Cleptomanías: el arte de robar

So, first Amy irving she was married to Steven Spielberg in the mid 80s! Imagine the connections she made, the people she met! And in her divorce she got like 10s and 10s of millions , probably over 50.

So she doesnt need the money!!

She marries a director in the 90s who does these kinds of low B grade skin films.. BUT.. thats no excuse for an academy award nominee and married to hollywood royalty ends up doing this low quality B grade soft erotic film.. now, there is nothing wrong with these types of films. But someone like Amy Irving doing it? She doesnt need the money! So. Passion project? Just wanted to? Fine.. now Patsy Kensit.. Ok,her biggest film was probably Lethal Weapon 2 she was already a huge star in the UK and Europe due to her singing career and the british tabloid culture.. coming off lethal weapon2 and going into the 90s she was famous. So why is she doing this movie? Well.. thats what she does , she was well known for these cheap B grade movies.. straight to video type films...

this film makes sense with no name actors.. or actors who need money...

I dont understand why these two ladies signed on to this!

But.. I guess they like these kind of stories and these kind of characters. So even though they have money,they just wanna play these characters in these low budget movies.

Anyway... Its not that terrible. Some bad acting from the co stars and the over all quality of the film is low budget.. there is some nudity.. the girls are obviously good looking so this keeps men engaged I guess..

I am a big fan of Patsy Kensit. I know a lot less about Amy Irving. Both are beautiful actresses playing unflattering, if not ugly, roles here. They do both have brief nude scenes in this film, however. Those are the highlights. This is basically not a very good movie. It seems that it maybe could have been, but the opportunity was lost. One never comes to care about any of the characters. There is some early exposition that is supposed to let us know why these people behave the way they do, but even so, the characterizations are very shallow. I'm guessing that the actors all did what they could with a poor script.

So Kleptomania is not something that people think of as a good movie. Why am I not surprised? What is somewhat surprising, though, is why a talented actress like Amy Irving would chose to be involved in this one. Sure, it's a leading role and the character is sort of interesting, but honestly, there's so much better that she can be doing, why this?

But since I appreciate the talents of Amy Irving and there was nothing else on, I did watch it and um, while it passed the time alright, she's...certainly appeared in better. Perhaps it was the somewhat uneven storyline(two women, Irving and Patsy Kensit, join up together and steal a lot of people's possessions), the gratuitous "erotic" sequences(Irving's character acting repulsive with a necklace, her character not wearing anything, etc. I was so repulsed I had to turn it), and particularly Patsy Kensit's grating, annoying, and extremely unlikeable character that make me feel this way. Perhaps she felt this was a chance to diversify a little bit and it certainly is well, quite different from such films as "Crossing Delancey" and "Voices," but really, there are better films out there.

Although this film is lack of something small that can make it more than just a bad film, (maybe good directing.but who am I to judge?), there is a special urban atmosphere in the film, that can really create an empathy between the viewers and the characters. What the characters represent, which is being an addict, being sick or crazy, and stand for nothing as a matter of fact, is a symbol. It symbolizes the dark side of the urban culture, and I think the film surprisingly manage to create a conception and pass it towards the viewers. Many symbols of the urban culture are used well in the film: Crimes, alcohol, the subway, the empty big studio apartment and of course the kleptomania. There is a hidden message in the film, you just need to work hard in order to be able to recognize it. So the film is not a great creation, but it has it's own magic in my eyes.

While watching this movie, I knew that I was being asked to feel empathy for the heroine, played by Amy Irving, but I couldn't help feeling more for the character of the husband, played solidly by Victor Garber. Irving's character of the stereotypical rich-and-bored housewife just didn't touch me at all. I kept thinking, "Send some of that misery my way!" Victor Garber's character is neglectful of his wife's needs to some degree, but it was obvious that many times she asked for more than maybe he was able to give. At any rate, his is the most well-rounded character...he gains an insight about himself that none of the others (especially, the shrill, annoying character that Patsy Kinset plays) seem to. While other characters remain static, Garber's character holds a mirror to his "sins" and gains new depth. The sub-plot of Irving's obsessions is rather predictable. The best way to enjoy this movie is to concentrate on the conflicts that exist in this couple that, on the surface, seem to have it all.