VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,5/10
1817
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaJake meets Joanne in college. He's into theater, writing plays. She's into photography. They move in together etc. She meets Elliot, owner of a big gallery, works for him and things change.Jake meets Joanne in college. He's into theater, writing plays. She's into photography. They move in together etc. She meets Elliot, owner of a big gallery, works for him and things change.Jake meets Joanne in college. He's into theater, writing plays. She's into photography. They move in together etc. She meets Elliot, owner of a big gallery, works for him and things change.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 1 candidatura in totale
David Johansen
- Orangutan
- (voce)
Recensioni in evidenza
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".
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.
I remember when this came out it was pretty much savaged by the critics, in fact it made a few 'worst films of the year' lists for 1994. For the life of me I can't understand why. Its really a quite good protrayal of a just out of college couple trying to make it in the 'art' world. Him (Eric Stoltz) as a playwrite, her (Mary-Louise Parker) as a photographer, and how their ambitions in the real world changes their relationship. It has good dialogue, some quirky-arty surreal effects (like when the stone faces in the wall started talking) which worked for me, and a great cast of believable characters. Jill Clayburgh was especially good in this one.
Kicking and Screaming, also underrated, is another film you'll like if you like this one.
Rent this one so you can remind yourself why you should never listen to critics (except this one of course ;) ).
Kicking and Screaming, also underrated, is another film you'll like if you like this one.
Rent this one so you can remind yourself why you should never listen to critics (except this one of course ;) ).
Two good actors, Eric Stoltz and Mary-Louise Parker, are overshadowed by a poor script and poor direction. The excessive use of asides and narration, along with a poor script, make this in all a poor movie.
The plot idea is good. Two people fall in love and must decide between careers going in geographically opposite directions and their mutual attraction for each other. That's a great idea for a plot, but it just didn't play out.
The plot idea is good. Two people fall in love and must decide between careers going in geographically opposite directions and their mutual attraction for each other. That's a great idea for a plot, but it just didn't play out.
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.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizRalph Macchio's controversial role was chosen by his manager to "promote his popularity".
- Citazioni
[On marriage]
Jake Briggs: I've been trying to fit it into the context of my life, you know what I mean? And life, life is... curious.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Naked in New York?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 5.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 1.038.959 USD
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 1.038.959 USD
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Vado a vivere a New York (1993) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi