PatrickH-2 wrote on IMDB:
Bizarre is probably the best word to use when describing this film.
The plot lazily, and arbitrarily, bounces back and forth between totally
under-written characters and indeterminate settings (at one point I
thought
some scenes were taking place in Monte Carlo), with barely a nod to
coherence. Blair Brown, always fascinating, doesn't have too much to work
with here; her character is woefully undeveloped. The mysterious stranger
is nothing more than a stalker, and no reason is given for her falling in
love with him other than the luxury he can offer her. Bridget Fonda has
nothing to do; the scenes in the hospital seem straight out of another
movie
(or an episode of St. Elsewhere).
Despite the flim's almost dizzying lack of sense, I could not, at
times, take my eyes away from it. This film is redolent of the sort of
warm-shadowed, color-flecked rococo headiness (just look at the title
sequence) that is often associated with the culture of the late eighties
(watch Bonfire of the Vanities- dont turn up the volume, or pay attention
to
the characters, just look at the sets). Perhaps the incoherence of the
film
added to this mysterious gauziness.
In any case, I still cant believe this came out of David Hare
(despite the presence of Blair Brown). A playwright I usually admire,
Hare
can go off track, and this is a definite instance of that. There is even
a
gratuitous, non-sequitur joke about actors, done in a set that includes a
poster for a Hare play. This sort of in-jokeyness is completely out of
place in a film that sets itself up as a psychological mystery/romance.
Also, Nick Bicat's score is distracting, often building into pointless
crescendoes in the middle of talky scenes. This movie is . . . . well,
lets
just call it a curiosity.
Written on IMDB a long time ago.
