The Color of Night is actually one of those rare achievements that no director or screenwriter could possibly strive for if they wanted to. A film that fails at pretty much everything it aspires, but manages to become compulsively viewable to see how much further a train wreck it can become and, by some strange twist, actually attains a level of guilty entertainment value it really does not deserve. Blending together the elements of a psychological Hitchcock thriller with the eroticism of Basic Instinct/Fatal Attraction/late night Cinemax films, the filmmakers end up with a conglomeration that was probably a far cry from what they intended, particularly given that director Richard Rush was actually a director of some reputation. Psychologist Bruce Willis has gone color blind since his inept attempts at counseling led to the unintentional suicide of a patient. He decides to seek solace with an old colleague Scott Bakula, who ends up murdered. Police seem to believe that the culprit is one of the participants of the group therapy sessions that Bakula oversaw and Willis steps in to ferret out the culprit. Meanwhile, Willis crosses paths with enigmatic young sexpot Jane March who may be more involved than he suspects. The group therapy sessions are a great source of unintentional comedy. Made up of fairly reliable character actors like Lance Henriksen, Kevin O'Connor and Lesley Ann Warren, all seem to realize that they are in glorified garbage and find intriguing ways in which to embellish their characters and hog the screen. In between, comical therapy sessions, Rush inserts an obligatory chase scene, a bloody murder, or an energetic sex romp between the leads. No one can ever accuse the film of being a bore. Unfortunately the ham factor does not extend to the leads. March has been handed a virtually unplayable part filled with assorted pitfalls, and even the more remedial elements seem out of her reach. She never seems vampish enough to attract the kind of attention bestowed upon her in the film. Even worse, March's distinctive looks render a latter-film plot twist psychotically absurd when the audience has been leagues ahead of everyone else on screen and the respective characters' bafflement seems downright jaw-dropping. Much press was spilled about the torrid sex scenes compiled for the film, including much ballyhooed full frontal exposure from leading man Willis, but the leads generate no sparks. I give Willis credit for a) generously stepping up to the plate and showing substantial skin at a time when most American mainstream leading men would have run in the opposite direction, and b) trying to play the lead role seriously, but he is positively lifeless in this film. One has no rooting interest in either his relationship with March, his ability to counsel his patients, or whether he will even make it out of the various chase/attack scenes in one piece. He has rendered himself into a virtual stick of wood devoid of any emotion. Yet, in spite of its miscast and outmatched leads and the thoroughly incompetent direction, the film has that car accident quality that keeps one watching well past the point where it should be turned off. The conclusion is pure Grand Guignol corn with a bit of a cheat on the murderer, but what an unintentionally hilarious loony ride it is to that point.
143 Reviews
Ludicrous thriller, albeit entertaining in unintentional ways
mnpollio16 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Is it really Willis' Willis?
jotix10020 October 2004
The director's cut, no pun intended, seems to be a much better film than the one that was shown commercially, but it still is a far cry from a satisfactory movie to watch. Richard Rush could have done better, but the psychological film we see, adds nothing to what has already been shown before.
From the beginning we realize who the killer is, as well as the person with the multiple personality problem. It's too obvious! The film relies heavily on the sexual attraction between Bill Capa and Rose. Much has been speculated in this forum about whether we are actually seeing Willis' willis, or not. Since most male stars wouldn't be caught dead showing their genitals, for obvious reasons, what is seen for a second in the pool scene is that of a body double. On the other hand, we see Jane March showing it all, which is a welcome attraction.
Only the final sequence has any impact. There are many things in the plot that don't add up and the viewer is ahead of the story at all times.
Bruce Willis with a hairpiece looks good. Jane March has a better chance with the character she plays. Also Brad Dourif, Lance Henriksen have their moments. The one that doesn't come across well is Ruben Blades, an otherwise excellent actor trying to do a Columbo routine in this film.
From the beginning we realize who the killer is, as well as the person with the multiple personality problem. It's too obvious! The film relies heavily on the sexual attraction between Bill Capa and Rose. Much has been speculated in this forum about whether we are actually seeing Willis' willis, or not. Since most male stars wouldn't be caught dead showing their genitals, for obvious reasons, what is seen for a second in the pool scene is that of a body double. On the other hand, we see Jane March showing it all, which is a welcome attraction.
Only the final sequence has any impact. There are many things in the plot that don't add up and the viewer is ahead of the story at all times.
Bruce Willis with a hairpiece looks good. Jane March has a better chance with the character she plays. Also Brad Dourif, Lance Henriksen have their moments. The one that doesn't come across well is Ruben Blades, an otherwise excellent actor trying to do a Columbo routine in this film.
An odd choice for Bruce Willis...
moonspinner5521 February 2002
Knowing nothing about this movie before I saw it, I have to admit that it surprised me with its plot-twists...but looking back, I should have known better! That's the great thing about trashy movies: you can have a high time while it's playing, knowing you'll hate yourself the next day (and that you'll never have to watch the thing again). Bruce Willis is a psychiatrist troubled by a patient's suicide; he goes to stay with a friend and...to give any more away would be criminal! Suffice it to say, Bruce is nude in this one, and it's a long-held sequence that gives star-peepers what they've paid for. I didn't think the sex scenes were terrifically charged, but you gotta hand it to Willis: he takes a chance here and shows his courage. Yet there are times when he has question marks all over his face, as if to ask, "what's a nice box-office star like me doing in a piece like this?" ** from ****
Director Rush Goes Down with the Ship
jhclues8 July 2002
There's a good film in here somewhere just aching to get out, but the filmmakers seem more interested in playing Box Office Wheel of Fortune than caring about the quality of the product they're trying to sell, and it makes `Color of Night,' directed by Richard Rush, one of those movies that makes you shake your head and think, Ah! what could have been if only! And that single `if' makes all the difference in the world with regards to what finally winds up on the screen.
When his treatment of a patient fails and ends tragically, leaving him with some pronounced psychological damage of his own, New York psychologist Dr. Bill Capa (Bruce Willis) quits his practice and goes to Los Angeles seeking the solace and, perhaps, the help of an old friend and colleague, Dr. Bob Moore (Scott Bakula). Capa quickly discovers, however, that Moore is having problems of his own, apparently stemming from a weekly group therapy session he has been conducting for some time. Moore, it seems, has recently received some death threats, which he believes are coming from one of the patients of this particular group, though he hasn't a clue which one, nor any proof of his suspicions.
Moore invites Capa to sit in on the next group session, hoping for a fresh perspective and possibly some insights into the matter. At the moment, Capa feels incapable of actively engaging in the practice of his chosen field of endeavor, but in light of the fact that he's Bob's house guest, he acquiesces and agrees to observe the group. But it proves to be an inauspicious proposition for all concerned, and subsequent circumstances quickly put Capa at the center of just the kind of situation he left New York to avoid. Once the hand is dealt, however, he has no choice but to play it out to the end.
Rush began his career as a director with low budget exploitation films like `Too Soon to Love' in 1960, and ten films later achieved legitimate status with the highly successful black comedy, `The Stunt Man' in 1980, for which he received an Oscar nomination (along with his leading man, Peter O'Toole). He did not direct again until this film, some fourteen years later, and during that hiatus, Rush apparently lost whatever expertise he had accrued by 1980, and his `roots' are clearly showing in this one. The violence of the film is inherent in the story, but Rush makes it unnecessarily graphic; and while this could have been an incisive and insightful character study (and intrinsically more interesting), he takes the low road, fleshing it out instead with scenes of gratuitous sex and nudity, as well as superfluous action (he works in no less than two ridiculous car chases, one culminating in a vehicle being pushed from the top of a high rise parking garage). Furthermore, he ignores motivations and character development almost entirely; the two areas that required the most attention if this film was going to work at all.
Rush especially lets his actors down, inasmuch as most of these characters presented real challenges that could have been met much more successfully with the help and guidance of the director. Rush would have served his actors, as well as himself, better had he taken the time to explore these people being portrayed with some depth. He apparently did not, however, and with one exception the performances by one and all suffer for it.
In 1994, Bruce Willis simply was not the accomplished actor he is today, and he, especially, could have used some help in finding his character. it was help he obviously did not get, and his Capa ends up being too much John McClane and not enough Malcom Crowe. Willis flounders between the two personalities, creating a kind of schizophrenic characterization that seriously affects the credibility of his portrayal. And it's the same fate suffered by Scott Bakula here. Even in the scenes which places them in their `professional' setting as psychoanalysts, they are simply not convincing.
Making the case of poor directing even stronger are the performances of Lesley Ann Warren (Sondra), Brad Dourif (Clark), Ruben Blades (Lt. Martinez) and Kevin J. O'Connor (Casey). Like Willis, all of them seem to have trouble defining their individual characters, vacillating between any number of personalities and unable to achieve that necessary, final focus. It's the kind of indecisiveness that is usually resolved during rehearsals, but inexplicably made it to the screen here. The single exception is the performance turned in by Lance Henriksen, as Buck, who unlike his costars, somehow managed to find his character and make him convincing.
The odd-'woman'-out of the entire bunch is Jane March, who as Rose has perhaps the most challenging role of all, and when given the opportunity actually displays some talent. Unfortunately, Rush-- for the most part-- uses her in a way that is demeaning and without merit, and she becomes the object of a sleight-of-hand that is nothing more than a cheap trick Rush pulls out of his hat. And by failing to use her in a more productive way, by not concentrating on developing her character (which is so vital to the story), Rush commits his most critical error of all.
The supporting cast includes Eriq La Salle (Detective Anderson), Jeff Corey (Ashland), Kathleen Wilhoite (Michelle), Shirley Knight (Edith Niedelmeyer), John Bower (Medical Examiner) and Andrew Lowrey (Dale Dexter). The high note of this entire project was played before it ever even got off the ground, that being the story itself; but screenwriters Matthew Chapman and Billy Ray proceeded to methodically remove any and all credibility it may have initially contained, and Rush took it from there, taking `Color of Night' straight into that black hole reserved for movies that fail to deliver on their promise. It is not surprising that Rush has not directed a feature film since this one; once the magic is lost, it's hard to retrieve. 2/10.
When his treatment of a patient fails and ends tragically, leaving him with some pronounced psychological damage of his own, New York psychologist Dr. Bill Capa (Bruce Willis) quits his practice and goes to Los Angeles seeking the solace and, perhaps, the help of an old friend and colleague, Dr. Bob Moore (Scott Bakula). Capa quickly discovers, however, that Moore is having problems of his own, apparently stemming from a weekly group therapy session he has been conducting for some time. Moore, it seems, has recently received some death threats, which he believes are coming from one of the patients of this particular group, though he hasn't a clue which one, nor any proof of his suspicions.
Moore invites Capa to sit in on the next group session, hoping for a fresh perspective and possibly some insights into the matter. At the moment, Capa feels incapable of actively engaging in the practice of his chosen field of endeavor, but in light of the fact that he's Bob's house guest, he acquiesces and agrees to observe the group. But it proves to be an inauspicious proposition for all concerned, and subsequent circumstances quickly put Capa at the center of just the kind of situation he left New York to avoid. Once the hand is dealt, however, he has no choice but to play it out to the end.
Rush began his career as a director with low budget exploitation films like `Too Soon to Love' in 1960, and ten films later achieved legitimate status with the highly successful black comedy, `The Stunt Man' in 1980, for which he received an Oscar nomination (along with his leading man, Peter O'Toole). He did not direct again until this film, some fourteen years later, and during that hiatus, Rush apparently lost whatever expertise he had accrued by 1980, and his `roots' are clearly showing in this one. The violence of the film is inherent in the story, but Rush makes it unnecessarily graphic; and while this could have been an incisive and insightful character study (and intrinsically more interesting), he takes the low road, fleshing it out instead with scenes of gratuitous sex and nudity, as well as superfluous action (he works in no less than two ridiculous car chases, one culminating in a vehicle being pushed from the top of a high rise parking garage). Furthermore, he ignores motivations and character development almost entirely; the two areas that required the most attention if this film was going to work at all.
Rush especially lets his actors down, inasmuch as most of these characters presented real challenges that could have been met much more successfully with the help and guidance of the director. Rush would have served his actors, as well as himself, better had he taken the time to explore these people being portrayed with some depth. He apparently did not, however, and with one exception the performances by one and all suffer for it.
In 1994, Bruce Willis simply was not the accomplished actor he is today, and he, especially, could have used some help in finding his character. it was help he obviously did not get, and his Capa ends up being too much John McClane and not enough Malcom Crowe. Willis flounders between the two personalities, creating a kind of schizophrenic characterization that seriously affects the credibility of his portrayal. And it's the same fate suffered by Scott Bakula here. Even in the scenes which places them in their `professional' setting as psychoanalysts, they are simply not convincing.
Making the case of poor directing even stronger are the performances of Lesley Ann Warren (Sondra), Brad Dourif (Clark), Ruben Blades (Lt. Martinez) and Kevin J. O'Connor (Casey). Like Willis, all of them seem to have trouble defining their individual characters, vacillating between any number of personalities and unable to achieve that necessary, final focus. It's the kind of indecisiveness that is usually resolved during rehearsals, but inexplicably made it to the screen here. The single exception is the performance turned in by Lance Henriksen, as Buck, who unlike his costars, somehow managed to find his character and make him convincing.
The odd-'woman'-out of the entire bunch is Jane March, who as Rose has perhaps the most challenging role of all, and when given the opportunity actually displays some talent. Unfortunately, Rush-- for the most part-- uses her in a way that is demeaning and without merit, and she becomes the object of a sleight-of-hand that is nothing more than a cheap trick Rush pulls out of his hat. And by failing to use her in a more productive way, by not concentrating on developing her character (which is so vital to the story), Rush commits his most critical error of all.
The supporting cast includes Eriq La Salle (Detective Anderson), Jeff Corey (Ashland), Kathleen Wilhoite (Michelle), Shirley Knight (Edith Niedelmeyer), John Bower (Medical Examiner) and Andrew Lowrey (Dale Dexter). The high note of this entire project was played before it ever even got off the ground, that being the story itself; but screenwriters Matthew Chapman and Billy Ray proceeded to methodically remove any and all credibility it may have initially contained, and Rush took it from there, taking `Color of Night' straight into that black hole reserved for movies that fail to deliver on their promise. It is not surprising that Rush has not directed a feature film since this one; once the magic is lost, it's hard to retrieve. 2/10.
A real mental patient's opinion of this film...
mentalcritic24 March 2001
As I sit and recall all the idiocies of this film, one of the most amusing that I remember is the idea put forth that a person with DID will disguise themselves to look like a different person when one of their alternates come out. In nearly eleven years of knowingly watching these patients switch from personality to personality, I have yet to see this happen. This is before we even get into the fact that Jane March's behaviour during this film more closely resembles that of a person suffering mania - hypersexuality, paranoia, irrational fear, and so forth.
Bruce Willis must also be wondering why he signed up for this stinker. I'm sure the shooting script must have looked wonderful, but a combination of extremely clumsy editing (the sex scenes in the middle of the film are a wonderful example) and poor character development turned this into another Plan 9 From Outer Space. To all of you who gave this turkey positive comments, I ask you to ask yourselves: what psychiatrist in their right mind would see patients in buildings where it is that easy for patients to off themselves? Especially in such a lawsuit-happy society as America? What psychiatrist in their right mind stays back late in their office without carrying a firearm when they know someone is stalking them? Finally, when was the last time you heard of a psychiatrist taking over a group of patients for a friend in the profession when one of them might have murdered him? Oh, and a special note on Ruben Blades' role: even beat police are not that ignorant about psychiatry, an especially important element of their job considering how often they may be confronted by psych patients waving weapons in the middle of an episodic crisis.
As a veteran of numerous therapy groups, I could not stop laughing at this film. If it had been approached with the intention of making a comedy, then it would have succeeded beyond all expectations. However, the advertising campaign and the babbling tone of the dialogue left me with the general feeling that this film was taking itself WAY too seriously. If you do take yourself that seriously, get a better script. If you have such a ridiculous script that will get laughed at by the 20% that will experience some form of psychiatric problem in their lifetime (that's just a statistical fact based on reported cases... the real incidence may actually be higher), don't take yourself so seriously. It's that simple.
Bruce Willis must also be wondering why he signed up for this stinker. I'm sure the shooting script must have looked wonderful, but a combination of extremely clumsy editing (the sex scenes in the middle of the film are a wonderful example) and poor character development turned this into another Plan 9 From Outer Space. To all of you who gave this turkey positive comments, I ask you to ask yourselves: what psychiatrist in their right mind would see patients in buildings where it is that easy for patients to off themselves? Especially in such a lawsuit-happy society as America? What psychiatrist in their right mind stays back late in their office without carrying a firearm when they know someone is stalking them? Finally, when was the last time you heard of a psychiatrist taking over a group of patients for a friend in the profession when one of them might have murdered him? Oh, and a special note on Ruben Blades' role: even beat police are not that ignorant about psychiatry, an especially important element of their job considering how often they may be confronted by psych patients waving weapons in the middle of an episodic crisis.
As a veteran of numerous therapy groups, I could not stop laughing at this film. If it had been approached with the intention of making a comedy, then it would have succeeded beyond all expectations. However, the advertising campaign and the babbling tone of the dialogue left me with the general feeling that this film was taking itself WAY too seriously. If you do take yourself that seriously, get a better script. If you have such a ridiculous script that will get laughed at by the 20% that will experience some form of psychiatric problem in their lifetime (that's just a statistical fact based on reported cases... the real incidence may actually be higher), don't take yourself so seriously. It's that simple.
Grisly Nonsense
abooboo-218 December 2000
I have to believe there was some studio meddling to make this more of a conventional thriller, because everyone seems to agree that this represents a major step backwards from the man behind the brilliant "The Stunt Man" - Richard Rush. There are little reminders of his talent early on when Willis' psychiatrist is getting to know the mercurial Jane March. Rush has a knack for making the viewer feel like they're being caught up and swept along in someone's feverish dream - the editing and camera placement seem haphazardly designed to make you feel a little dizzy and open to suggestion.
But otherwise, "Color of Night" is episodic, dim-witted, way over-long, and wildly overblown. There is a lot of over-emoting in this film, especially from that queen of over-emoters - Lesley Ann Warren. The movie's idea of excitement is to have various repellent characters scream the F-word a lot, have tears run down their cheeks and threaten to go off the deep end but never quite do. And there are downright idiotic chase scenes, particularly the one that takes place in the parking garage: for some reason, instead of just running him down, the mysterious Camaro driver pushes a parked car off an upper level and tries to time it so that it will land on Willis on the bottom level. And then of course in the very next scene, Willis is behaving as if nothing really traumatic has happened. In fact, Willis is tentative and under-directed throughout the film.
There is one interesting footnote however. Has anyone else noticed the similarity to "The Sixth Sense", at least as far as basic premise? True, the films couldn't be more different in terms of development of story or quality, but to wit: Both star Bruce Willis as a psychiatrist who feels tremendous guilt over a patient he's failed, and they both highlight the color "red". Hmmmm.
But otherwise, "Color of Night" is episodic, dim-witted, way over-long, and wildly overblown. There is a lot of over-emoting in this film, especially from that queen of over-emoters - Lesley Ann Warren. The movie's idea of excitement is to have various repellent characters scream the F-word a lot, have tears run down their cheeks and threaten to go off the deep end but never quite do. And there are downright idiotic chase scenes, particularly the one that takes place in the parking garage: for some reason, instead of just running him down, the mysterious Camaro driver pushes a parked car off an upper level and tries to time it so that it will land on Willis on the bottom level. And then of course in the very next scene, Willis is behaving as if nothing really traumatic has happened. In fact, Willis is tentative and under-directed throughout the film.
There is one interesting footnote however. Has anyone else noticed the similarity to "The Sixth Sense", at least as far as basic premise? True, the films couldn't be more different in terms of development of story or quality, but to wit: Both star Bruce Willis as a psychiatrist who feels tremendous guilt over a patient he's failed, and they both highlight the color "red". Hmmmm.
They Don't Get Much Worse Than This
FMK5 February 2003
When I saw The Man in the Iron Mask through to the end, I thought I'd reached the depth of cinematic embarassment. Color of Night, amazingly, is worse. In this straight-to-trashcan production by Alan Smithee wannabe Rush, Bruce Willis and Jane March co-star in what was probably intended as a psychological thriller, but turned out as a campy comedy with very few laughs. Support actors Pakula, Warren, Dourif and Blades murder lines from a script that should have never been considered for production. The plot roams, swerves and bucks without making any sense at any point in the movie. None of the characters convince or connect, and none of the dialogue moves or sparkles, though Dourif does try. The Raspberries go to Willis and March, though. Willis gets his for the worst script-picking of his career. And March for the mistake of thinking she's in a Playboy feature - though the camera work supports this misconception. These two are supposed to be young lovers, but there is no recognizable chemistry whatsoever. Even the sex scenes are lame and unconvincing. Yes, we get to see Willis's willy. And yes, there isn't much of ms. March we don't get to see. But I've never seen two actors who looked less like they enjoyed making out, and I've seen Attack of the Clones twice. If you're reading this trying to decide if you want to rent this movie, just send me your five bucks. If you're deciding if you want to watch it on TV, go to your bathroom and watch mould develop instead. You'll have a better time.
Suspense, Mystery, Sex, and Violence, what more can you ask for?
yogi-314 July 2002
This is a favorite movie of my wife and I. It stands up to our toughest test, i.e., it stands up to repeated viewing and seems better each time we watch it. Some object to the sex and violence but `get a life' it's just a movie,(as Lt. Hector Martinez (Ruben Blades)) would say `you Daffodils!'
Tries to be a psychological thriller but fails
AlsExGal9 January 2015
This movie won the Razzie award for Worst Motion Picture of 1994. Oddly enough though, it didn't win in any of the other "worst of" categories. This really says something about the film. The fact is, it is just hard to point to any one or even combination of factors of why it is so bad. It's not that any one particular performance is bad or an actor or actress is miscast or that there is particularly cheesy dialogue as is so often the case in a "bad film". It's just that the whole thing comes together to form a whole lot of nothing. It's more what isn't in the film than what is in it that makes it mediocre. Sure, the ending is unexpected, but it would also be unexpected if I found an extra broom when I was cleaning out my closet. That wouldn't make it remarkable, interesting, or even noteworthy. Because I never grew to care about the characters I couldn't be expected to care about the ending. The film is trying to be a psychological thriller with Willis as the protagonist trying to unravel the mystery. What comes out over the duration of the film are just many seemingly disjointed odd events meant to shock but just don't form any kind of cohesive plot. Instead we have what could have been a strong cast of characters in good performances spending the whole film trying to figure out exactly who they are supposed to be. The explicit love scenes between Willis and Jane March are just annoying more than anything as they seem to scream "This is a consolation prize to make up for the fact that you're sitting through such a bad film".
This movie is better than it seems...
Robert_W9 January 2001
Bruce Willis is brilliant as a psychologist, and Scott Bakula does a great job too in his role. Actually, the main reason I rented this movie was to see these two and what they did with their characters. The other actors, mainly Lance Henriksen, do some decent work and keep the story interesting, and even intriguing to a point.
Okay, so this movie has some skin in it - and I did get the directors cut - it's the only way to go...
:)
Jane March is alright to look at, but as someone already pointed out, her teeth stand out a bit. She doesn't get that much screen time however, and the story basically revolves around Willis and his trying to find Bakula's killer.
The ending of the film (the last ten minutes or so) let the film down It almost borders on ridiculous; not due to the realization that is reached, but the action that takes place.
Despite this, it's definitely worth seeing for the great acting by Willis and the truly 'whodunnit' type feel.
[7/10]
Okay, so this movie has some skin in it - and I did get the directors cut - it's the only way to go...
:)
Jane March is alright to look at, but as someone already pointed out, her teeth stand out a bit. She doesn't get that much screen time however, and the story basically revolves around Willis and his trying to find Bakula's killer.
The ending of the film (the last ten minutes or so) let the film down It almost borders on ridiculous; not due to the realization that is reached, but the action that takes place.
Despite this, it's definitely worth seeing for the great acting by Willis and the truly 'whodunnit' type feel.
[7/10]
could be worse
emily026 October 2004
this film isn't a complete loss, but it's close. it pathologises transsexuality. it has lots of gratuitous sex involving a waif and an aging male - and i really mean gratuitous. i don't need to see that much skin from mr. willis. although now i've met mr. willis' willis...
also, the makeup job on certain characters is very, very unfortunate.
but at least it's an interesting film. i mean, i watched it. there are worse.
not the most ringing endorsement, perhaps, but if it's late at night and nothing else is on cable, what the heck. at least you'll be confused enough to keep your attention on the movie.
also, the makeup job on certain characters is very, very unfortunate.
but at least it's an interesting film. i mean, i watched it. there are worse.
not the most ringing endorsement, perhaps, but if it's late at night and nothing else is on cable, what the heck. at least you'll be confused enough to keep your attention on the movie.
A film should entertain and a thriller should thrill - this one does that!
fromwalking8 March 2007
Most people that comment here take the film and story serious as if it has to have taken place or something, to begin with! Look, I saw this film late at night and as a big Bruce Willis fan I liked it. And believe me, I'm not a moron, there's nothing wrong with me. I just liked this film, it was good entertainment (just what a film is supposed to do), good thrilling, (just what a thriller should do!) and good acting. Nice of Brad Dourif to drop by in this film, I remembered him from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (Billy) immediately.
Now for the story, I think character building was adequate. Of course you must not think too much. No psychiatrist would visit their patients at home and there is more that doesn't add up, but never the less, I was surprised with the end. People are getting killed and the killer is out there, really close to the main character. You really don't know who did it, all though you have your hunches. And that makes a thriller worth while, I think. And about eroticism, this film has stuff for him and her. Bruce really looks great in jeans and you get to see him naked here! And Jane March is stunning, also naked. Beautiful sex-scenes and nicely edited. The film has a nice chase too, a Mercedes SL against a Camaro or Trans Am.
Advice: see this film and judge for yourself! (and write it down here!) Switch your senses off and just let yourself be entertained. You'll see, you'll like it!
Now for the story, I think character building was adequate. Of course you must not think too much. No psychiatrist would visit their patients at home and there is more that doesn't add up, but never the less, I was surprised with the end. People are getting killed and the killer is out there, really close to the main character. You really don't know who did it, all though you have your hunches. And that makes a thriller worth while, I think. And about eroticism, this film has stuff for him and her. Bruce really looks great in jeans and you get to see him naked here! And Jane March is stunning, also naked. Beautiful sex-scenes and nicely edited. The film has a nice chase too, a Mercedes SL against a Camaro or Trans Am.
Advice: see this film and judge for yourself! (and write it down here!) Switch your senses off and just let yourself be entertained. You'll see, you'll like it!
Not as bad as all that
smatysia3 March 2001
Warning: Spoilers
This film isn't nearly as bad as IMDb users made me think it was. Yes, there were a couple of fairly ludicrous things late in the movie, such as climbing the tower for no apparent reason, (but remember, that character was a loon) and especially the red Firebird on the top of the parking garage. I have an idea why these things were forced into the movie. Probably just because someone (Rush?) thought it would be cool to photograph. It's sort of like porn, where the most common positions aren't done to reflect real life, or because they are particularly erotic, or even comfortable, but because they provide the best camera angle. Aside from the last twenty minutes or so, the film was pretty good. Jane March being naked a lot helped, of course. It is odd that Willis' character didn't recognize her in her Bonnie persona while walking past her, she didn't look that different. However, I wouldn't have caught on that she was Richie, also. (NOTE: This is NOT a spoiler, because March is listed as all those characters in the cast list on IMDb, which I saw before viewing the movie.) The film has elements of many different genres, and could be thought of as a psychological thriller, an action movie, a dreamy love story, and a regular murder mystery. Bruce Willis turned in a good performance. As much as I try to dislike his smarmy, perpetual smirk, he has a certain charisma as an actor that I cannot deny. In spite of its flaws, this film is worth a look. Grade: B
So bad that it was almost good
TheSubstitute31 August 2003
Okay, first of all, my impression of the film was that... it was basically thrown together by several drunken script writers who didn't have enough material on each of their independent project. So they decided they'd put everything they've got together to make up the time.
Honestly, as you watch the film, you can identify the clear quality changes as well as mood changes. I found it hard to believe it was even directed by a single director. The story lacks emotions, performance, intelligence, believability, continuity, purpose, character... the list can go on. I give you one thing though, the film did have a professional look in terms of photography, but only at an average level.
Thing is though, despite being such a bad film, I did watch it throughout for one reason. I just wanted to find out what the script writer(s) came up with next. You can so blatantly tell that the writer just had a new idea at some point of the story, and forces it into the script and touches up the rest of the plot a little to justify it. Unfortunately while it was entertaining to see so much new material throughout the film, it just made the film fall apart even more. So I dunno, I found it fun as an experience, though I ain't sitting through it again unless I'm pointing and laughing at it with my friends next time it comes on TV.
The sex scenes, I didn't ignore them. Thing is, they were explicit, but they were... well since it's an 18 film... I dare say they're just s**t. The sex scene were badly composed and directed, lacking either the passion you see from love stories, or the energy in porn films. It was just crap, period.
The cast was completely wasted in this movie, including Bruce. Each character were linear and stereotyped, which failed each actor's better credited performances in films of their respective genres. I can just see the actors thinking "God this is the low point of my career, I thought that other film I did was s**t, but this tops it all."
So anyway, I'm sorry I can't stay focus in my review, cos the film was just all over the place so badly I guess... If you have the two hours with nothing better to do, yeah, it's fun to watch it for a laugh but keep the remote near. Just don't take this film seriously, cos it's an insult to your intelligence.
Honestly, as you watch the film, you can identify the clear quality changes as well as mood changes. I found it hard to believe it was even directed by a single director. The story lacks emotions, performance, intelligence, believability, continuity, purpose, character... the list can go on. I give you one thing though, the film did have a professional look in terms of photography, but only at an average level.
Thing is though, despite being such a bad film, I did watch it throughout for one reason. I just wanted to find out what the script writer(s) came up with next. You can so blatantly tell that the writer just had a new idea at some point of the story, and forces it into the script and touches up the rest of the plot a little to justify it. Unfortunately while it was entertaining to see so much new material throughout the film, it just made the film fall apart even more. So I dunno, I found it fun as an experience, though I ain't sitting through it again unless I'm pointing and laughing at it with my friends next time it comes on TV.
The sex scenes, I didn't ignore them. Thing is, they were explicit, but they were... well since it's an 18 film... I dare say they're just s**t. The sex scene were badly composed and directed, lacking either the passion you see from love stories, or the energy in porn films. It was just crap, period.
The cast was completely wasted in this movie, including Bruce. Each character were linear and stereotyped, which failed each actor's better credited performances in films of their respective genres. I can just see the actors thinking "God this is the low point of my career, I thought that other film I did was s**t, but this tops it all."
So anyway, I'm sorry I can't stay focus in my review, cos the film was just all over the place so badly I guess... If you have the two hours with nothing better to do, yeah, it's fun to watch it for a laugh but keep the remote near. Just don't take this film seriously, cos it's an insult to your intelligence.
Willis bares his wiener!
moviecollector16 April 2004
Now, I know this is not even close to being Willis's best movie or role. I still thought this was a decent thriller. A good supporting cast with Brad Dourif(voice of Chucky, the best Horror icon ever!) & Lance Henriksen(who will star in just about anything these days) just to name a few.
I can understand why Jane March hasnt done much, she'll be type-cast as woman who takes clothes off alot. & yeah, this is as close to a porn flick as you can get, when it comes to big named actors in studio movies.
In my opinion, there are worse movies with Bruce Willis. This is worth seeing if you're in the mood for a adult-orientated suspense thriller...with quite alot of sex. & yes, ladies, You can see Bruce's winky in this too.
I can understand why Jane March hasnt done much, she'll be type-cast as woman who takes clothes off alot. & yeah, this is as close to a porn flick as you can get, when it comes to big named actors in studio movies.
In my opinion, there are worse movies with Bruce Willis. This is worth seeing if you're in the mood for a adult-orientated suspense thriller...with quite alot of sex. & yes, ladies, You can see Bruce's winky in this too.
Mind-bogglingly bad.
tommonster3k4 April 2004
Oh man, where to start. I can barely articulate how truly bad this movie is. It's the leading contender for the worst movie Bruce Willis has ever done (that's including "Armageddon"), and it's not hard to see why director Richard Rush had a 14-year gap between this and his last film.
Sadly, a really good supporting cast of Brad Dourif, Lance Henriksen, Kevin J. O'Connor, and Leslie Ann Warren can't help "romantic leads" Willis and Jane March, who are like zombies going through barely comprehensible dialogue and, for reasons unknown, having something resembling a vague simulation of what might be confused for a relationship--I mean, you know, if you were on drugs or something.
Oh, they're in love? We're supposed to know that how? Because they crashed into each other "accidentally" and both look good and steamy with their clothes off? Sorry, but blatant sexuality does not a success in chemistry make.
Gosh, I wonder why Jane March never became a substantial leading lady of film.
Possibly the worst "comic relief" ever in a movie comes in the form of the usually enjoyable Ruben Blades, who is seriously Mexican-ing here. His "funny dialogue" makes half the movie unbearable to listen to. Oh, and there are enough threads left hanging in the "plot" to weave a throw rug that could cover Los Angeles.
And what the heck is the deal with this random title? They must have picked it out of hat labeled "stupid movie titles".
I give it a generous 2/10 stars, if only to show some love to wasted ensemble supporting cast comprising Willis's therapy group. Oh yeah, I see the irony alright. Ack! Stupid, stupid, stupid movie.
Sadly, a really good supporting cast of Brad Dourif, Lance Henriksen, Kevin J. O'Connor, and Leslie Ann Warren can't help "romantic leads" Willis and Jane March, who are like zombies going through barely comprehensible dialogue and, for reasons unknown, having something resembling a vague simulation of what might be confused for a relationship--I mean, you know, if you were on drugs or something.
Oh, they're in love? We're supposed to know that how? Because they crashed into each other "accidentally" and both look good and steamy with their clothes off? Sorry, but blatant sexuality does not a success in chemistry make.
Gosh, I wonder why Jane March never became a substantial leading lady of film.
Possibly the worst "comic relief" ever in a movie comes in the form of the usually enjoyable Ruben Blades, who is seriously Mexican-ing here. His "funny dialogue" makes half the movie unbearable to listen to. Oh, and there are enough threads left hanging in the "plot" to weave a throw rug that could cover Los Angeles.
And what the heck is the deal with this random title? They must have picked it out of hat labeled "stupid movie titles".
I give it a generous 2/10 stars, if only to show some love to wasted ensemble supporting cast comprising Willis's therapy group. Oh yeah, I see the irony alright. Ack! Stupid, stupid, stupid movie.
C R A P
mm-3927 August 2003
Ever watch a film and it did not jive right or had no flow. I can not name what is wrong, but you can feel it. This films lack of continuity is a model for other films to avoid. This film starts out well, and slowly loses steam, instead of building up tension. The characters were awful, especially the cop, and the not very attractive female lead. Why would Bruce get involved with her in the first place puzzles me. This is no Fatal Attraction! Rent Fatal instead. I give this a 3 out of 10.
Complete Turkey
yupuripics25 January 2008
This film begins with promise. The stellar cast list seems impressive and there's an intriguing air of mystery. But it rapidly disintegrates into afternoon TV clichés. The plot is asinine. The dialogue is so weak that it fails even to drive the plot let alone give any depth to the characters. Where there is characterisation it is woefully shallow. And the eventual denouement with its shlock horror and tired Hitchcock clichés is risible.
Poor Jane March seems to be there only for the director to show her body off with the scriptural subtlety of a porn film. And the rest of the usually excellent cast do their best. But as they say here in the UK - you can't polish a t**d....
Poor Jane March seems to be there only for the director to show her body off with the scriptural subtlety of a porn film. And the rest of the usually excellent cast do their best. But as they say here in the UK - you can't polish a t**d....
Do not look for proximity with a gnawed rat
mrdestroyer200130 April 2019
Color blind people are people who, by the will of fate, are forced to look at the world differently. In most cases, this disease affects representatives of a strong half of humanity , namely 2-8% of men. Discomfort in distinguishing three colors: red, green, blue, or their combination, of course, causes considerable inconvenience in the daily life of a person, and especially men. The inability to see the color of the eyes of his beloved woman, the shade of her lipstick, etc., all this is certainly difficult and painful especially from the mental health of a person.
In the movie "The Color of the Night" in a similar situation is the character of Bruce Willis (Dr. Bill Capa). Once in this miserable 2-8%, he suffers from partial color blindness. But his psychoanalyst profession helps him cope with this ailment. Shocked by the death of his patient, he turns to his friend, and he, in turn, invites him to a group therapy session of his patients, who suffer from mental disorders and minor mental disabilities. Five completely different people of different sex, age and wealth. Gathering together, their lifelines connect willy-nilly at one point, and after the tragic events that take place further, the viewer will get to know these heroes more closely and, perhaps, feel a sincere sympathy or opposite feelings for some of them. This is up to you.
"The Color of the Night" is not another film about psychoanalysts, far from it. This is a real detective with its traditional ending in the final. The main character falls to a difficult task: to deal with the "unraveling" of a cruel crime, while in the "meager" way of life comes the one that doesn't care how many colors you distinguish.
The color of night. He can not be confused with anything. The "thick" darkness that follows the day fascinates and scares at the same time. And the color of blood. What is he like? For those who look at the world like everyone else, there will be no difficulty in answering. But for someone who suffers from color blindness , and the blood will be a different shade . What will be its color, learn, seeing the film Richard Rush.
In the movie "The Color of the Night" in a similar situation is the character of Bruce Willis (Dr. Bill Capa). Once in this miserable 2-8%, he suffers from partial color blindness. But his psychoanalyst profession helps him cope with this ailment. Shocked by the death of his patient, he turns to his friend, and he, in turn, invites him to a group therapy session of his patients, who suffer from mental disorders and minor mental disabilities. Five completely different people of different sex, age and wealth. Gathering together, their lifelines connect willy-nilly at one point, and after the tragic events that take place further, the viewer will get to know these heroes more closely and, perhaps, feel a sincere sympathy or opposite feelings for some of them. This is up to you.
"The Color of the Night" is not another film about psychoanalysts, far from it. This is a real detective with its traditional ending in the final. The main character falls to a difficult task: to deal with the "unraveling" of a cruel crime, while in the "meager" way of life comes the one that doesn't care how many colors you distinguish.
The color of night. He can not be confused with anything. The "thick" darkness that follows the day fascinates and scares at the same time. And the color of blood. What is he like? For those who look at the world like everyone else, there will be no difficulty in answering. But for someone who suffers from color blindness , and the blood will be a different shade . What will be its color, learn, seeing the film Richard Rush.
Partially redeemed by the supporting cast.
capkronos10 April 2007
A cocky, smug NYC psychologist (Bruce Willis, who's well cast) watches helplessly as a disturbed patient leaps out a window to her death. Traumatized by the event, he travels to L.A. to visit an ill-fated doctor friend (Scott Bakula), who's promptly murdered. Hmmm... Could the killer be one of the weirdos from Bakula's Monday night group therapy sessions? Willis tries to discover who's responsible but puts aside plenty of time to soak in the in-your-face, goo-goo come-ons of pouty sexpot Rose (Jane March).
Rush's first film since his acclaimed thriller THE STUNT MAN is one big washout story-wise, with ludicrous dialogue and stupid plot developments, plus it goes on forever and has poor work from a completely unsympathetic Willis, an amateurish March and an obnoxious Ruben Blades as the lead cop on the case. So what earns this any stars? Three great character actors in good enough form to elevate this mess to guilty pleasure status; Brad Dourif as an obsessive compulsive lawyer, Lance Henriksen as a embittered man whose family was murdered and Lesley Ann Warren as an insatiable nymphomaniac. All three are great fun to watch in their scenes and the film comes to life when they're on screen. Otherwise it's really not that memorable unless you desperately want to see Bruce Willis' flaccid penis bobbing up and down in the water for about five seconds. That particular scene was cut to keep this from getting an NC-17 rating in theaters (where it flopped), but has been restored for the home video release. Oddly, the fully uncut version of the film reverted back to the R rating once it hit video stores, even though the R-rated video version is identical to the NC-17 theatrical version. Yes, I'm just as confused writing that as you probably are reading it.
Rush's first film since his acclaimed thriller THE STUNT MAN is one big washout story-wise, with ludicrous dialogue and stupid plot developments, plus it goes on forever and has poor work from a completely unsympathetic Willis, an amateurish March and an obnoxious Ruben Blades as the lead cop on the case. So what earns this any stars? Three great character actors in good enough form to elevate this mess to guilty pleasure status; Brad Dourif as an obsessive compulsive lawyer, Lance Henriksen as a embittered man whose family was murdered and Lesley Ann Warren as an insatiable nymphomaniac. All three are great fun to watch in their scenes and the film comes to life when they're on screen. Otherwise it's really not that memorable unless you desperately want to see Bruce Willis' flaccid penis bobbing up and down in the water for about five seconds. That particular scene was cut to keep this from getting an NC-17 rating in theaters (where it flopped), but has been restored for the home video release. Oddly, the fully uncut version of the film reverted back to the R rating once it hit video stores, even though the R-rated video version is identical to the NC-17 theatrical version. Yes, I'm just as confused writing that as you probably are reading it.
Not bad
jazzjunkie25 January 2004
This was a off the wall choice but it turned out fair;y good. The little fact that i could not get is how did he get to live in the house after the owner died. and got to drive around in his car. we just did not see that part. movie was good had enough plot twists Ms Warren was nice and Bruce Willis wasn't too bed either. It kind of threw you in the beginning with everything going on but finally got the just of things later. i wouldn't mind watching it again
A career low for all concerned...
shaun9817 February 2000
NOTE: This review refers to the director's cut! (of course)
This movie fails on just about every conceivable level. There's no drama or suspense. It's just one big mess. The sex scenes are among the worst in film history, and the ending is laughable.
Yet, I cannot bring myself to say I HATED it-as a matter of fact, it hold a certain curiosity value for me. I kept wondering "how bad can this get?"
In terms of acting, it's either overdone or understated. Bruce is stiff, Jane's unconvincing, and Leslie Ann Warren is just plain awful. Lance Henriksen (who should stick to sci-fi/horror) is the only one who actually delivers a decent performance, but his screen time is too limited to make any difference.
As everyone here knows, this one was the subject of a major battle with the MPAA, due to the sex scenes. The ratings board threatened to slap it with an NC-17 rating, forcing the studio to trim it by fifteen minutes.
However, the rating was later appealed in time for its video release, which is the version most people have seen it in. I haven't seen the general release print (125 min), but I can safely say it's no improvement. It might be even worse. It goes on forever, that's for sure.
I suspect the reason the director's cut eventually made it out with an R rating is because the good folks at the MPAA realized it's just too bad to be taken seriously. I personally don't think I'd have the heart to give it an NC-17, although it probably deserves one.
Truly, this is a turkey for the ages.
P.S. This is director Richard Rush's first film since the critically acclaimed (!!!)"Stunt Man" (1980). It will probably be his last.
Rating: * (out of ****)
140 min/Released by Hollywood Pictures
This movie fails on just about every conceivable level. There's no drama or suspense. It's just one big mess. The sex scenes are among the worst in film history, and the ending is laughable.
Yet, I cannot bring myself to say I HATED it-as a matter of fact, it hold a certain curiosity value for me. I kept wondering "how bad can this get?"
In terms of acting, it's either overdone or understated. Bruce is stiff, Jane's unconvincing, and Leslie Ann Warren is just plain awful. Lance Henriksen (who should stick to sci-fi/horror) is the only one who actually delivers a decent performance, but his screen time is too limited to make any difference.
As everyone here knows, this one was the subject of a major battle with the MPAA, due to the sex scenes. The ratings board threatened to slap it with an NC-17 rating, forcing the studio to trim it by fifteen minutes.
However, the rating was later appealed in time for its video release, which is the version most people have seen it in. I haven't seen the general release print (125 min), but I can safely say it's no improvement. It might be even worse. It goes on forever, that's for sure.
I suspect the reason the director's cut eventually made it out with an R rating is because the good folks at the MPAA realized it's just too bad to be taken seriously. I personally don't think I'd have the heart to give it an NC-17, although it probably deserves one.
Truly, this is a turkey for the ages.
P.S. This is director Richard Rush's first film since the critically acclaimed (!!!)"Stunt Man" (1980). It will probably be his last.
Rating: * (out of ****)
140 min/Released by Hollywood Pictures
Awesome!!!
Diane300841 March 2002
I loved this movie! Willis and March are simply excellent. This is a movie that you'll want to watch again and again. I think this flick was highly under rated! The sexual energy between Bruce Willis and Jane March is amazing. However, it's the tiny nuances which really made the film fun to re-watch.
Entertaining
KoenBro3 April 2023
An Agatha Christie-like whodunit remixed with Basic Instinct and a touch of Hitchcock, set in a Psychiatrist's practice in that most psychiatric city, LA with strong early 90s vibes. Jane March is very hot and shows it, and the sex scenes are gorgeous. The characters are otherwise a somewhat underdeveloped catalog of mental disorders, and although I am generally a fan of his, Bruce Willis is not a compelling shrink. The script is extremely implausible, and would have benefited from even a cursory industry consultation. That said, it was quite entertaining and loved the 90s atmosphere. Probably couldn't be made today (2023) so enjoy it while you can.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
