Naked in New York

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 ;) ).

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.

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.

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.