Glória, a Mulher

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.

Gloria (Sharon Stone) is released from prison in her party dress. Her parole is in Florida but she immediately travels to New York City anyways. She wants her money from mobster boyfriend Kevin (Jeremy Northam) after taking the rap and spending three years in prison. Nicky is a young boy being hunted by Kevin's gang. His father had stolen a computer disk and given it to him as he goes on the run. The boy is alone after his family is massacred. When Kevin refuses to pay Gloria, she decides to take the boy.

Sharon Stone is doing some overacting. It's the heart of the problem and her greatest sin is that she's not Gena Rowlands. Gena shows glimpses of her heart but Sharon is doing an acting bit. There is some reworking of the premise but that is not solving anything. In the end, it all falls upon the chemistry between Sharon and the kid. If she calms down and has more time with the boy, the relationship would actually have the room to breathe. If taken as its own movie, this is marginally fine. As a remake, it is a step below.

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.

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.

Even though I was a kid when I saw the original, I can remember it being much more endearing and convincing than this Sharon Stone remake. It's not great, it's not bad, but Sharon does not ever convince me that she is a "mother-figure" to the orphaned boy she wants to help. She's always just a little too abrasive, too tough, and trying too hard to be sexy in this role.

The boy who plays one of the lead characters comes off better than Sharon. I'm wondering what kind of recruiting they needed to get George C. Scott and Jeremy Northam in this movie. My advice is to stick to watching Sharon Stone in her usual glamorous, sex-pot type roles. They are much more suited to her style.