Reviews (50)

Total BS, but great music
ok ok this movie had great music and the dancing was the real star. I remember seeing this movie with my mother, who was a real construction worker. we both laught. No way she could do construction all day and dance all night, but its a movie right. Jennifer Beals was so hot when she did this movie, why didn't she do more films? Oh yeah, she can't act to save her life, but never mind that lets get back to the dancing. The Choreography was so cutting edge for the 80's. If you can choke down the bad acting and the weak story this is not such a bad film. If you like good dancing,and some of the best 80's music see it.

Great Cinematography and directing
This movie has some good music and dancing, in a sappy plot. But the music and dancing are not integral to the plot development; they do not carry the film in the way dancing carries "Dirty Dancing" or "The Turning Point" (both of which have better dancing, by the way.)

But it's one of my favorite movies. Why? The director, Adrian Lyne, got his experience directing TV commercials, where the entire message has to be conveyed in 60 seconds, and in Flashdance every moment is contributing something. The key is the cinematography. Leonard Maltin calls Lyne a "visual stylist", and he is, but he's more. He takes Roman Polanski's cinematographic innovations and pushes them to new limits; the camera tells the story.

When you watch "Flashdance", watch how light and camera angle are used. Light: Pittsburgh light, hazy, smoky, dull, reflecting off puddles, blazing from lamps, dim, bright, strobe, whatever; lighting carries the mood of each scene. As for camera angle, in most movies we are observers, outside the movie, watching the actors. In some of "Flashdance" that is also true, but then in many places the camera angle shifts so we are inside the movie, seeing what one of the actors, or several of the actors, see at that moment. It just pulls you in. If you're not familiar with the film, the first time you watch it wait for the final "audition" scene, and watch how the camera is first an observer, before the dancer enters the audition room, then sees from the dancer's view as the audition begins, and then shifts to show us what the judges see, as the dancing becomes compelling. I don't know about you, but this grabs me and pulls me in; I could watch that scene five times running. And there are many other scenes in which camera angle is used similarly but not quite as obviously. I give this movie four stars; I would give it five if the music and dancing were as well integrated with the plot as in some other movies.

A Believable story that any dreamer can identify with.
Flashdance is one of the most remembered films of the 1980s. It is full of rythym and fast paced tempo that most people were used to seeing in the popular dance movies like Footloose and Dirty Dancing. Jennifer Beals plays her best role as the young wannabe ballet dancer who strives to make it in a rough neighborhood. This film whould be nothing without its music or dancing. It is one of the best date movies too. I highly reccomend this film to anyone with a dream or anyone who is a fan of films from the 1980s.

The dream is eternal
The film is an image of what the 1980s were, of Pittsburgh in the 1980s, this temple of heavy industry coming to an end and starting to look for a new future, due to its industrial crisis. Yet this film has not lost any charm and meaning. The young Alex, an 18 year old girl, is the symbol of this city, an industrial worker during the day and a dancer at night, with a dream : to join the ballet company of the city. Industry producing art. Industrial work producing the dream of art. Alex is a willful young woman who follows the road of her desire, if not ambition, but keeping her ethics pure all along. Pure by looking for love and not pure pleasure. Pure by refusing any favor in her quest and longing for a victory that can be called her own because it owes nothing to anyone and any help from outside herself. Pure because she salvages her friend from becoming a gogo girl in a shady place where dancing is just some kind of dressing for enticing prostitution. Pure because she finds her energy in an old friendship with an old dancer who is encouraging her in getting started and competing for an audition that could open the door to a new artistic life. Pure because she is not soiled by all those who would like to drag her down into the mud of selling her young beauty and art to the gloating eyes of perverse and lustful males. And she can succeed because she never lets her dream die. In life the dream is the almighty sign on the road to epiphany and Alex will meet with this epiphany of hers, the one she has dreamed of for years and she can find only in the energy that comes from her mind and her body, from her unconquerable soul. This film has not aged in spite of all the changes that have occurred in our societies. The dream is the energizing force that leads the way, too often of some Cross, to transcendency.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

typical 80's flick
Alex is a welder by day and an exotic dancer by night, her true passion is dancing and she dreams of being accepted into a professional dance school, except that she lacks the confidence to go after her dream. This type of story, Cinderella goes after her dreams and makes it, is cliched and I love it. Instead of seeing glossy characters with ravishing careers, how about those of us who actually live in the real world and are very much like Alex, we want to see characters like her who are struggling and actually make it! Its a very encouraging and inspiring film for those of us pursuing our dreams. I really like it, I could have done without the naked bar scene later on in the movie. Jennifer Lopez recently did a video based on flashdance and I got to say she was really good. There was a rumor a while back that there might be a flashdance remake with her, and I think that she should do it. J.Lo is perfect for the part! It'd be awesome if she did it. ... Read more

Reviews (122)

O lente currite noctis equi! O softly run, nightmares!
It is impossible to make a faithful (legal) movie of Nabokov's novel. However, this is very good approximation of it.

Jeremy Irons is perfectly cast as Humbert, and captures the kind of clueless social fumbling and bumbling which is a large part of the character in the novel. Humbert is not comfortable around people of any age. Domenique Swain, in her first role, pulls off an acceptable version of the title character, both vulnerable and crafty. Although Frank Langella is no Peter Sellers, his rendition of Clare Quilty is much more realistic and true to the novel - even the over-the-top death scene with the ballet-like movements and red spit-bubble is almost straight from the book. A real problem was casting Melanie Griffith as Charlotte - unfortunately she was completely wrong for the part - being too shrill and light.

The cinematography was excellent. The feeling of travel - 27,000 miles in the course of a couple years, and geography plays a substantial part in the book, and was well represented in the movie.

Beautiful score by Morricone, who also did the well-regarded "The Mission" score.

For all the good things in the movie, the same three things in both the Lyne and Kubrick versions bother me, as I feel it robs Humbert of some nuance to his character:
1. No mention of first wife. He was not always just into nymphets.
2. No mention of second wife, Rita, (and taping the goodbye note to her navel so she would find it).
3. The last page and a half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Hubert offers his apology for all his nastiness, and his admonition to Lolita, and the revelation that neither Lolita nor Humbert are alive as we read the book, and his pathetic summation..."I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita."

The title cards at the end detailing the demise of the characters was a cheap out in both versions of the movie. Had there been a narration of the last page over, say, a scene of Humbert writing in jail (which in the novel is where the book is written in 56 days of captivity), I'd give this movie 5 stars.

The DVD has a lot of extras including a commentary, rehearsal footage and 8 deleted scenes.

Nothing replaces the book, and I suggest the "Annotated Lolita" version which has 140 pages of notes, helping with the nuances in the complex, convoluted novel.

Lolita 1998
Although Adrian Lyne's Lolita is a good film adaption of Vladimir Nabokov's superb novel, it contains fatal flaws. First I will say that the cinematography is glorious and the score by Ennio Morriconne lush and romantic. I expected Jeremy Irons as the obsessed Humbert Humbert to turn in a mind blowing performance. Unfortunately, he stands around looking glum most of the time. Dominique Swain as the nymphet Lolita does have several impressive moments, but ultimately is unconvincing as she comes across as nothing more than a 90s brat. I will say though that the relationship between Humbert and Lolita does have its very powerful moments, just not enough of them.

I don't hold these faults to the actors. I think Adrian Lyne, the director is responsible for the films flaws. For one thing, he seems to want to make Lolita look as unattractive as possible every chance he gets. She takes out her retainer before performing oral sex on Humbert, and is frequently seen munching on bananas and getting milk mustaches. Also in one scene, we see Lolita sitting diown, laughing as she reads a comic book. The camera moves away to reveal that Humbert is making love to her. This and other scenes make the relationship between Humbert and Lolita repulsive, and if you're going to make a film based on Lolita, their relationship can't be portrayed as disgusting. The audience must be made to feel the love that Humbert has for this girl. It only partially succeeds. Irons also fails most in the ending scene where Lolita tells Humbert that she never loved him. Irons merely cries for two seconds and leaves. James Mason in Kubrick's version is much more moving. I also have a problem with the fact that Lyne seems to have duplicated the Kubrick film shot by shot in that scene.

My last qualm is that this adaption is nearly completely devoid of humor, which is an essential aspect of Nabokov's story. Melanie Griffiths gives a fine performance as Charlotte Haze, but she is given far too little screen time. Frank Langella as Quilty is also quite amusing, too bad he only gets ten minutes to show it. Thus, when a 17 year old Lolita reveals to Humbert that it was Quilty who put her away, we don't care. It should be a revelation, but it is not. Quilty's death scene offers an infusion of black humor, but it is too little, too late. Jeremy Irons last few scenes as an emotionally broken Humbert are very moving though.

I give this movie three stars because for all of its faults, it is involving and does deserve to be seen and compared with Stanley Kubrick's 1962 adaption. Even though it falls short when compared to it.

Adrian Lyne, you do not compare to Stanley Kubrick
The original 1962 Kubrick version of this movie is so much better, he actually captured the essence of this film. The remake is completely cheesy; it pales in comparison. Shame on those who think this wannabe movie is better or even compares to the original.

A FASCINATING STORY OF OBSESSION
It is interesting to compare this movie and its predecessor, to "Pretty Baby."

Some critics claim "Lolita" is a true love story. I disagree.

Dominique Swain is beautiful and incredibly sexy; and Irons wants to possess her. Realistically, this can not be, so conflict, and ultimately death, ensue.

In "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields is stunningly beautiful, adorably so, but not sexy, although she becomes a child prostitute.

While Swain obviously knows exactly what is on men's minds, Shields portrays a child playing at the sex trade.

Ultimately, her photographer-lover lets her go on to a normal childhood, just as earlier he freed the bird trapped in the whore-house. This is love.

Athough both films are visually beautiful, in "Pretty Baby," Sven Nyquist's cimematography is transcendentally so. His shots of Brooke Shields posing for her photographer-lover are like peering into the tender, throbbing core of life itself.

As vexing as ever
Certainly the most compelling screen version of Lolita, Adrian Lyne has a much better feel for the story than did Stanley Kubrick, and Dominique Swain is much better cast as the young femme fatale than was Sue Lyon. But, the most striking feature of this film is the cinematography which gives the story a much more evocative feel. While it is through Humbert Humbert that we see Lolita, Lyne finds more subtle ways to probe Lolita than did Kubrick, who treated her very much as an object. I suppose in that sense it may have been a little closer to Nabokov's original telling, but Lyne has a more sensitive eye to detail and the devastating relationship that forms between Humbert and Lolita. The script stays close to the novel. Lyne lavishes much attention on the cross-country trip and the rain-soaked stay in New Orleans. I felt Jeremy Irons did a better job than James Mason in capturing Humbert's psyche, better able to convey the emotions that led to his ill-fated obsession in Lolita. The film also evocatively recalls the genesis for Humbert's obsession. It was a bold move by Adrian Lyne, demonstrating a thoughtful understanding of the novel and not trying to add any form of moral judgement on it. ... Read more

Reviews (125)

Profoundly moving journey to enlightenment
I wonder if this movie could be made today - after all, it doesn't have any computer-generated special effects, it demands the viewer's complete attention, and really needs to be seen more than once to appreciate fully the meaning of all of the scenes. Incredible too is that the writer (Bruce Joel Rubin) was working on the filming of this and his more popular movie "Ghost" at the same time. Director Adrian Lynne wisely avoided some of the more sacharrine touches that Rubin had in the original script (such as the view of "Heaven") and added many subtle disturbing elements of his own. The final result is a film that you will think about long after you see it, a man's journey through the bardo state to his final enlightenment. In a way, this is the cinematic equivalent of a Pettersson symphony - an emotional catharsis after the long, dark night of the soul. I'm not ashamed to say that I cry like a baby every time I watch it.

Comparisons with Bierce's "Occurrance at Owl Creek Bridge" and "Carnival of Souls" are inevitable and not out of place, but "Jacob's Ladder" has more layers than either of those and ambitiously takes on the psychological layers of one man's life, the tension between the comforts of home, wife and family and the unfufilled desires he harbors.

There are some violent scenes and very disturbing imagery throughout the movie; after all, it *is* about war, fear, and death. However, none of it is gratuitous, and the use of strobe lighting, quick cuts, and odd camera angles keep the viewer from being able to see anything definite. But don't say you weren't warned....

The DVD's documentary and deleted scenes, along with the director's commentary, will enable the first-time viewer to get a more complete idea of what is happening. I've watched this film at least a dozen times, and never fail to see something new in it each time. Sound and image quality are excellent.

This one isn't for casual viewing; it is *certainly* not a Saturday-night time killer, nor is it a "horror" movie in the standard sense of the term. Still, absolutley my highest recommendation.

Good movie... but oh so strange
This movie freaked me out the first time I saw it. I began to understand it better after the 2nd and 3rd watch. Tim Robbins is one of my favorite actors - and if he appeals to you, you MUST see this movie. Robbins' character (Jacob Singer) is a Vietnam vet who is suffering all kinds of post war problems... most of which came about from the army testing a powerful drug on him during war time in Vietnam. Is it real? Is he dreaming? It's hard to tell at times what's real & what's not. Those men in the car without faces - what did they really want? Good supporting roles by Danny Aiello (as Jacob's chiropractor) and Elizabeth Pena (as Jacob's girlfriend). Haunting, disturbing, violent, nightmarish, suspenseful and SURPRISING (at the end) are all choice words in describing this film. Outside of "The Shawshank Redemption", this is my favorite Tim Robbins film.

True Horror is Psychological Horror
Deft director Adrian Lyne creates a world that draws you in
and horrifies you. Not because you know what you're seeing, but because you don't understand and want to so badly.
Tim Robbins does a masterful job as someone caught in situations he doesn't understand. Awful things begin to occur between him as he is swept between two lives, one with his ex-wife and (dead) son and another with the sexy Jesse, one of his co-workers at the post office. He feels trapped and is hunted by monstrous, malformed things he cannot fathom. This chilling film gave the creators of Silent Hill plenty of material to work with and combine with their own artistic visions.
Recommended for anyone who likes a good scare, and also wants a
film they can talk about with friends afterward.

THE ENIGMATIC PSYCHOLOGICAL RAVAGES OF WAR..
Jacob's Ladder is easily one of those underrated gems in the horror genre that aren't gory and don't feature a wisecracking slasher villain to appeal to the horror crowd, yet are surreal and disturbing enough to interest most mainstream audiences.

No doubt that Adrian Lynne has provided the inspiration for several films and music videos with its dark and extremely horrifying images of the rising paranoid insanity that appear in hallucinatory flashbacks at first.

As the story progresses the line between what is real in a war veteran's nightmares and what is not becomes blurred, both for the protagonist himself as well as for the audience, and in such a way that you cannot escape questioning yourself during and after the movie. Questions that do not necessarily lend themselves to easy answers. But the movie offers its own interpretations (in a somewhat watered down ending) while still allowing for the audience to draw its own conclusions.

Everything is right in this movie. The direction, acting and dialogue are intriguing. The plot is intricate but unfolds logically at a decent pace. The photography is atmospheric and and the special effects are understated yet effective. The character of the protagonist is developed immaculately, his anguish is almost palpable.

Unless you're super-squeamish, this is a fascinating movie. Especially if you have a taste for the ilk of Donnie Darko, Lost Highway, or pretty much anything by David Lynch.

Not even worth renting.
I enjoyed this movie when I saw it in the theatre when it came out. I used a lot of drugs back then, so that explains it. I just watched this again yesterday. Folks, I literally SUFFERED through "Jacob's Ladder" this time around. I couldn't wait for it to end. Tin Robbins is usually pretty good, but even he seems bored to death in his role. I would not recommend this film to anyone and I do not understand why it's gotten such high praise. ... Read more

Reviews (77)

Fantastic movie, intense.
This movie is one of the best movies I've ever seen. Michael Douglas and Glenn Close give life to this stylish, sexy and famous movie that was nominated for 6 Academy Awards.
The story is about a man named Dan (Douglas) who is happily married with a 6 year old son. And one day he meets Alex (Close) in a party and few days after when Michael's wife goes to the country with their son. Dan meats again Alex again in a meeting and they have an intense affair during those days.
It was all meant to finish there, as an affair but Alex falls helplessly in love with Dan and doesn't want to let him go.
Dan's wife returns from the country and he refuses to answer Alex's phone calls and messages but Alex is desperate to see him again and she even cut her veins to make him stay. The whole nightmare starts there and Alex won't stop until Dan belongs to her...
You will be watching this movie without closing your eyes beacuse it's full of suspence.

Almost
Except for the final scene (which I suspect was "borrowed" from Henri-Georges Clouzot's Diabolique), this is a solid film. In it, Director Adrian Lyne examines the consequences of a one-night affair involving two very attractive people, Alex Forrest (Glenn Close) who is single and Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) who is married and a parent of young children. While Beth Gallagher (Anne Archer, also "borrowed," from Jack Ryan) and the children are visiting her mother, Dan unexpectedly finds himself having drinks and then dinner with Alex. They feel an immediate and powerful sexual attraction to each other. Later, they spend the night in her loft apartment. Insofar as he's concerned, it was a memorable night, thanks ever so much, but that's it. Alex reacts differently, at first asking and then demanding that they continue the relationship. She even claims to be pregnant and at one point attempts suicide. Of course, all this is not what Dan had in mind but Alex forces him to recognize the significance of his adultery.

The acting is consistently strong but the screenplay allows for almost no character development, nor are the nature and extent of Alex's psychological problems ever revealed or even explored. Obviously, she is lonely and delusional as well as envious of the lifestyle Beth and Dan share. Only an actor possessed of Glenn Close's talents and temperament could reveal (albeit only in brief moments) Alex's tenderness which helps to explain her vulnerability to both real and perceived grievances. After seeing the film again, I still think the final scene in the upstairs bathroom doesn't work. In fact, I think it detracts from the narrative development which precedes it. On balance, however, Fatal Attraction offers solid entertainment even as it raises (at least in my mind) questions about the two main characters and their relationship which, for whatever reasons, Lyne and/or his screenwriters do not address in the film.

Hence my interest in the special features provided with the DVD version. They include a commentary by Lyne, "Forever Fatal: Remembering 'Fatal Attraction'" (which offers new, exclusive cast and crew interviews), "Social Attraction" (an analysis of the cultural phenomenon of a fatal attraction), "Visual Attraction" (a behind-the-scenes production featurette), rehearsal footage, and the alternate ending introduced by Lyne.

Delicious
A horrific account of of bipolar/borderline personality disorders, this film is guaranteed to chill the spines of men who've had to deal with crazy and obsessive women. Close is dead-on in her portrayal of an insane, clingy woman who will not leave her target alone. The dialogue is also not cliche-ridden, and is to the point and realistically simple. The other characters seem real enough, and we really do feel for the husband she's stalking.

The harrassment is also well done, with each unsettling
phone call, visit, and other annoyance just adding to the
tension.

This is one of Lyne's masterpieces, full of
rich color and controlled, careful direction. Fans of his intense artistic visions are also advised to get
Jacob's Ladder on DVD.

fatal attraction
This movie was well made. It had a good plot and story line. I was very dissapointed in Glenn Close. I used to like her as an actress, but she played a very terrible person. I just cant beleive she would star in a movie like that. Otherwise a good movie

What a DVD should be...
Inexpensive, awesome DVD package of the classic suspense drama. Attention, studios: Take a lesson from whoever put this one together for Paramount. It not only is a great screener of the 5 star film, but it has all the bonus features you want from a DVD, with ample participation from the talented cast and crew.

A definite must have for your movie collection. I bet you'll prefer the director's original ending, too....even as satisfying as the other one is! ... Read more

Reviews (79)

Forget the Sex...Watch it for it's Magic
I keep seeing reviews; "a high budget porno" or "a dull, boring story with sadistic sex scenes". This movie is so different from these decriptions, it makes me wonder if these people talked, read or played chess through out the entire movie only glancing up occasionally. Mickey Rouke is so subtle with his expressions and dialogue that he creates that mystique that portrays John. Mixed with good looks, a high calibre job (Wall St. Money Market Dealer) & the most amazing apartments money can buy, Kim Basinger (Elizabeth) could not help but be curious. Kim Basingers use of nervous twitches and shy looks makes this her best performance by far. 2 great performances and the best use of a camera, I have seen, makes this 80's style New York flick a stylish, never to forget experience. The scenes in the equestian shop, Farnswoth house, the bed shop, the clock tower are just so well done. Every time you see this movie, it becomes more classy as images of New York's inner city life are portrayed beautifully. Forget the sex scenes, (yeah, they are neccessary) this movie really moves you & keeps images cemented in your mind for a long time. "Elizabeth, please come back before I count to 50...1, 2, 3.."

Um.... yes.
So here's this: I was walkign around the video store and I spy this cover with the kind of hot but kind of old chick from LA Confidential on it, but get this - she's yound as hell and it looks like she gets naked. So sure I'll bite. I get home and it's full on hard core drilling. Rorke gets this chick in some crazy ass positions and the whole time I'm thinking, I thought women were into "making love" not performing "rough crazy sex acts." So I tried some of the stuff from this movie out on this girl I was dating. Turns out she wasn't into it. Turns out she's only into "traditional love-making." Being alone isn't so bad.

Kim Basinger makes this worth seeing
What one realizes while watching this is how limited and ultimately unsatisfactory is a relationship based purely on sex.

I imagine that the familiar dominance/submissive psychology at the heart of this visually stunning movie--and it really is beautifully shot--comes from the novel by Elizabeth MacNeil. I say that, not having read the novel, because the seduction of Manhattan art dealer Elizabeth (Kim Basinger) by the smooth and supremely confident financier John (Mickey Rourke) is so very well done with the expensive presents, the well-timed flower deliveries, little endearments, etc., that it amounts to a woman's fantasy. The partial debasement of Elizabeth and her eventual triumph over her darker instincts and her realization that there is a difference between love and submission is also something that one might expect to find in a woman's point-of-view novel.

However when we get to the actual sexuality and how it is acted out, it is unclear who dreamed up the scenes, MacNeil or director Adrian Lyne or the scriptwriters. I say this because the scenes were so predictable and so ordinary, and when not ordinary and predictable, were bordering on the just plain dumb. Making love in the rain, at the top of a tall building (inside the clock tower), blindfolding the woman, making her crawl, feeding her strawberries, etc., bring nothing new to eroticism. And the scene requiring some imagination--[...]--was not realistically done. Why directors insist on allowing a man holding onto the hand of woman to outrun the men chasing them never ceases to amaze me. And then to have Elizabeth and John stop in the middle of the street to allow the bashers they have outrun to catch up was just plain stupid, not to mention the phony fight that followed.

Not only were the sexual scenes predictable but clearly Lyne was in harness (and I am glad of that) since he stops well short of what might happen if this sort of theme were fully played out.

Putting all that aside what makes this movie worth seeing is Kim Basinger. She is absolutely stunning, and it is clear that Lyne and his camera adored her. More than that Basinger does a fine job of acting in a demanding role. I was impressed. Before seeing this film I thought she was a rather ordinary actress, but her ability to combine grown-up New York chic with little-girl vulnerability and to make absolutely clear the psychological dilemma her character's heart faced really held the movie together.

Lyne's insistence on whispered dialogue difficult to hear was consistent with the theme of the movie but not kind to these ears. But that was okay because much of the dialogue was secondary to the visual exploration of the woman's sexuality. The peek-a-boo and off center and shadowed shots of Basinger's face and her silhouette, and the studied smile from Rourke combined with the stark black and whites of their clothes and the furnishings served to highlight and emphasis the flesh tones of Basinger's skin while lending an appropriate artistic and fashionable atmosphere to the movie, which after all has an art dealer at its center. The many scenes that were began and suggested, and then cut away from, allowed a richer texture of experience for the viewer than would have been possible had the scenes been played out. And that was doubly good because again it is the visuals that make this movie worth seeing, not the originality of the story and its development.

To those viewers who thought that this was some sort of high class pornography, I can only say you missed the point entirely, and indeed, you may be projecting your own sorry mentality.

See this for Kim Basinger whose sensitive and robust beauty dominated the screen.

Craftful Cinematography....a fine work.
If you've gotten this far in the reviews, you'll notice that either people love this film or hate it. It's pretty much right down the middle, which in a way, is a reflection of American societal attitude towards it's own sexuality.

If your own sexual world isn't aware there's something other than the missionary position, chances are you'll see this as a vulgar, disgusting film. The world that John draws Elizabeth into is a very psychologically complicated and sophisticated one. If you can't identify with lifestyles like that, you can't understand how or why they exist.

Personally, I found this film a masterpiece, not so much from the story line, but the mechanics of it. The cinematography is nothing short of breathtaking. Subject matter debates aside, this is a beautifully photographed film. Camera angles, lens choices, it's obvious the director worked very closely with the cinematographer in capturing on film exactly the image he had in his head. I can't say enough about the beauty of this film.

I thought both of the principals turned in exceptional performances, even though I view Rourke as a below-average actor. This film is easily his best, which actually could be said of Basinger as well. The Casting Dept. did a good job on this one.

Bar none, Basinger's strip tease (done with very little nudity) goes on my "All-Time Best Scenes List". The music choice, Joe Cocker's "You Can Leave Your Hat On" was a stroke of genius!

Alas, years after it's debut it's the subject matter that is remembered, and I find it still holds up. I'd suggest this film highly. Careful though, you may get more than you bargain for if you make it a "first date" flick to watch!

Sick, big-budget porn movie
This movie is disturbing, offensive, indecent and just plain nauseating. Who is this sick, depressing little piece of trash targeted to? You guessed it, the ... Europeans who indulge in every form of ... imaginable, slobber over XXX-rated movies dealing with sick subjects, and voluntarily make their little children watch it with parents like a "family night". Fortunately, we Americans don't need to be forced to watch this garbage. Send it back where it belongs! ... Read more

Reviews (32)

Interesting but seriously flawed
INDECENT PROPOSAL is one of those formularized, supposedly heartfelt movies told in one mess of a tale. It starts off with a couple (Demi Moore and Woody Harrelson) struggling to make ends meet and just as they are about to drown in debt, they hit the jackpot in Vegas and then lose all their winnings again. As they are about to hit rock bottom, Robert Redford, a multi-billionaire, comes into their lives to give them a chance to get one million dollars. The catch: Redford "borrow" Woody's wife for one night. They agree, but this of course changes the course of their relationship forever. Woody Harrelson is truly miscast in a role too serious for him, making some scenes unintentionally funny. Yet the other two leads help keep this vechicle interesting. Despite the limited success of the script, it remains as a flawed but ambitious work.

A treasure
This movie is definitely a treasure, beautifully acted, beautifully filmed, its the kind of movie that stays with you. I can't say much about the movie that hasn't already been said except that I recommend the soundtrack also, the movie score is excellent.

How can any female viewer....
of this movie not be angry about this film? Come on, Robert Redford asks Woody Harrelson to sell him his wife for a million bucks. HELLO? Can't Demi have an opinion on that? In the billiard room scene the two men talk about Demi as if she is some sexual pleasuring device. Plus, there is a microphone in the picture for about 3 minutes.
Other then that, the film is entertaining, but that is only because Robert Redford is in it. Brilliant casting, who needs a million bucks reward to sleep with RR, especially when compared to Woody.
Demi knows that, Robert knows that and the (female) viewer knows that. Poor Woody marvels what went wrong for a bit too long to come over as at least decent intelligent.
Good thing is that we never see Demi and Robert "doing it".
All in all the movie works in favour of RR, and that is not a bad thing.
Yeah, I know my english is bad :)

I'd like to make a proposal,remake the movie with Demi & I !
Demi Moore is a housewife who goes to Vegas with her husband and loses all their money at the casino. A rich tycoon (Redford) offers a proposal. One night in bed with the man's wife (Demi) for a big wad of money. She accepts...however, after the smoke clears, the husband suspects that his wife is still seeing the tycoon & ends up divorcing her. She runs to the tycoon to start a new relationship. Will money buy her the happiness she seeks? Find out for yourself!

Was it really so indecent?
Adrian Lyne is truely a master at exploiting human emotions. In this powerful movie he adds the bonus of 'easy money' in the form of one million dollars to a stuggling couple if the lady is willing to spend just one night with him.. We are all to assume that one night is all the billionaire really wants. "The night will come and go but the money could last a lifetime" he explains, but in a true Coen brothers twist, money proves to be the root of all evil. The irony being, that once the night passes, and the relationship deteriorates, neither of them want the money. The only real flaw in the movie is the fact that neither member of this relatively intelligent couple are able to see what the billionaires alterior motive is.
All through this movie I kept wondering what I would do in the same situation. Now I'm not married but maybe if I were I would look at it differently but right now, I would probably take the money. The reason being that I think I'm mature and responsible enough to deal with it.... But then again, dont we all. ... Read more

Reviews (245)

Well-paced, edgy story with steamy romantic scenes
This is a film that at first seems familiar. It's about a suburban housewife's love affair and the unexpected aftermath. Diane Lane shines in the role of the woman, happily married to Richard Gere and the mother of a 9-year old son. They live in an upscale Westchester community and their marriage seems perfect. Then one day, while in New York City, she accidentally meets Oliver Martinez, a bookseller with huge apartment in the Soho-Tribecca area. One thing leads to another and soon they are engaged in a hot affair. And when I say "hot", I really mean it. The erotic scenes are some of the steamiest I've even seen and I could feel their passion right down to my own toes.

There are complications, of course. Especially when the husband finds out. Richard Gere is a fine actor and the scene in which he comes face to face with his wife's lover calls for superb acting ability. There's tension and upset seething as they make polite conversation and what follows seems inevitable in the context of the story. How it all plays out is different from what I expected.

I was completely drawn into the story and felt a deep understanding for all the characters and their motivations. The screenplay was excellent, making the characters seem real and sympathetic as it manages to create the feeling that nothing good can come of this. It is well paced with an edginess that is completely appropriate to the story. And I certainly wasn't disappointed in the conclusion.

Definitely recommended.

Not a work of art, but entertaining
I've never been a fan of director Adrian Lyne; I've always thought he treated his female characters badly. In this one, however, he seems to have mellowed a bit. Diane Lane plays Connie Sumner, a married woman who falls into a love affair with a hot young French guy. I've followed Diane Lane's sporadic career for years, and she gives the best performance of her life here. The complexity of her situation is reflected on her face and in her actions. As her husband, Richard Gere is more one-note, and turns out to be the real villain of the film in my opinion--you'll have to see the movie to understand why. The movie has no real moral or lesson to teach--it just presents a compelling story of adultery with a few genuine surprises. It's not a work of art by any means, but it's entertaining, thoughtful, and has some great performances. Worth the price of admission, which is more than you can say for most of the other box-office choices this weekend.

Don't bother
A suburban housewife(who is dressed as plain jane but wears hooker shoes) meets French book dealer(who sounds like he just came from Mexico). She is bored with her nice but dull Richard Gere and I guess the other guy is much more irresistible because he is "French" and wears a scarf. They start a steamy sexual affair and carry on without a care in the world. Nice husband eventually gets suspicious about why his wife doesn't want to get it on anymore and hires a private investigator. In the meantime, our little wifey obviously thinks that the "French" stud is faithful to her and is shocked to find out that he is definitely a gigolo.
Husband, upon finding out that his darling is having an affair, goes to her lover's apartment and brazenly declares "I'm her husband". To which the lover boy says"Oh, ok, you want a drink?" After having a drink, Richard Gere gets enraged(which I thought was the most pathetic acting I've seen in a long time) and kills the other guy. Then, he does a few other stupid things -like tries to drag the dead body out the apartment, apparently not worrying if anybody sees him and rides around with it for a while before dumping it . Eventually, he has to tell his lying cheating wife that he killed her lover and I guess he has to turn himself in. Movie ends on this note, where the wife is begging him not to do it and they could just disappear to Mexico(visit the boyfriend's relatives perhaps?). This was supposed to be a drama but I was laughing through the whole time.

EROTIC,ROMANTIC,DRAMATIC...THE HUMAN DILEMMA
THIS MOVIE HAD THE BEST EROTIC SCENE EVER ......WHEN THE WIFE WENT TO THIS GUY'S APT. , SHE WANTED HIM SO BAD THAT AFTER SHE LEFT THE APT AND TURNED HIM DOWN SHE HASSLED BACK TO HIM WILDLY AND THEY WENT FOR IT LIKE THERE IS NO TOMORROW...HER BELLY WAS SHEVERING AS IF THIS IS A REAL FRIST TIMER WITH MULTIPLE ORGASM.... AFTERWARDS THE MOVIE TAKES YOU INTO A JOURNEY WITH OUR ETERNAL CONFLICT BETWEEN OUR INSTINCTS AND MORALS......THE CLASSIC TRIANGLE OF A HUSBAND,CHEATING WIFE , AND A LOVER BUT THIS ONE IS CUTTING DEEP INTO OUR NATURES.....REALLY WORTH BEING IN YOUR COLLECTION.

Diane Lane gets cheated too....
Months before the award ceremonies that honoured 2002 began, there seemed to be an unspoken decision among the powers that be that the actress of the year would be Nicole Kidman for delivering what was essentially a supporting role in Stephen Daldry's brilliant film THE HOURS. A shame really. While Meryl Streep delivered what was arguably her finest work to date in the same film, the Actress of the year was undoubtedly Diane Lane for her honest, naked work in this perfectly realised melodrama. Adrian Lyne's best work always seems to spring forth when he examines women & their emotions. Sharing similarities with FATAL ATTRACTION in it's study of urban angst, the power of the film springs from a screenplay that doesn't justify Connie's(Diane Lane)behaviour. When we first meet her, it appears she has everything. A stable homelife, a handsome, loving husband & son. Literally crashing into a handsome bookdealer during a violent windstorm(aided by a very clever credit sequence..watch closely), Connie slowly but surely begins a hot, torrid affair. Unable to resist the temptation, watch her closely as she wrestles with herself(& with him). Her train trip home following her first sexual encounter is a wonder to behold. In flashback we are shown the encounter while Connie alternately laughs, cries, squirms & exalts as she rejoices in her own(almost new)sexuality. To watch her behaviour as she(& we)realizes how much her handsome new lover has set her free, the feeling is infectious. Ably supported by Richard Gere( a big year for this guy) & Olivier Martinez, Lyne delivers a film filled with honesty & warmth. More than just a fantastic central performance, for my money, this is one of the best films of 2002. ... Read more

Reviews (245)

Well-paced, edgy story with steamy romantic scenes
This is a film that at first seems familiar. It's about a suburban housewife's love affair and the unexpected aftermath. Diane Lane shines in the role of the woman, happily married to Richard Gere and the mother of a 9-year old son. They live in an upscale Westchester community and their marriage seems perfect. Then one day, while in New York City, she accidentally meets Oliver Martinez, a bookseller with huge apartment in the Soho-Tribecca area. One thing leads to another and soon they are engaged in a hot affair. And when I say "hot", I really mean it. The erotic scenes are some of the steamiest I've even seen and I could feel their passion right down to my own toes.

There are complications, of course. Especially when the husband finds out. Richard Gere is a fine actor and the scene in which he comes face to face with his wife's lover calls for superb acting ability. There's tension and upset seething as they make polite conversation and what follows seems inevitable in the context of the story. How it all plays out is different from what I expected.

I was completely drawn into the story and felt a deep understanding for all the characters and their motivations. The screenplay was excellent, making the characters seem real and sympathetic as it manages to create the feeling that nothing good can come of this. It is well paced with an edginess that is completely appropriate to the story. And I certainly wasn't disappointed in the conclusion.

Definitely recommended.

Not a work of art, but entertaining
I've never been a fan of director Adrian Lyne; I've always thought he treated his female characters badly. In this one, however, he seems to have mellowed a bit. Diane Lane plays Connie Sumner, a married woman who falls into a love affair with a hot young French guy. I've followed Diane Lane's sporadic career for years, and she gives the best performance of her life here. The complexity of her situation is reflected on her face and in her actions. As her husband, Richard Gere is more one-note, and turns out to be the real villain of the film in my opinion--you'll have to see the movie to understand why. The movie has no real moral or lesson to teach--it just presents a compelling story of adultery with a few genuine surprises. It's not a work of art by any means, but it's entertaining, thoughtful, and has some great performances. Worth the price of admission, which is more than you can say for most of the other box-office choices this weekend.

Don't bother
A suburban housewife(who is dressed as plain jane but wears hooker shoes) meets French book dealer(who sounds like he just came from Mexico). She is bored with her nice but dull Richard Gere and I guess the other guy is much more irresistible because he is "French" and wears a scarf. They start a steamy sexual affair and carry on without a care in the world. Nice husband eventually gets suspicious about why his wife doesn't want to get it on anymore and hires a private investigator. In the meantime, our little wifey obviously thinks that the "French" stud is faithful to her and is shocked to find out that he is definitely a gigolo.
Husband, upon finding out that his darling is having an affair, goes to her lover's apartment and brazenly declares "I'm her husband". To which the lover boy says"Oh, ok, you want a drink?" After having a drink, Richard Gere gets enraged(which I thought was the most pathetic acting I've seen in a long time) and kills the other guy. Then, he does a few other stupid things -like tries to drag the dead body out the apartment, apparently not worrying if anybody sees him and rides around with it for a while before dumping it . Eventually, he has to tell his lying cheating wife that he killed her lover and I guess he has to turn himself in. Movie ends on this note, where the wife is begging him not to do it and they could just disappear to Mexico(visit the boyfriend's relatives perhaps?). This was supposed to be a drama but I was laughing through the whole time.

EROTIC,ROMANTIC,DRAMATIC...THE HUMAN DILEMMA
THIS MOVIE HAD THE BEST EROTIC SCENE EVER ......WHEN THE WIFE WENT TO THIS GUY'S APT. , SHE WANTED HIM SO BAD THAT AFTER SHE LEFT THE APT AND TURNED HIM DOWN SHE HASSLED BACK TO HIM WILDLY AND THEY WENT FOR IT LIKE THERE IS NO TOMORROW...HER BELLY WAS SHEVERING AS IF THIS IS A REAL FRIST TIMER WITH MULTIPLE ORGASM.... AFTERWARDS THE MOVIE TAKES YOU INTO A JOURNEY WITH OUR ETERNAL CONFLICT BETWEEN OUR INSTINCTS AND MORALS......THE CLASSIC TRIANGLE OF A HUSBAND,CHEATING WIFE , AND A LOVER BUT THIS ONE IS CUTTING DEEP INTO OUR NATURES.....REALLY WORTH BEING IN YOUR COLLECTION.

Diane Lane gets cheated too....
Months before the award ceremonies that honoured 2002 began, there seemed to be an unspoken decision among the powers that be that the actress of the year would be Nicole Kidman for delivering what was essentially a supporting role in Stephen Daldry's brilliant film THE HOURS. A shame really. While Meryl Streep delivered what was arguably her finest work to date in the same film, the Actress of the year was undoubtedly Diane Lane for her honest, naked work in this perfectly realised melodrama. Adrian Lyne's best work always seems to spring forth when he examines women & their emotions. Sharing similarities with FATAL ATTRACTION in it's study of urban angst, the power of the film springs from a screenplay that doesn't justify Connie's(Diane Lane)behaviour. When we first meet her, it appears she has everything. A stable homelife, a handsome, loving husband & son. Literally crashing into a handsome bookdealer during a violent windstorm(aided by a very clever credit sequence..watch closely), Connie slowly but surely begins a hot, torrid affair. Unable to resist the temptation, watch her closely as she wrestles with herself(& with him). Her train trip home following her first sexual encounter is a wonder to behold. In flashback we are shown the encounter while Connie alternately laughs, cries, squirms & exalts as she rejoices in her own(almost new)sexuality. To watch her behaviour as she(& we)realizes how much her handsome new lover has set her free, the feeling is infectious. Ably supported by Richard Gere( a big year for this guy) & Olivier Martinez, Lyne delivers a film filled with honesty & warmth. More than just a fantastic central performance, for my money, this is one of the best films of 2002. ... Read more

Amazon.com

A young Jodie Foster stars in this compassionate portrait of four unhappyteenage girls struggling with life in late 1970s Los Angeles. Jeannie(Foster) and her friends all have parents who are either divorced,negligent, or downright abusive. Looking for some kind of point to theirlives, the girls drink, do drugs, sleep around, and fight with theirparents and each other--but Foxes isn't the trashy melodrama youmight expect. The writing and performances are surprisingly good, thoughit's no surprise that Foster (Taxi Driver, The Silence of theLambs) stands out for sheer charisma and depth. Director Adrian Lyne(Fatal Attraction, Flashdance) demonstrates a deft hand forjuggling the girls' multiple storylines. Also featuring Sally Kellerman(M*A*S*H), Randy Quaid (Kingpin, Independence Day),Scott Baio (television's Happy Days), and a brief appearance by avery young Laura Dern (Blue Velvet, Citizen Ruth). --BretFetzer ... Read more

Reviews (20)

This movie is great!
This movie needs to be on DVD. It is essential and underappreciated. I saw it when it first came out when I was in 8th grade and never forgot it. It is a late 70's/early 80's decadent SoCal teen slice of life. They even throw in Scott Baio in Adidas shorts on a skateboard for versimilitude. Jodie Foster is awesome, Sally Kellerman is neurotic and self-centered, Cherie Curie is unforgettable. That party scene-I dug it when I was a kid but today it's every adults nightmare. The soundtrack is perfect--only thing missing is some Cheap Trick!

One of the greatest films of all time!
I can't believe people are only giving this film two stars. In what other film can you see Jodie Foster , overwhelmed with teenage angst, come home from a night on the town and turn up "More than a Feeling" while she sulks on the couch. THIS IS A CLASSIC! Not to mention one of the greatest high school party scenes ever. The song "On the Radio" would mean nothing to me if it weren't for this film. Oh yeah, one more thing The Band "Angel" live in concert, performing their hit "20th Century Foxes"- you've got to watch for yourself, that's all there is to it. Don't rent it, buy it, believe me you'll watch it again & again. You haven't fully exprienced the 70's until you've seen this movie.

Still Relevant Coming of Age Story
This film is an excellent coming of age drama that teens and young adults today will enjoy despite the fact that it was filmed in the late 70's. Jodi Foster has a mom who dates casually and lets her pretty much do what she wants to do. It's obvious her moms house is the cool house because all of her friend "hang" at her house. Each one of the girls has some serious issues that they are dealing with. These girls are going through some of the same things teens today are going through. This movies succeeds where a lot of current films like "Thirteen" fail. It shows, it shocks and there are serious consequences. The DVD doesn't have any extras and the film quality isn't much better than the VHS. What I love most about the story in the film is how the friends really bond together to try to help the one friend who needs help the most.

"We raise our children in love and they grow up in love" is a quote from one of Jodie Fosters instructors at the beginning of the film and it's very fitting to the lives of the main characters.

powerful teen drama
I loved this movie from the moment I saw it for sale at my video store's discard rack ten years ago. I recently received the DVD as a gift and the sound quality is a big improvement over my old vhs copy. I recommend it for performances, the story and the photography. Jodie Foster's monologue toward the end of the film is particularly memorable. Each girl's story line is realistic and the film itself does a good job of capturing teen life in the late 70s before yuppie values took hold. This is NOT a John Hughes film and is a refreshing change for anyone who was subjected that director's teen films in the 80s.

Was it ever good? I think not.
Trials and tribulations of Jodie Foster and her 3 twenty-something year old high school friends...

Jodie gives a fair performance, but the others were substantially less than average. Sally Kellerman as Jodie's mom was pretty good. Laura Dern ("Jurassic Park") was interesting in her small scenes. Randy Quaid as one girl's boyfriend was mediocre (see "The Last Detail" for his excellent role in a good movie.)

Due to music and cultural references, plus the clothes and hair styles, the movie is pretty dated, but that is not a contributing factor to its badness. False dialogue and some typical cliches are factors, however. The partying scenes are also unconvincing, as everyone smokes joints like cigarettes, drinks a lot, and never appears intoxicated.

Director Adrian Lyne has made some good movies ("Jacob's Ladder", "Lolita"). Unfortunately, this is not one of them.

Scott Baio escapes bullies on his skateboard. Need I say more? ... Read more

Reviews (122)

O lente currite noctis equi! O softly run, nightmares!
It is impossible to make a faithful (legal) movie of Nabokov's novel. However, this is very good approximation of it.

Jeremy Irons is perfectly cast as Humbert, and captures the kind of clueless social fumbling and bumbling which is a large part of the character in the novel. Humbert is not comfortable around people of any age. Domenique Swain, in her first role, pulls off an acceptable version of the title character, both vulnerable and crafty. Although Frank Langella is no Peter Sellers, his rendition of Clare Quilty is much more realistic and true to the novel - even the over-the-top death scene with the ballet-like movements and red spit-bubble is almost straight from the book. A real problem was casting Melanie Griffith as Charlotte - unfortunately she was completely wrong for the part - being too shrill and light.

The cinematography was excellent. The feeling of travel - 27,000 miles in the course of a couple years, and geography plays a substantial part in the book, and was well represented in the movie.

Beautiful score by Morricone, who also did the well-regarded "The Mission" score.

For all the good things in the movie, the same three things in both the Lyne and Kubrick versions bother me, as I feel it robs Humbert of some nuance to his character:
1. No mention of first wife. He was not always just into nymphets.
2. No mention of second wife, Rita, (and taping the goodbye note to her navel so she would find it).
3. The last page and a half from the book was left out. This is possibly the most moving passage of the novel - when Hubert offers his apology for all his nastiness, and his admonition to Lolita, and the revelation that neither Lolita nor Humbert are alive as we read the book, and his pathetic summation..."I am thinking of aurochs and angels, the secret of durable pigments, prophetic sonnets, the refuge of art. And this is the only immortality you and I may share, my Lolita."

The title cards at the end detailing the demise of the characters was a cheap out in both versions of the movie. Had there been a narration of the last page over, say, a scene of Humbert writing in jail (which in the novel is where the book is written in 56 days of captivity), I'd give this movie 5 stars.

The DVD has a lot of extras including a commentary, rehearsal footage and 8 deleted scenes.

Nothing replaces the book, and I suggest the "Annotated Lolita" version which has 140 pages of notes, helping with the nuances in the complex, convoluted novel.

Lolita 1998
Although Adrian Lyne's Lolita is a good film adaption of Vladimir Nabokov's superb novel, it contains fatal flaws. First I will say that the cinematography is glorious and the score by Ennio Morriconne lush and romantic. I expected Jeremy Irons as the obsessed Humbert Humbert to turn in a mind blowing performance. Unfortunately, he stands around looking glum most of the time. Dominique Swain as the nymphet Lolita does have several impressive moments, but ultimately is unconvincing as she comes across as nothing more than a 90s brat. I will say though that the relationship between Humbert and Lolita does have its very powerful moments, just not enough of them.

I don't hold these faults to the actors. I think Adrian Lyne, the director is responsible for the films flaws. For one thing, he seems to want to make Lolita look as unattractive as possible every chance he gets. She takes out her retainer before performing oral sex on Humbert, and is frequently seen munching on bananas and getting milk mustaches. Also in one scene, we see Lolita sitting diown, laughing as she reads a comic book. The camera moves away to reveal that Humbert is making love to her. This and other scenes make the relationship between Humbert and Lolita repulsive, and if you're going to make a film based on Lolita, their relationship can't be portrayed as disgusting. The audience must be made to feel the love that Humbert has for this girl. It only partially succeeds. Irons also fails most in the ending scene where Lolita tells Humbert that she never loved him. Irons merely cries for two seconds and leaves. James Mason in Kubrick's version is much more moving. I also have a problem with the fact that Lyne seems to have duplicated the Kubrick film shot by shot in that scene.

My last qualm is that this adaption is nearly completely devoid of humor, which is an essential aspect of Nabokov's story. Melanie Griffiths gives a fine performance as Charlotte Haze, but she is given far too little screen time. Frank Langella as Quilty is also quite amusing, too bad he only gets ten minutes to show it. Thus, when a 17 year old Lolita reveals to Humbert that it was Quilty who put her away, we don't care. It should be a revelation, but it is not. Quilty's death scene offers an infusion of black humor, but it is too little, too late. Jeremy Irons last few scenes as an emotionally broken Humbert are very moving though.

I give this movie three stars because for all of its faults, it is involving and does deserve to be seen and compared with Stanley Kubrick's 1962 adaption. Even though it falls short when compared to it.

Adrian Lyne, you do not compare to Stanley Kubrick
The original 1962 Kubrick version of this movie is so much better, he actually captured the essence of this film. The remake is completely cheesy; it pales in comparison. Shame on those who think this wannabe movie is better or even compares to the original.

A FASCINATING STORY OF OBSESSION
It is interesting to compare this movie and its predecessor, to "Pretty Baby."

Some critics claim "Lolita" is a true love story. I disagree.

Dominique Swain is beautiful and incredibly sexy; and Irons wants to possess her. Realistically, this can not be, so conflict, and ultimately death, ensue.

In "Pretty Baby," Brooke Shields is stunningly beautiful, adorably so, but not sexy, although she becomes a child prostitute.

While Swain obviously knows exactly what is on men's minds, Shields portrays a child playing at the sex trade.

Ultimately, her photographer-lover lets her go on to a normal childhood, just as earlier he freed the bird trapped in the whore-house. This is love.

Athough both films are visually beautiful, in "Pretty Baby," Sven Nyquist's cimematography is transcendentally so. His shots of Brooke Shields posing for her photographer-lover are like peering into the tender, throbbing core of life itself.

As vexing as ever
Certainly the most compelling screen version of Lolita, Adrian Lyne has a much better feel for the story than did Stanley Kubrick, and Dominique Swain is much better cast as the young femme fatale than was Sue Lyon. But, the most striking feature of this film is the cinematography which gives the story a much more evocative feel. While it is through Humbert Humbert that we see Lolita, Lyne finds more subtle ways to probe Lolita than did Kubrick, who treated her very much as an object. I suppose in that sense it may have been a little closer to Nabokov's original telling, but Lyne has a more sensitive eye to detail and the devastating relationship that forms between Humbert and Lolita. The script stays close to the novel. Lyne lavishes much attention on the cross-country trip and the rain-soaked stay in New Orleans. I felt Jeremy Irons did a better job than James Mason in capturing Humbert's psyche, better able to convey the emotions that led to his ill-fated obsession in Lolita. The film also evocatively recalls the genesis for Humbert's obsession. It was a bold move by Adrian Lyne, demonstrating a thoughtful understanding of the novel and not trying to add any form of moral judgement on it. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Soul Survivors
Think of Soul Survivors as a more sincere version of A Nightmare on Elm Street. The night before Cassie (the Gwynethesque Melissa Sagemiller) starts college, she gets into a terrifying car accident with her boyfriend (Casey Affleck) and best friends (Wes Bentley from American Beauty and Eliza Dushku from Bring It On and Buffy the Vampire Slayer). But was it an accident? And who survived? Cassie starts college--but she also keeps hallucinating about frightening men she saw at a party prior to the accident, as well as about undergoing surgery after it. Is college itself the hallucination? These slips from one reality to the next build an increasing sense of discomfort and anxiety--though some viewers may be made more anxious by a scene in which Sagemiller and Dushku step into a shower together. Or do they... --Bret Fetzer

Jacob's Ladder
Vietnam veteran Jacob Singer (Tim Robbins) thinks he is going insane. Or worse. When his nightmares begin spilling into his waking hours, Jacob believes he is experiencing the aftereffects of a powerful drug tested on him during Vietnam. Or perhaps his posttraumatic stress disorder is worse than most. Whatever is happening to him, it is not good. Director Adrian Lyne sparks our interest and maintains high production values, but this confusing film chokes on its "surprise" ending. It owes much to Ambrose Bierce's haunting and more straightforward story, "An Occurrence at Owl Creek." Written by Bruce Joel Rubin, who also explored the "other side" in Ghost and My Life, it ultimately feels like an exercise in self-indulgence. A spirited performance by Elizabeth Peña outshines Robbins, who is surprisingly lethargic. --Rochelle O'Gorman ... Read more