Artworks

With the knockout body that virginia madsen has i was disappointed to see it all restricted by undergarments ... she has gotten naked in other films with guys like vincent spano and don johnson so what is wrong with rick rossovitch ... perhaps too old

Jim Amatulli, the director of "Artworks" has created a film with a visual style that is appealing, as well as pleasing to the eye. The film, although flawed, will entertain thanks to Mr. Amatulli's eye for detail and the enormous appeal of all the principals in it.

If you haven't seen the picture, please stop reading now.

Virginia Madsen is an interesting actress to watch. Ms. Madsen hasn't had the success she deserves. She's a natural who makes all the characters she plays come to life. In here she's the tormented soul who loses a baby at the beginning of the film as well as her marriage to a man she has stopped loving.

Emma Becker loves to paint. She also has an eye for finding neglected masterpieces in the homes of rich suburbanites where she goes to help set alarm systems. Her father is the chief of police. Emma is at a low point of her life when we meet her.

Enter Brett, the gallery owner. He sees in Emma a possible partner for getting into the homes of the rich people and stealing some of their treasures. With the help of Corey, the gallery assistant, they have a sure set up.

The problem with the screen play is that it has a lot of holes in it. We know how it will end. When Emma is confronted with the facts of the crime that points out to her, she doesn't fight back, but promise to cooperate and get the others involved, at the expense of losing the man she has come to love and has given her another lease on life.

Virginia Madsen, as Emma, makes an excellent contribution to the film. Rick Rossovich, as Brett, brings a mixture of sex and mystery to his gallery owner. Both actors are seen in intimate ways that are done in perfect taste. We get the passion and the heat going on between them in a way that under another director would have seemed tacky and gross.

"Artworks", while predictable, shows a new talent who will probably go to do great work in the near future. This picture is richly textured with brilliant colors.

The premise of her entering this lifestyle after losing a baby is quite interesting to me, as I am well aware that grief can turn a person's life totally around, for better or worse. The fact that she shows remorse when she sees a photograph of her husband, but that remorse does not deter her from continuing is a touch that I find realistic. She's trying to fill the void in her life with thrill experiences, and that doesn't always mean sex scenes. I do think the husband gave up far too easily, however. By the way, I disagree with the other user, and I happen to appreciate Rossovich's looks. Sure, it could have been better written, but I think the acting levels are very good in this movie, and I would watch it again!

The flick has genuine entertainment value. At the same time, one can't take it too seriously as gaps in scenes and plot prevail. But, that's OK as this movie is generally enjoyable. I've loved Virginia Madsen for a long time and she looks her sexy best albeit with some obvious good plastic having picked up her somewhat bulging eye type. Her look now is just classy and pretty. There is no one sexier around. Madsen knows what she has and uses it perfectly in Artworks. I didn't find Rick Rossovich to be a good match with Virginia. Somehow he just doesn't do it like say Don Johnson did in another film done with Viginia Madsen. Net net however, the idea is very good and that's what works so well along of course with Madsen's acting and seething hot style. She has a knockout perfect figure, and has never looked better. She now fits into this movie like a glove. Artworks is simply one of those movies, despite it's many gaps, that just entertains, is not too long or too short and then leaves a lot of good ideas for the viewer's imagination. A nice idea but to be taken with a serious grain of pepper. Look out for this movie on cable or rent it. You'll enjoy for the duration of the picture and then most likely will forget it, save Virginia Madsen, of course.

'

Basically, that's all there is to say about it. You watch for the art, the dialogue, the acting, the look of the film, the fascinating inside look at the art world, and the unbelievable chemistry between Virginia Madsen and Rick Rossovich. Hell, just seeing Virginia Madsen, who has NEVER looked better, in a role where she is both seduced and seducer, makes it worthwhile. Just entering her fourth decade as she made this film, she radiates sexual charisma, while showing remarkable acting chops in the process. One of the most criminally underutilized actresses in Hollywood, without question--hopefully that will change now. And btw, she was ROBBED at the Oscars.

Emma Becker is a woman in a bad marriage, who feels a special love for lesser known works of art that are ignored and neglected by the shallow people who own them. Rossovich plays Bret, a gallery owner who shares that love, and sees right away that the neglected work of art he most wants to acquire is Emma herself. The best thing about this movie, in fact, is the way it allows all us longtime Madsen-watchers to just bliss out on one of the most beautiful women ever to appear on film--particularly since most of her movies just don't allow her beauty to shine out the way this one does. (And unfortunately, most of her movies make this movie look like a classic.) One irony that occurred to me while watching it on Showtime--Madsen herself has come back into vogue since making this movie, thanks to "Sideways"--probably the main reason "Artworks" is now on DVD and getting shown fairly often on cable. A neat parallel with the events of the film. But while "Sideways" is a better movie than "Artworks" in general terms, "Artworks" is a better movie than "Sideways" if you're a Madsen-holic. And I don't mean her tough guy brother Michael, though he's pretty cool too. (g) There are no good guys or bad guys in this picture--in the end, it's just about people going after what they want, and the not-so-terrible price they pay, and you aren't supposed to sympathize--just recognize that part of yourself that might do the same thing in their place.

You ask yourself--did Bret seduce Emma because he needed her to pull the perfect heist? Or did he come up with the heist as a way to seduce Emma? In the end, it works too well by half, as Emma finds her creative juices being stimulated by the danger, as much as the sex, which become hopelessly intermingled in her mind, like two colors blending together. She can't stop herself--so the movie has to come up with a way to stop her. It's not entirely convincing--can even a villa in Tuscany make up for the loss of her adrenaline high? Can Bret trust this dream come true, when it came at the price of her betraying him? I guess a lot of people would like the chance to find out.

It might have been a lot better, no question. I don't think the ending is a problem, so much as the overly swift resolution of the dilemma the characters find themselves in. But I think it's pointless to judge a movie by what it might have been--you judge a movie by what it is, and this movie is worth seeing if you're interested in art, good acting, great sex scenes, and Virginia Madsen--in that order.

The modern jazz score is done with superb taste, as is the film itself. If you can accept the deficiencies in the script, no worse than many a nifty 1930's Pre-Code picture, you'll have a lot of fun. And did I mention the sex scenes? It takes a big powerful actor like Rossovich not to get totally blown away by Madsen's powerfully erotic presence. Without really getting very explicit by today's standards, they heat up the screen more than any thousand soft core porn-snorers you could catch on Cinemax in late night. Genuine eroticism is a rare quality in movies today. It's almost a lost art in itself, for American movies. Enjoy it while you can. Virgina's got an Oscar nomination now, so she'll probably be doing a lot more straight dramatic roles. Shucks. (g)