VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,2/10
6470
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaAfter serving three years in prison covering for her gangster boyfriend, Kevin, Gloria returns to New York City for the money she was promised. Inside Kevin's base of operations, she finds 7... Leggi tuttoAfter serving three years in prison covering for her gangster boyfriend, Kevin, Gloria returns to New York City for the money she was promised. Inside Kevin's base of operations, she finds 7-year-old Nicky, whose family has been killed.After serving three years in prison covering for her gangster boyfriend, Kevin, Gloria returns to New York City for the money she was promised. Inside Kevin's base of operations, she finds 7-year-old Nicky, whose family has been killed.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 6 candidature totali
Desiree Casado
- Luz
- (as Desiree F. Casado)
Recensioni in evidenza
Gloria was originally a film by John Cassavetes. I could understand any serious filmmaker wanting to take a stab at material that came out of one of the kings of independent American film. But with Gloria it's a story that could have been told by a lessor filmmaker, a story that might've been told anyway had Cassavetes not jumped on it first. With Sidney Lumet's version, there's not too much of a difference except having in Sharon Stone in the Gena Rowlands part. That's not the main issue to have with the film though, as she is a fine actress. It's the fact that it's just not entertaining, that the connection between Stone and the little boy she saves is not strong or believable ("smoke when you're 10" is a line that stuck with me, sarcastic but not all that funny), and the whole gang story surrounding them also just sits like a lump. There's nothing that Lumet, with all of his skills in his own right, can do to uplift the material or present it in a manner that's fresh or absorbing. I'd say if you had to pick one go for the original. Then check out the rest of the films by Cassavetes, and with Lumet as well. It's a New York story for the birds.
Yeah, I realize what it says under the director's credit. But there is no way in hell that I'm gonna believe that the man that gave us "Network", "Dog Day Afternoon", "Running On Empty", and his own quartet of NYPD dramas ("Serpico", "Prince of the City", "Q&A", and "Night Falls on Manhattan") is even associated with this. This is quite possibly the worst mainstream film of '99, in the cozy company of "Bats", "Virus", "She's All That", and (gasp!) "The Haunting", just to name a few.
Where to begin? The script for starters. How the writer managed to completely foul up the original source material is beyond me. Much of everything that comes out of Sharon Stone's mouth is unintentionally funny, especially in one scene where she tells her young companion, "I'm trying to teach you a philosophy of life here!" after telling him opportunities in his future (these include going to a race track, lovemaking, and "chasing a skinny blonde girl with big boobs.")
And while on the subject of Stone, it's roles like this that manage to solidify the claim that maybe, just maybe, her brilliant turn in "Casino" was a fluke. Please Sharon, say it ain't so!
Like other users have mentioned, the film's only saving grace is the car chase. But there's a lot of tedium to get through until the chase scene comes. Then again, why bother?
Avoid. I can't stress this enough.
Where to begin? The script for starters. How the writer managed to completely foul up the original source material is beyond me. Much of everything that comes out of Sharon Stone's mouth is unintentionally funny, especially in one scene where she tells her young companion, "I'm trying to teach you a philosophy of life here!" after telling him opportunities in his future (these include going to a race track, lovemaking, and "chasing a skinny blonde girl with big boobs.")
And while on the subject of Stone, it's roles like this that manage to solidify the claim that maybe, just maybe, her brilliant turn in "Casino" was a fluke. Please Sharon, say it ain't so!
Like other users have mentioned, the film's only saving grace is the car chase. But there's a lot of tedium to get through until the chase scene comes. Then again, why bother?
Avoid. I can't stress this enough.
I never really believed a second of this movie -- it feels like contrived Hollywood schlock. But I enjoyed it anyway. Sharon Stone's performance is fun, and her wardrobe alone is worth the price of admission. There's also one of the best car chases I've seen in recent years.
"Gloria" is a great looking movie. Sharon Stone's legs and the location photography are both terrific. The rest of the movie isn't so hot. The cast is hit and miss (Stone makes the hit side in a squeaker). The movie is uninvolving. Director Sidney Lumet seems to be going through the motions. This movie also has one of the most boring car chases you'll ever see. "Gloria" is a curiosity piece for fans of the original movie (like me). Dishonorable mention: the music.
"Gloria" Having not seen the original Gena Rowlands version, I was very surprised to feel entertained and satisfied with this remake. Not much happens in this film, so therefore no marketing angles to work. It all depends on your tolerance for Sharon Stone. I have no problem with her. She has had some very fine performances in the past, and she is more capable then most actresses. Yet, her sheer ego and the "glamour" she sweats daily gets in the way of her natural charisma. In "Gloria" she is given full opportunity to own the frame with a detailed and rich performance. Her interaction with the child of the film is funny, and at one point - achingly heartbreaking. She works overtime to make the film connect. Working in the same old NY/LA vortex that has absorbed modern movies, the film is not really ground-breaking in any way, just simply enjoyable. Lately, that's all I ask from a movie. The Brooklyn mob hitmen that are the nemesis of Gloria are boring and cliched, but director Sidney Lumet does a fine job making the violence in the film pleasingly bloody and memorable. This version - I would bet - does not compare favorably to the 1980 Cassavetes's film, but for now I'm amazed how well it works.--------------- 7
Lo sapevi?
- QuizCosting $30m. the film took in a little over $4m during its entire US domestic run.
- BlooperIn the scene where Gloria checks into the hotel, as she takes her shoes off and washes her feet in the bath tub, her shoe is on the floor then it is on the bed.
- ConnessioniFeatured in The 77th Annual Academy Awards (2005)
- Colonne sonorePegaso
Written by Efrain Duarte
Performed by The Latin Brothers
Courtesy of Discos Fuentes Ltd.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Gloria?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 30.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 4.197.729 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 2.143.089 USD
- 24 gen 1999
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 4.197.729 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 48 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti