Gloria

"Gloria" Having not seen the original Gena Rowlands version, I was very surprised to feel entertained and satisfied with this remake. Not much happens in this film, so therefore no marketing angles to work. It all depends on your tolerance for Sharon Stone. I have no problem with her. She has had some very fine performances in the past, and she is more capable then most actresses. Yet, her sheer ego and the "glamour" she sweats daily gets in the way of her natural charisma. In "Gloria" she is given full opportunity to own the frame with a detailed and rich performance. Her interaction with the child of the film is funny, and at one point - achingly heartbreaking. She works overtime to make the film connect. Working in the same old NY/LA vortex that has absorbed modern movies, the film is not really ground-breaking in any way, just simply enjoyable. Lately, that's all I ask from a movie. The Brooklyn mob hitmen that are the nemesis of Gloria are boring and cliched, but director Sidney Lumet does a fine job making the violence in the film pleasingly bloody and memorable. This version - I would bet - does not compare favorably to the 1980 Cassavetes's film, but for now I'm amazed how well it works.--------------- 7

Gloria (Sharon Stone) is released from prison in her party dress. Her parole is in Florida but she immediately travels to New York City anyways. She wants her money from mobster boyfriend Kevin (Jeremy Northam) after taking the rap and spending three years in prison. Nicky is a young boy being hunted by Kevin's gang. His father had stolen a computer disk and given it to him as he goes on the run. The boy is alone after his family is massacred. When Kevin refuses to pay Gloria, she decides to take the boy.

Sharon Stone is doing some overacting. It's the heart of the problem and her greatest sin is that she's not Gena Rowlands. Gena shows glimpses of her heart but Sharon is doing an acting bit. There is some reworking of the premise but that is not solving anything. In the end, it all falls upon the chemistry between Sharon and the kid. If she calms down and has more time with the boy, the relationship would actually have the room to breathe. If taken as its own movie, this is marginally fine. As a remake, it is a step below.

Any film that bills itself a remake of John Cassavetes's 1980 'Gloria' is obviously putting itself up to an incredibly high standard, and without the benefit of the doubt of originality. This 1999 version thus not surprisingly fails to live up to its namesake, but if you go in resigned to this inevitability, you can still enjoy it albeit reservedly.

The real problem with this take is the writing. The concept is familiar enough to keep the essential plot elements together while still trying to do something different enough to hold our interest. To this end, the inciting incident near the start is done chillingly enough to give us hope that this might be good on its own merits. Unfortunately, as the film progresses, the original parts - save some nice one-liners - are executed progressively less gracefully. The pretext behind Gloria's pairing with the kid isn't 100% convincing (though could be worse) and the conclusion is decidedly sloppy. The plot feels by that time, as one writer said of a TV episode from many years ago, to hang together about as well as a soggy potato chip.

Fortunately, director Sid Lumet salvages what he can, ramping up the heat and the action as much as is tolerably possible to keep us entertained. Sharon Stone as a noticeably-younger take on the title character adds more than enough sex appeal - physical and emotional - to her character to hold our interest even when the script goes awry, as it often does. She plays the character with a lighter and somewhat less intense demeanor than Gena Rawlings did, but with just as much energy, and her airier way is arguably justified by the age differential. She definitely didn't deserve a Golden Razzie nomination for the role, but Jean-Luke Figueroa as Nicky, the kid, arguably did. On the other hand, he didn't have much to go on, either, the script withholding from him the kind of rough edge and from his relationship with Gloria the intense, almost romantic bittersweet tension that was there in the original.

"Less intense" is becoming something of a refrain in this review. It's an assessment that doesn't apply to *most* of the action but certainly to the interstices. But perhaps this too could not have been helped no matter what the script, performers or director: as other reviewers have pointed out, the original 'Gloria' was above all set in the gritty, dangerous New York that in hindsight existed only briefly from the 1960s through the 1980s. A 1999 version would have had to be a period piece to capture the same spirit as the original and even then would have been both a tougher task and a tougher sell.

Overall I'd give it a solid B-: worthwhile to see Sharon Stone as much as or moreso than to see her as the eponymous character, and good for a light, laid-back evening in to chill down after a stressful day, but don't go in looking for anything deep, analytical or thought-provoking.

Yeah, I realize what it says under the director's credit. But there is no way in hell that I'm gonna believe that the man that gave us "Network", "Dog Day Afternoon", "Running On Empty", and his own quartet of NYPD dramas ("Serpico", "Prince of the City", "Q&A", and "Night Falls on Manhattan") is even associated with this. This is quite possibly the worst mainstream film of '99, in the cozy company of "Bats", "Virus", "She's All That", and (gasp!) "The Haunting", just to name a few.

Where to begin? The script for starters. How the writer managed to completely foul up the original source material is beyond me. Much of everything that comes out of Sharon Stone's mouth is unintentionally funny, especially in one scene where she tells her young companion, "I'm trying to teach you a philosophy of life here!" after telling him opportunities in his future (these include going to a race track, lovemaking, and "chasing a skinny blonde girl with big boobs.")

And while on the subject of Stone, it's roles like this that manage to solidify the claim that maybe, just maybe, her brilliant turn in "Casino" was a fluke. Please Sharon, say it ain't so!

Like other users have mentioned, the film's only saving grace is the car chase. But there's a lot of tedium to get through until the chase scene comes. Then again, why bother?

Avoid. I can't stress this enough.

I never really believed a second of this movie -- it feels like contrived Hollywood schlock. But I enjoyed it anyway. Sharon Stone's performance is fun, and her wardrobe alone is worth the price of admission. There's also one of the best car chases I've seen in recent years.