IMDb RATING
5.6/10
1.8K
YOUR RATING
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.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.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 win & 1 nomination total
David Johansen
- Orangutan
- (voice)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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".
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 ;) ).
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaRalph Macchio's controversial role was chosen by his manager to "promote his popularity".
- Quotes
[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.
- How long is Naked in New York?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $5,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $1,038,959
- Gross worldwide
- $1,038,959
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content