The Linguini Incident

Ok, I really do not see why this movie got such bad reviews. This is one of my very favorites of all time. David Bowie is hot, it had a good cast, and an inventive story board. Everyone that I know that has seen it, even non-Bowie fans, has liked it.

It's often said that a film is made in the edit. Sometimes, though, that's where it dies. A misstep in pacing, a scene trimmed too far, a story-thread reshuffled to please the wrong audience- these are the silent assassins of good cinema. However, a film's release isn't always its final form. Some escape the cutting room only to stumble into cinemas half-formed, victims of studio interference, rushed deadlines, or just bad timing.

Yet, every now and then, they get a second chance. A director's cut can resurrect what was lost, revealing the version that was always meant to be. 'Blade Runner', 'Brazil' and countless others have been retroactively rescued, proving that editing isn't just a technical process- it's where a film finds its rhythm, its shape, its soul.

Richard Shepard's feature film debut 'The Linguini Incident' was a critical and commercial failure upon release in 1991. Best described as quirky, it follows Lucy, an aspiring escape artist stuck working as a waitress in a chic New York restaurant. Alongside fellow misfits Viv, a lingerie designer, and Monte, a charismatic English bartender with a suspiciously flexible approach to the truth, Lucy decides to rob the restaurant. What follows is a clumsy, chaotic caper- a good way of summing up the film itself.

In a 2024 Filmmaker magazine article, before the 4k re-edit and release of the film, Shepard blamed the failure of 'The Linguini Incident' on it being taken away from him "recut, barely released and opened on the weekend of the 1992 LA riots." It's a compelling set of excuses, and to be fair, they probably hold some water. Unfortunately, even with Shepard's fresh cut, the film just isn't great.

Although the new version is sharper and more coherent, with improved pacing, it's not a transformation. This isn't 'Blade Runner' reclaimed from the ashes. It's a strange, meandering flick with moments of charm but just as many moments where Shepard and co-screenwriter Tamar Brott's narrative drifts aimlessly, unsure of what it wants to be.

Is the film a romantic-comedy? It's neither very romantic, nor that funny, so perhaps not. Is it a crime caper? A parody? At times, it flirts with being a satire, poking at the same chic environments and yuppie vanity that 'American Psycho' skewered so well- though with significantly less bite. Further, the characters are insufferably trendy- stylishly disaffected, meticulously dressed and prone to dialogue so overly hip it would be too much even in a John Waters film.

There's a calculated coolness to everything that tips over into affectation, as though the film is so busy admiring its own reflection it forgets to tell a story worth caring about. It's not that it is aggressively bad- rather it's stubbornly unsure of itself. Scenes wander off on tangents, jokes hang in the air without landing and the plot, such as it is, appears less driven by character than a vague desire to keep things moving.

Visually, the film has a certain undeniable charm. Robert D. Yeoman's cinematography captures a stylish early-90s New York with a glossy sheen complementing the film's aspirational, if scattered, energy. There's a crispness to the framing and lighting, adding atmosphere and life, even if the story can't always keep pace.

The production design leans into the aggressively curated aesthetic of the era: sleek restaurant interiors, breadsticks shaped like driftwood, cocktails served in crystal glasses. The sets and costumes are impeccably styled, helping to sell the world these characters inhabit, even when the script falters. However, these flashy stylizations are both a strength and a weakness-the film is so busy looking good it sometimes forgets to breathe.

Further, the score echoes this polished, slightly off-kilter vibe. It's jaunty and playful, underscoring the caper elements with light jazz and quirky melodies, yet occasionally veering into the overly whimsical. The music does a decent job of keeping things moving, but rarely adds any emotional depth or tension. In a film struggling to find its narrative footing, the score feels like a pleasant accessory rather than a driving force.

The film's main strength is its cast. Rosanna Arquette makes for a delightfully offbeat lead, blending neurotic charm with a hint of world-weariness that keeps Lucy from becoming just another quirky archetype. Her performance anchors the film's scattered energy, providing a relatable core amid the chaos.

David Bowie, meanwhile, brings his usual enigmatic magnetism to Monte, the charming bartender with a penchant for bending the truth. His presence elevates the material, adding a layer of genuinely cool sophistication and just the right dash of mystery. Even when the script falters, Bowie's effortless charisma never does.

Further, Eszter Balint is a delight as Viv, damn near stealing the show at times, while Marlee Matlin makes the most of an all too small role as the restaurant receptionist. Conversely, as the restaurant owners, Buck Henry and Andre Gregory are ridiculously over the top, playing the material as broad farce. Gregory especially hams it up to an irritating degree, actively damaging the film around him.

In conclusion, Richard Shepard's 'The Linguini Incident' is less a lost classic waiting to be rediscovered than a curious artifact of early '90s indie whimsy- equal parts charm and confusion, style over substance and ambition tangled in uncertainty. While the director's cut polishes a rough gem, it still never quite shines. For Bowie fans, it's worth a look- though it's a bit half-baked.

This movie was witty, clever and fun. It was even better the second time. Every time I see it, I notice something new.

It is a true social commentary on the "trend-sucking leeches" of New York City in the 1990's.

This is almost a "screwball comedy", but not quite. The pacing is slower. The characters do and say silly things, but only after careful deliberation. Everyone in this movie is so cute you want to rub noses with them. No knee-slappers, but lots of chuckles and smiles. This is a good movie. This is a nice movie. It has a happy ending, which is rare these days. Bowie's acting was competent but unremarkable. I think it was nice to see a "steady-eddie" in the role. It's almost a conventional story with trappings of a farce. The audience knows it a farce. The players know its a farce. The players know that the audience knows its a farce. Therefore we all enjoy ourselves.

Lucy (Roseanna Arquette) works in a very upscale NYC restaurant but longs to be a magician. Monte (David Bowie) is a new bartender at the same eatery and dreams of marrying an American. The restaurant is scathingly successful and the owners are tres wealthy. Can Lucy and/or Monte get their hands on some of the dough? Is this before or after a romance begins? This wonderful movie is quirky and cute, with the two stars delighting the audience at every moment. The script is stroke of genius, very awe-inspiring. Then, too, the sets and the costumes are great while the supporting cast is a dream. The scene involving toasted marshmallows is recommended here enthusiastically. In short, plan for one of life's great evenings....rent this film and eat delicious take-out linguini between giggles.