Naked in New York

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".

If you intend to watch this movie keep clear to has little snap before, because it's too slow down that needs patience, even Scorsese involved in the project didn't help too much, some boring scenes which stay quite clear just spent a time, a matter of fact it's an art movie, so many famous actors in the cast adds a little only, the picture is really something fresh, but doesn't reach nowhere, the final scene is remarkable and can justify my vote!!!

Resume:

First watch: 1995 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 6

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.

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.

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.