gratuitous violence is liberally sprinkled around as are the shots of the city. Nowhere in the movie do we have a shot of the city of Gateshead located on the opposite bank of the river where the Michael Caine movie, Get Carter was filmed, but the movies themselves have some similarities.

In the end Sting and Sean win the day...

All in all an enjoyable gangster flick with a Geordie accent. Has a lot in common with that Geordie TV series Spender starring Jimmy Nail with incidental music by my old friend Tony MacAnaney also worth watching if it is ever shown in your area. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Delicate yet deafening, fierce yet gentle, the Spanish art of flamenco overwhelms the senses and inflames the spirit. In Flamenco Women, director Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas) focuses on an ensemble brought together just six days before a performance as it struggles to orchestrate the guitars, singers, and dancers under the gun. Using almost no narrative, Figgis lets the raw footage of the rehearsals tell the story of frustration and building excitement. The rhythms of the pounding feet and the swaying bodies are hypnotic, the singing is powerful and moving, and the artists' devotion is palpable. If the rehearsals are merely exciting, though, the performance itself is absolutely stunning, a masterpiece of passionate precision. It's no substitute for a month in Barcelona, but for most of us it'll have to do. Olé! --Rob Lightner ... Read more

Reviews (8)

Don't you get it - Flamenco is a living art
I have read with disappointment some customer reviews on Mike Figgis' documentary, Flamenco Women. If you want a full bulerias, get a step by step dancing video. If you want to see flamenco in the "original", get in a time machine and go back a few hundred years. If you want to see a full dance just the way you think it should be - watch yourself in the mirror. In this documentary, we see two artistic viewpoints - one from the women that came together for the performance, and the other by Figgis. Flamenco a living art - it's supposed to change. Get it!! For what it is worth, in Australia we don't get a lot of flamenco performances, so I look for whatever I can get as well as having danced myself for many years - this documentary is one of the best I have seen - give it a go I say!

flamenco women was not what I had expected
Mike figgis paints a very distant and muffled picture of the true meaning of flamenco, with bad camera angles at times focasing in on facial expressions instead of full body shots which would capture both hand and foot coordination, not to mention the sound was distorted as well.
I was truely hoping to get more insight and more inspiration from this film.
Eva La Yerbabuena is by far my favorite flamenco dancer and this film showed only an ounce of what she is truely capable of. Though I did enjoy the dance rehearsals, it did nothing for me.
The performance at the end was not what I expected, being that many of the rehearsals were really good. I really didnt appreciate and was actually a little offended by the fashionable cotumes and dark make up. Flamenco is a tradional spanish dance that deserves to have its integrity kept in place. It does not change with time. The point I am trying to make is other then the dance itself one of the most important aspects of flamenco is how feminine and classic the women look as they dance.
A VERY important part of preserving the integrity of the dance.
yada yada yada!

This video? A disappointment to say the least. I will have to check out the video everyone has suggested.

An addendum:
Eva La Yerbabuena is featured in an IMAX film intitled "Pulse", her foot work is spectacular and well worth the $8.50 theater ticket. I suggest going to see that, if you are looking for inspiration.

Waste of Money
I had such high hopes for this video. I was attending classes at the Amor de Dios studio in Madrid when this video was made in 1997 and was excited to see how it turned out. Unfortunately, most of the film is a complete misrepresentation of flamenco by someone who does not have a clue about it. The end performance is about as far from real flamenco as you can get. Yes, the performers are well known and excellent dancers in their own right. But please, I wanted to gag when I saw the "fashionable" outfits (marketing ploy for designers "Vacas Flacas") and the many Spanish celebs Figgis got to stand in the audience (right in the front, of course). Flamenco is not about celebrities or fancy costumes. I think the film would have been a lot more interesting had it shown more of the classroom footage. There's a lot more magic happening there with women dancing in old leotards than there is in the whole performance which is supposed to be the point of this film. If you want to see some real "Flamenco Women" check out the Carlos Saura film instead!

Great documentary
This is a wonderful vision of the director, which I don't feel must be a full out flamenco concert. It reveals the beauty, technique, and style of the nuevo flamenco female artists, who are at the top of their form. The film is a must for flamenco dancers, who really get to see how a dance and a concert develops in this film. Give it a try! I think Mike Figgis creates a very stylish film. ...

An hour of aimless noodling
Sara Baras and Eva La Yerbabuena ostensibly rehearse for a performance, with some outtakes of studio work at Amor de Dios. We see snippets of alegrias, bulerias and tangos with some nice footwork but no development, not a single complete dance and the artistry of the "Flamenco Women" is wholly smothered by the ineptitude of the filmmakers. It makes you realize what talent Carlos Saura has. ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Strindberg's Old Stage Drama Looks Exactly Old Stage Drama
The original drama "Miss Julie" (sometimes spelled "Miss Julia") is written by Swedish writer August Strindberg in 1888. Because of its contents, it had been banned in his native country for 25 years, but looking back from now, the sexual nature looks nothing special now. But somehow director Mike Figgis thought of pretty faithfiul adaptation of this one-act drama.

There are three characters -- Jean, Julie, Chiristine -- but basically the drama belongs to the servant Jean (Peter Mullan) and Miss Julie, rich count's rather spolied daughter, played by director's muse Saffron Burrows. On Midsummer's Eve, uninhibited by class consciousness, Miss Julie taunts Jean, who at first endures the insult. Then, slowly the fierce battle of will leads them into seduction and contemplation of living together, or the rigid mores of society they live in.

The talky nature of the film is regrettable, but understandable. It is a filmed stage drama, and that's not to be blamed. The problem is this; one, many of us today no longer feel bound by the same sexual codes as they experience. The values they talk about are, if not totally, almost dead. The film fails to answer this question -- they suffer, but why should we care?

But the bigger trouble is this; director Figgis is so intent on denying that the original material is made for stage, that he uses too many irritatingly flashy cameraworks like split screen. And by showing too many of them, and the sexual nature of the drama more explicitly, the film is deprived of the subtle nuance which the original drama has. What is the point of blantantly showing the poor dead bird itself anyway when what the drama wants to show lies in different place?

Acting is good, I admit, but I cannot help thinking that Peter Mullan is miscast. The original drama clearly says Jean is 30 year-old (while Miss Julie is 25). They act well, trying to generate the intensity between the sex, which I find sadly missing. What if Daniel Day-Lewis did the same role -- I was thinking about that all through this extremely depressing film.

Simply a masterpiece...
It's movies like this that restore one's faith in the movie business. Sure, this movie is based on an old play and some may find it stagey or theatrical, but it, nonetheless, fully arrested the heart and mind of this unsuspecting viewer. This was in large part due to Saffron Burrows; the depth of her concentration and commitment to the role of Miss Julie is breathtaking and liberating. She captures one's attention so completely that there is no hope for release until the performance's end. Her beauty and skill as an actress are unsurpassed in modern times and it baffles me to no end that she is not more widely recognized and celebrated.

Figgis' Miss Julie is a more faithful telling of Strindberg's play than the more 'cinematic' Sjoberg version of 1950. Where Figgis employs economy, Sjoberg lengthened with unnecessary flashbacks, dampening much of the power of the original play. Figgis is a man of many talents as he also wrote the haunting musical score that perfectly mirrors the themes of the story. And certainly not as an afterthought, Peter Mullar in the role of Jean is superb and deserves more recognition for his work as well.

The movie biz, in all of its forms, produces only a handful of great movies each year-that might be overstating the case-but once in a while that special movie does come along and knocks you hard in the chest and of your feet; stories that usually force one to reexamine the state of our existence and often point in a meaningful direction to the future. Movies are powerful instruments, taking the place of religion in many lives, and as an art form, reestablishing the sacred tradition that storytelling once had before the days of electronic technology.

Months after watching Miss Julie I find myself still mesmerized and enraptured by its web. Congratulations to Mike Figgis and team. You have not produced a Hollywood blockbuster, but you have created a masterpiece. It is only unfortunate that more people will not see it. It deserves and is worthy of a wide audience.

Keep up the brilliant work Saffron.

0 stars.
Boring, boring, boring. Set piece of a flawed, and overindulgent strindberg play, could have been more bearable had this been a play, but in the movies, too sub par actors, no real plot...no way man. Alright, strindberg was known for his sadist relationships with women, as well as his little, oh shall we call it inferiority complex, with upper classes. (Dad an aspiring aristocrat, but a failed bussiness man, mom proletarian and dies very young) He married a baroness, then deserted her, then never, according to his own admission, managed a loving relationship, without the power, submission, et al. with a woman. Now imagine all that transcribed into endless dialogs between countess ( mike figes girlfriend managing a huge fiasco of wooden (over)-acting and stunned grimaces) and her dad's servant: I like you, i am above you class-wise, i like you too, i want the power you got, i am more clever/older than you i ll dominate you, no you wont, blah, blah, blah.

Gladly i watched it on cable and had some work to do so essentially i heard most of it, well to be honest, after an hour or so, i put some music on the pc, coulndt be bothered anymore.

So, it all boils down to, if you are the arty type with aspirations and in need of dinner time conversations then by all means watch, and have another pointless discussion on nothing, if not, watch a decent movie, with some plot, characters, depth, and not some re-vamped failure of meaningless drama.

Cheers.

One Strange Household
An extraordinarily strange period piece made even stranger by Director Mike Figgis's insistence on macabre close-ups, unexplainable split-screen trickery, and just plain weird camera angles.

One evening, the servants for a nobleman decide to go beserk ("when the cat's away, the mice will play"), and his emotionally-disturbed daughter feels surrounded by danger. A manservant comes to her rescue, hiding her in a pantry off the kitchen, where delusions of grandeur overtake him, and he emotionally and physically assaults her. The rest of the film (about an hour) is a verbal sparing match of psychological gameplaying that ultimately amounts to very little but is terribly interesting to watch it unfold.

One subtlely hypnotic performance by Saffron Burrows as Miss Julie keeps this piece afloat.

Certainly, not worth owning (in my humble opinion), but definitely worth the view.

Not the best of Mike Figgis' experiments
In "Miss Julie", director Mike Figgis continues to experiment with filmmaking. Some of his efforts I have enjoyed, particularly "Timecode", which divided the screen into four quadrants with four different events occurring simultaneously. Other works, such as "Miss Julie", I have trouble with because I think they would be better [or at least more accessible] if they had had a somewhat more conventional filming.

"Miss Julie" takes place in Europe in 1894. Julie [Saffron Burrows] is a countess whose fiancée has left her because she is too willful. She plays a sexual cat-and-mouse game with one of her servants [Peter Mullan] under the nose of his fiancée [Maria Doyle Kennedy]. Julie and her servant appear to hate each other, and this emotion seems only to stir their lust. Sex becomes a weapon in what is really class warfare. It seems that the servant has longed for Julie since he was a boy. Until now, she has been too insulated in her high born world to take notice.

The movie takes place during a night and part of the next day. Everything happens in and around the kitchen of Julie's house. The idea is to make the audience feel Julie's sense of imprisonment in her world. The idea works, as the viewer soon begins to feel claustrophobic.

Perhaps in an attempt to be faithful to the play it was based on, we see only the three main characters, except for two or three scenes when we see other servants working and chattering. There are numerous references to The Count [Julie's father and the servant's master], but he is never seen. Because he is so dominant in the lives of these characters, I think the movie would have worked better if he had made an appearance, but that may just be me. I get frustrated when someone in a movie is constantly talked about but never seen. I need a visualization.

The high point of the film is Saffron Burrows' performance. She is an amazing actress. This is the third of five films she has made with Figgis. I am ashamed to admit I do not know the origin of their ongoing working relationship. Mullan and Kennedy are also quite good. The problem is that the movie never let me truly feel for the characters, other than to pity them. I could appreciate the acting skills and acknowledge the director's daring, but something about the presentation caused me to have a clinical detachment to what was going on. It may simply be that Figgis chose the wrong material to experiment on. [Note: Figgis also wrote the movie's music score, and it is very, very good.] ... Read more

Description

Three tales from acclaimed short stories and an all-star cast.The many sides of love explored.Stories of a boxer who must decide between love or his career; a marriage and a habit that are both on the rocks; and a writer in Paris who comes up with a novel way to spend an evening. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

GREAT VALUE VALENTINES MOVIE
good couples movie for valentines. 3 complete individual stories; watch all 3 or just one. feels like a harlequin come to life. originally for hbo cable so not quite standard tv fare; really quite nice, and worth the money. we liked the last story best!

Watch if for the Figgis.
A trio of mini-TV movies based on short stories by outmoded American writers. 'Kansas' is 'The Wizard of Oz' updated to working class New York in 1939, on the eve of war, with Kyra Sedgewick as an awful wife longing for escape, forcing her boxer husband (Matt Dillon) into a potentially fatal fight.

'Dilemma', paying homage to the 1950s Hollywood melodrama, features Ray Liotta as an advertising executive, having nightmares because of work pressure, alco-wife, fears for his kids, and the possibility that he might have to go fight in Korea.

Mike Figgis' 'Mara' is what you'd expect from a Henry Miller story set in Paris, much talking of talks, little walking of walks.

The first two films are done in the style of glum Masterpiece Theatre (e.g. Eugene O'Neill), with contrived situations and stilted dialogue. figgis, hampered by poor material, squeezes some of the empathetic visual magic he would perfect in 'One Night Stand'. ... Read more

Reviews (9)

The worst movie I have ever seen
I could not believe that anyone could make a film as bad as this one until I actually saw it. Even 6 years after seeing it no other movie has come close to the depths that this movie reached. I read the other reviews and I am convinced that they were all written by the people involved in the film because no one in their right mind could sit through this without screaming at the screen. I cannot get this film out of my head, but for all the wrong reasons.

A bit slow...
Spoilers - A slow movie with two, similar and parallel, stories set 30 years apart. Kind of predictable except it is one of the few non-porn movies where a brother and sister aren't killed for commiting incest. Instead, the husband turns away and leaves the two lovers embracing at the end of the movie.

Scary for Grown Ups!
Before "Leaving Las Vegas" Mike Figgis directed this rather nasty adult thriller which features Kim Novak's most recent film appearance to date. She's brilliant in this small part as a dying woman reunited with the son she gave up for adoption. As she slips into morphine induced dementia, he stumbles into...incest?...adultery?...ghosts?... I'm not sure but anyway, my blood ran cold for weeks. This is recommended especially to people who miss Ken Russell's exuberant directorial excesses!

Contorted Love
The word Liebestraum has two meanings in German, "Dream of Love" or "Dreaming While Loving." Neither meaning would seem to be a suitable title for this dark film about obsessions and sins, and the ripple effects visited and revisited upon family members --unless it is that true love remains, in the end, out of reach. Liebestraum is also the title of a romantic musical piece by Schumann. A jazzed-up and decidedly unromantic, contorted version of the piece helps open the film. So perhaps the metaphor here is contorted love.

From the start, there is such a creepy and unnatural chill in the relationship between the featured lovers that I could not care about them or their situation. I actually suspected the twisted nature of the ties between them and some other characters halfway through the film, but was not bored after that. There is that much going on, what with the plot twists and trying to understand the meanings (or not) of all the really odd happenings in the film --like a letter falling off of a sign or the crude sherrif taking an unbeliabely long wiz'. Plus, my suspicions weren't confirmed and fully explained until the very end.

I did care about the fate of a frozen-in-time, caste iron building and also, oddly enough, about the man in charge of its demolition. A good man gone bad or a bad man with heartfelt remorse? Or both?? The feelings of this conflicted character are played out in the best five minutes of the film; the bar scene, and is one of the examples of why Bill Pullman is among the very best actors working today. There is a more recent film, The Guilty, in which he again manages to bring out the heart and complexities of a seemingly unsympathetic character. But in that film he was the star, rather than having just a handful of scenes to create that feat, as in Liebestraum.

SEXY KEVIN MAKES THIS A LITTLE GEM
I saw this film for the second time the other night. It is one of those films that people seem to have missed and I think it is quite difficult to get into or understand the first time you see it. But, having said all that if you stick with it is a sexy pot boiler of a film - that has a few plot twists/complications along the way. All the actors concerned, Kevin Anderson, Bill Pullman, etc are all really good, helped by a lot of sexual tension from the main characters. Basically the plot is that Kevin Anderson's character goes to see his dying mother in hospital and while he's back in his home town bumps into one of his old friends and his wife. His old friend (Bill Pullman) is knocking down an old building that is very different architecturally (it is made of cast iron) and Kevin Anderson is an architectural journalist, so this is of interest to him..........

There, now I've started you off - I'm not going to say anymore, except there some surprises to come! I know my description of the plot thus far may make the film sound boring - but believe me this is not a boring film! I do not want to give any of the plot away. Final verdit: very film noirish.

Love from Kevin Anderson's new fan - he's gorgeous!! ... Read more

Description

Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas) directs this erotically charged love story that explores the passion and betrayal of a one stand. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

the best role of wesley snipes' career...
i think wesley is a much better actor when he's playing sensitive ,intelligent males. not just guys who live by their guns. the supporting cast is also very good. notably robert downey, jr. as a dying gay man. natsssia kinski looks lovely as always. there was some controversy when this film was released about wesley's wife being an asian woman instead of white woman. he said they didn't want to offend the black females who would be watching this movie.and cheating on an asian woman with a white woman would make black women less offended? go figure. still a good film. i pity the reviewer who made the "mandingo" remark a few reviews back. only an insecure, jealous white male would say something like that. people should be free to love who they want.

Snipes Deserves a Better Movie
The ever-cocky, sometimes-impressive Wesley Snipes--who probably will be best remembered for snatching second-rate shoot-em-up scripts from the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger--this time tackles something that relies less on guns and knives (though, alas, there is a knifepoint mugging scene). Too bad he picked a script that meanders between "9 1/2 Weeks" and any evening soap, never getting much deeper than an episode of "Red Shoe Diaries." Snipes is the typical Hollywood everyman--young, buff, wealthy, professional and with a picture-perfect family, right down to a boy, a girl, and a dog. He has the ubiquitous dream job, advertising bigshot (where, of course, he never does any real work), and tons of free time to devote to, among other things, an affair with emotionally-fragile--get this--rocket scientist Nastassja Kinski, who specializes in roles requiring a smoldering "European" look and little or no clothing. Thrown into the fray is a dying friend, played by the overrated but bafflingly lucky Robert Downey, Jr., and a princess of a wife, played by "ER"'s resident whiner, Ming-Na. The story? Well, there isn't much of one. Trapped temporarily in New York City, Snipes has a brief affair with Kinski, then returns to LA supposedly haunted by what happened. Stuff--some of it played with a somber tone that is supposed to pass for drama--happens in creaky episodic form, with Snipes' narration trying to bridge the wide gaps in time and plot, and the movie concludes with an ending that is at least as fantastic as anything in Snipes' action pictures. Director Figgis also seems almost grimly determined to avoid acknowledging the interracial dynamics of the relationships; as someone who is bi-racial, I have mixed feelings. For instance, I want to applaud its rather matter-of-fact sensibility that an African-American man can be with any woman he wants--but at the same time, I'm left deploring the old stereotype the film supports--that an African-American man can be with any woman he wants. I guess we've come a long way from Sidney Poitier stirring things up at dinner but not too far from Superfly rolling up in a flashy car. At least the movie looks good, though at times everyone's ages show a bit.

Really Shallow
When it comes to this movie, my talent for cinimatic analysis goes right out the window. Yeah, it has a quiet intensity that I enjoyed. It also has some good acting, although at times it seemed a little contrived. The script was good, but also at times it seemed like it had written it's self into a corner. Nastassja Kinski is as beautiful as ever and deserves far more camera time than she get's. Those are all good, but.....the absolute greatest, quintessential, worhwhile reason for owning this movie and watching this movie over and over again is that Ming Na appears nearly naked and is absolutely gorgeous.

spectacular drama
Wesley Snipes(superb) and Nastassja Kinski(superb and sexy and you get to see her boobies in this one, hooray) have a one night stand, beacuse its the movies title after Kinski and Snipes get mugged and Snipes also visits his dying gay friend played nicely by Robert Downey Jr. Snipes goes home with his with Ming Na Win(you see her boobies too, hoorah). one year later he comes back because Downey's on the death bed and his brother, Kyle Maclachlan is there as well, Maclachlan introduces Snipes to his wife, Kinski(bum, bum, bummmmm) and then things start to heat up. Downey finds out then dies and then theres that scene where Kinski and Snipes are getting their groove on up against the wall and then they stop and turn and see Maclachlan and Win on the couch getting their groove on as well. then they switch partners and its a satisfying end.

Beautiful, quietly subversive, Existentialist Masterpiece
In order to truly appreciate this film, you really need to compare it to another film on the same subject of random one-time infidelity that came out ten years earlier: 1987's "Fatal Attraction."

That film provided us with graphic voyeuristic pleasure alongside moralistic self-satisfaction, titillating us with a sensationalistic view of adulterous casual sex which leads to divine/karmic retribution as the spurned One-Time Other Woman morphs into a vengeful psycho. The message of "Fatal Attraction" was crystal clear and clicked with Reaganite America: stick to the safe and narrow, or terrible things will happen to you!

In contrast, 1997's "One Night Stand" implies the opposite: let things flow and DIVERGE from the safe, familiar everyday even just once...and incredible personal and interpersonal transformation blossoms. For many, it's a disturbing subtext: take a chance, walk on the (somewhat) "wild" side, and your bliss just might follow!

It's easy to see why this film got such mixed reviews here in the States, and such good reviews in Europe: it bravely refuses to follow the standard American cliches about sexuality, marriage, materialism, "success," AIDS, death and life itself.

And there's a brilliant unspoken reversal of popular racial stereotypes and typical Hollywood stock roles: a Chinese-American woman (Ming-Na) is loud, aggressive, and sexually voracious while her African-American husband (Snipes) is quiet, introspective, intellectual, and sexually subdued in comparison. A beautiful blonde woman (Kinski) is actually a super-intelligent astrophysicist. A straight black man and a flamboyantly gay man (Downey Jr.) are longtime best friends. The gay man is dying of AIDS but refuses to engage in regrets or self-pity. And the sex scene between the two initial adulterers, Snipes and Kinski, is actually very restrained, non-sensationalistic, and emotionally substantiative---not the frantic animal lust portrayed in "Fatal Attraction" but two fragile human beings taking blessed refuge in each other during a passing fortuitous moment.

And that's what this film is really all about: life as a series of passing moments, which must each in its own turn be honored and lived as fully as possible. The cinematography and score are seamlessly stunning, so the DVD format should serve well.

Granted, there are a few contrived plot turns, the dialogue does sound a bit written in two or three places, and it does put a LOT of things on your plate. Bittersweet and poignant and a feast for both eyes and ears and even the gray matter between the ears. This is not some simple-minded, focus-group-pandering, saccharine feel-good Hollywood schmaltzfest but a mature, subtle, and passionately challenging film that Mike Figgis probably would never have had the chance to make were it not for the success of his "Leaving Las Vegas" which preceded this movie. Too bad for Hollywood... ... Read more

Reviews (92)

Cliched but not so bad!!!
Cold Creek Manor is as cliched as they get. A near accident forces NYC family to move to peaceful, idyllic suburbia. They move into the 'perfect' house, which has its share of not so perfect secrets. From there, it gets all the more predictable. So why didn't I hate this movie? The cast for one. Dennis Quaid was pretty good as the patriarch, and it was great seeing Sharon Stone back on the big screen in a very different role for her as mother. Stephen Dorff was very creepy and effective as the bad guy, and Juliette Lewis played the town slut to perfection.

Acclaimed director Mike Figgis did his best with the lackluster script, and wrote a pretty brilliant score to the film, which added to the creepiness. And while it was evident where the film was headed, the suspense did manage to build, slowly but surely. Perhaps some tight editing would have benefited the film since the audience knows what to expect and taking two hours to reach that point is quite ridiculous. However, there are some pretty terrific scenes which lead to a decent finale.

There is a tremendously long and unbearable deleted scene on the DVD I'm glad was removed. It was a15 minute scene of Quaid and Dorff playing a game of pool, which added nothing to the film. Had that been included, I might have hated this. And while the film ties things together nicely with it's an oh so perfect happy ending, the deleted alternate ending was far superior and more in the style of Mike Figgis. I think the film would have gotten an extra star with that ending in tact instead.

Overall, the film is overlong and cliched, but made fun nonetheless by the terrific cast and the director who knows how to work with his actors. It manages to be suspenseful without being a nail-biter. See it on a boring Sunday night, but don't expect much.

Great Unintentional Comedy
Not too many thrills in this thriller, but as an unintentional comedy it's aces. Fans of bad movies will love this DVD to death, particularly the deleted scenes which include Dennis Quaid as pool shark humiliating the Massey character. Stephen Dorff flares his nostrils menacingly while strutting around shirtless, oiled up, and chewing the scenery like a starving man. Several laugh-out-loud moments throughout this film. Indeed the only thing missing is Joel and the 'bots in the lower right-hand corner of the screen.

Give it a chance, Don't listen to hearsay
Cold Creek Manor I thought was a fairly decent movie. Don't read some of these other people's reviews and make a decision based on their opinions. Truth is maybe it was a little slow paced but there was a good story behind it. I think you should watch this movie and see what you think. Afterall no one's opinion matters except yours. As long as you like it who cares what others think.

UNSPEAKABLY BAD
If only I had checked reviews here before wasting money to see this bomb. This is one of the worst movies ever made. How can a director possibly go wrong with the trio of Dennis Quaid, Sharon Stone, and Juliette Lewis? The dialogue is ridiculous, the plot is dumb, and the acting alternates between stilted and over the top. The editor must have gone on vacation because there were lots of loose ends and scenarios that didn't make sense. A few examples: Nude photos of her extramarital tryst with her boss were left lying around the house seemingly for anyone to view including strangers and their kids. Quaid discovers the photos and acts like he's perusing a circular he just received in the mail. A creep claiming to be the previous owner shows up and they just let him in the house to have dinner, no questions asked. Juliette Lewis is wasted here with no character development and no dialogue beyond boozy profanity. The character of the female sheriff was made to look incompetent and redneck beyond belief. Quaid, Stone, and Lewis are proven pros - let's hope they find work more befitting their talents in the future.

WHOS OUT BACK?
Well, Sharon Stone and her hubby buy a house thats real run down. While fixin it up the kid that used to live there gets out of jail. He walks right in to the house without an invite looks around and starts eating thier dinner. They just sit there with there jaws slack and then.... they give him a job of fixin up the old place. Its obvious he is a nut so he goes over to juliete
lewis trailer and has his way with her over and over. Sooo he soon starts to kill animals and put snakes in thier clothes and stuff like that but they can't fiqure it out so they give him a raise. Later after the pieces of several murders come to light he wants to kill them, big surprize. The cops are baffeled and denny quiad and Ms. Stone hafta bust him in the gord. AT the end the house is freshly painted and a chorus of angels are singing.But julie Lewis still loves the guy even though he is dead so she puts flowers on an unmarked grave... fade to black ... Read more

Reviews (113)

Good movie, but not a great film score: 74 (out of 100)
Nicholas Cage's character, Ben Sanderson, has apparently lost his wife, family, and job. He decides to take his severance check and buy tons of alcohol in order to drink himself to death in a Las Vegas motel room. He meets Sera (Elizabeth Shue), a prostitute that he picks up along the way, and they develop a love affair in the process. Sera's love for Ben is reflected in the way she lets him complete his goal. He wants death and no rehabilitation. As a result, she sacrifices herself in prostitution in order to make ends meet and raise money for Ben's booze habit. In the process, Sera meets some terrible experiences, which makes her character more interesting.

DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES and THE LOST WEEKEND may have an edge on this movie because they have characters that grow and develop over a long period of time. There is not much that we know about Ben or Sera. All we see are his momments of drunkeness and Sera's trying to cope with it. There is very little room for character development in this movie, and the end result is a depressing atmosphere.

Pros: Acting
Cons: Screenplay

Score: 74 (out of 100)

Leaving Las Vegas- A Moving and meaningful film
This film is not for most people; it's very morose and gruesome at times, and it won't be entertaining and satisfying in the same way most mainstream movies are. It does however provide a very shocking and revealing look at the lives of a hopeless drunkard and a lonely prostitute.

Nicholas Cage and Elizabeth Shue are superb portraying their characters and their skill is the driving force of the film. That isn't to say, however, that the directing, music, and screenplay weren't excellent as well.

One particularly important aspect of the film is the relationship that forms between Cage and Shue. Some reviewers describe it as sincere love, however, I don't agree. Both Cage and Shue are desolate and vulnerable. The natural thing for both of them to do when they meet is to seek refuge in each other. Shue might love Cage, but it's more out of desparation for company than what she sees in him. Cage's interest in Shue is somewhat more confusing. Before his introduction to Shue, I got the impression that he was completely detatched from anything earthly. The relationship he maintains with Shue suggests otherwise though. I'm not really sure, yet, what to make of Cage.

I never really knew what alcohol could do to a man until seeing this movie. Sure, a random drunk on the street is a common sight, but most people, who don't have a friend or family member with the problem, don't realize the extreme extent to which the obsession can develop. I'd recommend this film to anyone older than 17.