User reviews

"Naked in New York", is an indie film that is not seen much these days. In a way, its star, Eric Stolz is to be congratulated by his support to this kind of films. As directed by Daniel Algrent, and based on the material written by the director and John Warren, it shows it had a potential that somehow doesn't quite make the viewer root for these characters.

At the center, Jake and Joanne. They seem to be an ideal couple. Not only are they attractive, but they appear to have their marriage under control, that is, until outside influences come their way and in a way try to derail it. Jake is an aspiring playwright and Joanne a photographer. Joanne makes it first when a gallery owner shows interest in her work and in her. Jake, helped by his college friend, Chris, gets one of his plays accepted for a Off-Broadway production.

The separation of Jake from Joanne, plays heavily into their relationship. Jake suspects Elliott Price's motives when he makes Joanne his assistant. At the same time, Jake meets more than he bargained for in the theatrical world of New York, where he finds a fauna and flora he didn't count on.

Eric Stolz and Mary Louise Parker make a good couple. Ralph Macchio is the gay friend who's secretly in love with Jake. Jill Clayburgh, Timothy Dalton and Tony Curtis are seen also. Kathleen Turner is excellent as the older theater diva who is instrumental in having Jake's play produced because she is in it.

This was a good effort by all of the people involved.

I'm just surprised by this film.

While the film was interesting enough to keep me watching, and simply flooded with star talent in terms of actors and people playing themselves, it never really comes together. Even Scorsese is involved, but you can't tell.

Is it a comedy? Is it a coming-of-age tale? Is it a love triangle/tree/whatever? Is it experimental? Somehow it fails at everything.

I never really cared for any of the characters, and most of the effects seemed completely pointless. It's as if someone made a movie, and everyone agreed to do it for free, and behaved like they were unwilling participants. I wonder how much better it would have been if they had an independent cast, and spent the money on, say, a director.

I do give it a generous 6/10, because there is an interesting story in there. And for spotting all the stars and personalities we know and love. And of course "the kiss".

I can't put my finger on what was wrong with this movie. Good production values, as one would expect with Martin Scorcese involved. I was OK with the flashback style of character development, and narration and framing device. The cast was amazing, with so many famous actors in cameos or small parts. I guess it comes down to Eric Stoltz, who I find annoying for some reason, even though he is certainly an accomplished actor. I give it a wishy-washy five stars.

Naked in New York is one of those always risky propositions, when "artists" write about the "business" of what they're doing, in this case the theater. Naked is one of the better examples of it, and features some nice ensemble work from Eric Stoltz, Mary Louise Parker, and Timothy Dalton.

The best moment, and the reason I'm adding a comment, is when the main character attends his first New York literary party. When he spots William Styron, he makes some snide comment to the effect of, "What has he written?" The movie responds by flashing Styron's works, which are considerable.

It's a great moment and a great use of the medium, and almost worth the rental price. Naked is a good one for a slow night.

Two good actors, Eric Stoltz and Mary-Louise Parker, are overshadowed by a poor script and poor direction. The excessive use of asides and narration, along with a poor script, make this in all a poor movie.

The plot idea is good. Two people fall in love and must decide between careers going in geographically opposite directions and their mutual attraction for each other. That's a great idea for a plot, but it just didn't play out.

If you intend to watch this movie keep clear to has little snap before, because it's too slow down that needs patience, even Scorsese involved in the project didn't help too much, some boring scenes which stay quite clear just spent a time, a matter of fact it's an art movie, so many famous actors in the cast adds a little only, the picture is really something fresh, but doesn't reach nowhere, the final scene is remarkable and can justify my vote!!!

Resume:

First watch: 1995 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 6

The best part of this snoozefest was seeing the boom mic in a scene or two. I think the only people that like this are people that fantasize that they're writers and for some reason project themselves into this trivial life. It's really too boring to recommend as even a movie "so bad it's good". Sadly.. it's not even that bad. It's even mediocre in its badness.

A great 'date' movie... about struggling to find the balance between love and work. Great performances and camera work, a Woody Allen-esquire film, but not as high-falutin. It's got a very warm heart.

The cameos by Whoopi Goldberg and Tony Curtis, and Tim Dalton - as fun as he's ever been- are a hoot. Jill Clayburgh is great too. And New York City looks beautiful, it's shot with a certain pizazz and style, and also a sense of whimsy which is rare in films nowadays, there's not much cynicism. And Ralph Macchio will surprise you with an oddly sexy scene!

What it says about trying to create something, about trying to find your place in the world during a transitional time (your young twenties) is heartfelt and fun, even as you feel the panic these people are going through.

It's really Mary Louise Parker and Eric Stolz film though, and they carry it with grace and humor, making us really care for this attractive funny and insecure young couple. You really believe that these two are in love, and you root for them.

I remember when this came out it was pretty much savaged by the critics, in fact it made a few 'worst films of the year' lists for 1994. For the life of me I can't understand why. Its really a quite good protrayal of a just out of college couple trying to make it in the 'art' world. Him (Eric Stoltz) as a playwrite, her (Mary-Louise Parker) as a photographer, and how their ambitions in the real world changes their relationship. It has good dialogue, some quirky-arty surreal effects (like when the stone faces in the wall started talking) which worked for me, and a great cast of believable characters. Jill Clayburgh was especially good in this one.

Kicking and Screaming, also underrated, is another film you'll like if you like this one.

Rent this one so you can remind yourself why you should never listen to critics (except this one of course ;) ).

Eric Stoltz and Mary Louise Parker don't go for the big laughs, they do go for the little ironies that bring big smiles. This is kind of Neil Simonesque at its best, which is most of the time. It is about a young writer getting his work produced as an off-Broadway play for the first time. Everybody is good, but for me Kathleen Turner as the very insecure star seducing the talented young writer is the highlight. It is kind of a low rent version of Bettie Davis in All about Eve, but Turner makes it believable that she would be willing to sleep with the author to get the part. The other highlight is Tony Curtis as the cynical producer taking a chance on the young playwright. He was 68 years old here, but he looks ten years younger and really seems to be enjoying the work. After his T.V. series Vegas ended in 1981, Curtis really didn't get much work. He only had about three or four good parts in good films the last 25 years of his life, which is quite sad. Curtis describes the play by the lead character as having problems and not being very funny, but he does note that it has a certain honesty about it. That could be said about this movie. What it lacks in drama, it makes up for in honesty and sincerity.

The movie is told from Jake Briggs' (Eric Stoltz) point of view. Jake is an aspiring playwright that moves to New York in hope of fortune and fame. During the journey he will deal with his long-term girlfriend (Mary Louise Parker), with his best friend Chris (Ralph Macchio) who is also bisexual, and also his parents. He will succedd to bring his play on stage but it's a flop because the leads (Kathleen Turner and Chris Noth) are not good for their parts. After all this Jake and Joanne will leave each other because they also discover to have different goals in life (with Jake's being of writing more plays and having more success).

I liked the performances. Eric Stoltz is great as the lead, an aspiring playwright that hopes to have success and deals with his personal life and the various people he meets. He carries the movie in an endearing way, as he also describes the events breaking the fourth wall. All the others (Parker, Macchio, Turner, Timothy Dalton, Whoopie Goldberg and a few others) give also very good performances. My only complaint is that at times there were some confusing moments (like they were badly edited) and if they weren't in the movie, it would have been much better. As it is, still good but nothing more. And I can't understand why it has a pathetic score of 5,6 on IMDB at the moment.

a simple love story about two people trying to make sense of life while trying to make sense of each other.... artistic, well written, and a cast of thousands....! it changed my life....it may just change yours.

It's a rare romantic comedy that seeks to demonstrate that love does not always conquer all. Here we have two likable young adults whose professional ambitions interfere in their ideals about romance. And guess what? The semi-happy ending sees them parting ways whilst still holding affection for each other. Whew!

One has to admire this film for its refusal to adhere to genre conventions. No doubt the big name producer pulled in an excellent supporting cast. And as a bonus it contains a great subplot detailing the flakiness of the performing arts scene.

Some of the quirkiness is strained, but overall the film offers a breath of fresh air.

If you love movies only when they offer up genre clichés then this movie will disappoint. But if you've seen so many movies that the clichés now stick in your craw, you could do worse than this.