NOTE IMDb
5,7/10
9,4 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA disillusioned young writer living in New York City turns to drugs and drinking to block out bad memories and personal tragedy.A disillusioned young writer living in New York City turns to drugs and drinking to block out bad memories and personal tragedy.A disillusioned young writer living in New York City turns to drugs and drinking to block out bad memories and personal tragedy.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 2 nominations au total
Bernard Zette
- Stevie
- (as Zette)
Avis à la une
A lot of the scenes take place in nightclub restrooms and other bathrooms. This is where the characters snort their coke, and stare at their own disappointed faces. What's remarkable for NYC in the 80s (in any decade, really) is that every single toilet stall and urinal is fantastically clean. I take this as a symbol for the movie as a whole - all rather sanitized.
It's not bad, but the plot falls off rather suddenly at the end. Some viewers might not notice, of course, since nothing was ever that worrying, in any case: it's all too well-scrubbed. All the main character ever has to do to fix things is tell his friends he's going to go home and get a good night's sleep. It's hard on a movie when the big question is "will he nap, or won't he?"
It's not bad, but the plot falls off rather suddenly at the end. Some viewers might not notice, of course, since nothing was ever that worrying, in any case: it's all too well-scrubbed. All the main character ever has to do to fix things is tell his friends he's going to go home and get a good night's sleep. It's hard on a movie when the big question is "will he nap, or won't he?"
I won't bother with recounting the plot--plenty of others here have done that--but I will give some thoughts from the perspective of a 40-something who remembers fondly the movie and the times from whence it came.
I remember hating this movie when I first saw it back in the day. I'd read half the novel and hated that too. My main memory of both of them, oddly enough, was the Coma Baby. It features heavily in the book but somewhat less so in the movie.
Watching it again so many years later and so many years out from the 80s, I was surprised to find myself enjoying it. Perhaps it was a nostalgia thing. My mind was certainly flooding with associated memories. 1988 was the year I finished high school. I was soon to leave my little red-neck country town and move to the big smoke where a whole new life would begin (and there have been at least three more since then!).
Some positives: I'm a huge Donald Fagen/Steely Dan fan, so Fagen's soundtrack was appreciated. It doesn't really sound like his regular stuff (until the very end), and was, frankly, often quite cheesy and even out of place at times. But I convinced myself I liked it. Other Fagen fans may also. The movie really grabs the 80s very effectively. Nightclubs, hair, blow, the whole bit. There is a surprising appearance from the wonderful Jason Robards which, shamefully, is uncredited according to IMDb. Considering the size of his role this is kind of odd.
Negatives: Phoebe Cates seemed completely unconvincing as a model and Michael J. Fox was completely unconvincing as a...sorry, but, hey...as a grown-up. He's never really any different from how he was in Back to the Future or even Family Ties. He's still all got up in jeans and a suit jacket, skipping all over the place, and gulping, "Shucks" (at least seemingly). No disrespect to the guy. Just that this movie reminds that he was never so well suited to anything with pretensions to being serious. And that last point sums up the problems with this film: it eventually becomes apparent that the movie is trying to be taken seriously. It just doesn't work though. A pretentious novel as starting place doesn't help. Ham acting and cheese dialog don't help none neither.
Still, an enjoyable time capsule. Kiefer does OK as wise-a** friend. The wonderful Frances Sternhagen, an appearance from the then-soon-to-be-late John Houseman, and even the magnificent William Hickey. Tracy Pollan is gorgeous and Swoosie Kurtz is her usual charming self. The ending is quite poignant, featuring Dianne Wiest, but isn't enough to really justify getting there.
If you're 40-something, watch this with ice cream and snacks on a lazy weekday evening. If you're younger or older than that...probably don't bother, coz it ain't really that great.
I remember hating this movie when I first saw it back in the day. I'd read half the novel and hated that too. My main memory of both of them, oddly enough, was the Coma Baby. It features heavily in the book but somewhat less so in the movie.
Watching it again so many years later and so many years out from the 80s, I was surprised to find myself enjoying it. Perhaps it was a nostalgia thing. My mind was certainly flooding with associated memories. 1988 was the year I finished high school. I was soon to leave my little red-neck country town and move to the big smoke where a whole new life would begin (and there have been at least three more since then!).
Some positives: I'm a huge Donald Fagen/Steely Dan fan, so Fagen's soundtrack was appreciated. It doesn't really sound like his regular stuff (until the very end), and was, frankly, often quite cheesy and even out of place at times. But I convinced myself I liked it. Other Fagen fans may also. The movie really grabs the 80s very effectively. Nightclubs, hair, blow, the whole bit. There is a surprising appearance from the wonderful Jason Robards which, shamefully, is uncredited according to IMDb. Considering the size of his role this is kind of odd.
Negatives: Phoebe Cates seemed completely unconvincing as a model and Michael J. Fox was completely unconvincing as a...sorry, but, hey...as a grown-up. He's never really any different from how he was in Back to the Future or even Family Ties. He's still all got up in jeans and a suit jacket, skipping all over the place, and gulping, "Shucks" (at least seemingly). No disrespect to the guy. Just that this movie reminds that he was never so well suited to anything with pretensions to being serious. And that last point sums up the problems with this film: it eventually becomes apparent that the movie is trying to be taken seriously. It just doesn't work though. A pretentious novel as starting place doesn't help. Ham acting and cheese dialog don't help none neither.
Still, an enjoyable time capsule. Kiefer does OK as wise-a** friend. The wonderful Frances Sternhagen, an appearance from the then-soon-to-be-late John Houseman, and even the magnificent William Hickey. Tracy Pollan is gorgeous and Swoosie Kurtz is her usual charming self. The ending is quite poignant, featuring Dianne Wiest, but isn't enough to really justify getting there.
If you're 40-something, watch this with ice cream and snacks on a lazy weekday evening. If you're younger or older than that...probably don't bother, coz it ain't really that great.
Michael J. Fox does an admirable job in the lead role of this movie adaptation of Jay McInerey's book. The plot concerns one man's downfall over the period of a week, and how it all stems from his mother dying and his wife leaving him. The movie follows the basic plot of the book with few changes. Overall a very decent movie, with a solid cast.
This great film and novel adaptation is obviously underrated.
Although I have not read the book, (and nor should I to be able to personally judge this film), my guess is that probably most people are whining that the book was better. That's like saying that the car was better than the bike. They probably complain that the movie was not a precise enough adaptation. When will people realise that an exact adaptation will usually result in a boring and overly long film?. The movie definitely has the essential qualities for a good film with it's intelligent script, compelling drama, sober realism and superb acting.
This is Michael J Fox's best role and he does a great job. I think he's such an underrated actor, he made Family Ties what it was and will never be forgotten as Marty Mc Fly in Back to the Future, but this is his peak film.
I could very much symphatise and identify with the main character that slowly loses grip on reality, eventually spending most of his time in a drugged state of mind. Drugs are his only joy, until he's finally confronted by his caring brother and becomes at peace with reality in a moderately positive ending (which was criticised by some). His loneliness and desperation are depicted in a very convincing way, with his heartless girlfriend (Phoebe Cates) and harsh boss. My favorite scenes are the ones at work, where his incompetence becomes painfully evident.
Having recently watched Requiem for a Dream (also about drug addiction), I realize this movie's even better. 9 out of 10.
Although I have not read the book, (and nor should I to be able to personally judge this film), my guess is that probably most people are whining that the book was better. That's like saying that the car was better than the bike. They probably complain that the movie was not a precise enough adaptation. When will people realise that an exact adaptation will usually result in a boring and overly long film?. The movie definitely has the essential qualities for a good film with it's intelligent script, compelling drama, sober realism and superb acting.
This is Michael J Fox's best role and he does a great job. I think he's such an underrated actor, he made Family Ties what it was and will never be forgotten as Marty Mc Fly in Back to the Future, but this is his peak film.
I could very much symphatise and identify with the main character that slowly loses grip on reality, eventually spending most of his time in a drugged state of mind. Drugs are his only joy, until he's finally confronted by his caring brother and becomes at peace with reality in a moderately positive ending (which was criticised by some). His loneliness and desperation are depicted in a very convincing way, with his heartless girlfriend (Phoebe Cates) and harsh boss. My favorite scenes are the ones at work, where his incompetence becomes painfully evident.
Having recently watched Requiem for a Dream (also about drug addiction), I realize this movie's even better. 9 out of 10.
Despite the lukewarm reviews this film is always given, it is actually quite good. It may not fare on the same level as more gritty, powerful 80's substance abuse films such as Less Than Zero or Clean And Sober but its very likeable. Yes, some of the scenes from the book don't actually survive their journey to the screen but even these scenes are charming and enjoyable...in an awkward sort of way. For instance, the coma baby. Who doesn't love the coma baby?!?! He's great. And so is Michael J. Fox in what is arguably his best role. He makes Jamie the handsome, vulnerable guy who really "wouldn't be at a place like this at this time of the morning." I can't say someone else couldn't have done it better but Fox pulls it off without trying to sneek around any drama with jokes like a lot of comedy-gone-drama actors try to do. His drunken dialogue in front of Swoozie Kurtz over dinner at her apartment is a genuinely great piece of acting. Keifer Sutherland is there to play Allagash and nobody could play Allagash like Sutherland plays Allagash. And the dialogue is great due to McInerney's wit and ear for the clever talk of the coked-up New York night people. I can't say too much for the directing but the talent here, no matter how misled, is undeniable.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesIn a 2011 interview with "The A. V. Club," David Hyde Pierce said that it cost him more to join the Screen Actors Guild (so that he could appear in this movie) than he was paid for his role, so he had to borrow the dues money from his agent. His character's name was "Bartender at Fashion Show", and his one line was, "Sorry, the bar is closed."
- GaffesDuring Jamie's story of his relationship with Amanda to Megan his wineglass goes from half-full to empty in less than two seconds, while he's speaking.
- Citations
Ferret Man: Wanna buy a ferret?
Jamie Conway: No. No, thanks.
Ferret Man: Loose joints. Genuine Hawaiian sens. His name is Fred...
- Versions alternativesThe Indian television premiere was heavily edited by 12 minutes to reduce language, and heavy drug usage for a 'U' (unrestricted) certificate.
- Bandes originalesLove Attack
Performed by Konk
Courtesy of Dog Brothers Records
Produced by Shannon Dawson & G. "Love" Jay
1986 Single
Words & Music by Shannon Dawson & G. "Love" Jay
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Bright Lights, Big City?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Bright Lights, Big City
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 25 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 16 118 077 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 5 126 791 $US
- 3 avr. 1988
- Montant brut mondial
- 16 118 077 $US
- Durée1 heure 47 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was Les feux de la nuit (1988) officially released in India in English?
Répondre