Naked in New York

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.