Naked in New York

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".

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.

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.

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.