User Reviews (69)

Add a Review

  • James Spader is typically engaging in the role of Michael, a wimpy yuppie who tends to not stand up for himself. He is about to get obliterated by a jealous boyfriend in a bar, when a stranger (Rob Lowe) steps in to save his ass. He ends up running into Lowe again, and thanks him, and a curious relationship develops. "Alex" (Lowe) introduces the element of risk into Michaels' life, and helps him "grow a pair", so to speak. But Michael soon learns that only dark things will come out of this supposed "friendship", and he realizes that he must eliminate Alex from his life.

    "Bad Influence" is a decent thriller set in hip, "modern era" California, with various clubs and parties used as backdrops. Well shot by Robert Elswit, it boasts a screenplay by then relatively fresh screenwriter David Koepp. It may not be on the level of "Strangers on a Train", but it entertains in compelling enough fashion. The give and take between our hero and his nemesis creates sufficient tension, as Alex sets about trying to prove that he was merely exposing the hidden ugly side that Michael wasn't showing the world. As this plays out, you can't help but sympathize with Michael to some degree, as the story turns into this kind of nightmare that seems to have no end in sight. There are some sexy ladies in the cast, and a little dose of gore, so this thriller does deliver in terms of some sex and violence. Director Curtis Hanson, who at this time hadn't yet achieved mainstream recognition, guides it all in style.

    Lowe is decent as the shady antagonist with the undetermined motives. He seems to be just plain evil. Spader outshines him, of course, and receives strong support from a cast including Lisa Zane, Kathleen Wilhoite, Marcia Cross, Tony Maggio, Grand L. Bush, and John de Lancie. Keep your eyes peeled for David Duchovny, who appears fleetingly in a club scene. Christian Clemenson delivers a standout performance as Michaels' slightly pathetic brother who tries to redeem himself in his siblings' eyes.

    Solid entertainment that picks up considerably in its second half.

    Seven out of 10.
  • I enjoyed this movie very much, which is why it got seven stars from me, but it's by no means a fantastic or transcendent experience. It does it's job as a thriller ably, and it's worth watching.

    The good: You do care about the characters, and James Spader and Rob Lowe are both fantastic actors who are on the top of their game here. It's interesting to see Spader play a guy who isn't super cool and self assured for a change, and he handles it well. Lowe channels a bit of Patrick Bateman and creates a great GQ sociopath. The supporting cast is quite good as well, however this could very well have been a two-man film, as you can fit the dialog of all the other characters in the movie combined onto maybe two sheets of paper. The director also had a great eye for style, as the locations, clothing and music were gorgeous and perfectly suited to the era, and gave the film a great deal of authenticity.

    The bad: I'm not entirely convinced why Spader was so quick to discard his fiancé (who was beautiful, rich and from all indications a very nice person that cared for him a great deal). The film never really sets up any kind of conflict or apprehension between the couple to justify Spader's truly rash behavior. Yes, I get that he wanted a taste of the bad-boy life that Lowe was a part of, but he seemed to throw it all away far too easily and willingly. For the type of character that he was, I'd expect a little more internal conflict, moralizing and apprehension to go along with a decision like that. It just seems like his descent was inexplicably rapid and left a lot of questions unanswered. Beyond that, I think the ending (or last 30 minutes or so) could have been done a little better.

    The good does really outweigh the bad, and the movie is genuinely worth watching if you're a fan of the genre. Don't expect a Michael Mann film, but you can definitely get some solid entertainment value out of it nonetheless.
  • Rob Lowe stars as a drifter who takes yuppie James Spader under his wing and starts to turn Spader's life inside out. The acting is pretty good, but the writting and the direction will knock you out. Clever, and very stylish plus it is filled with exciting moments that will have you on the edge of your seat. One of my favorite films of all time. Rating: 9.5 / 10
  • James Spader at his best. Michael (James Spader) is a v successful young man in LA in late 80s who has trouble saying no.

    He has a controlling girlfriend. An older brother who is an underachiever and always borrows money. A coworker who is v manipulative and walks all over him.

    His life is being "run" for him. Until he meets Alex (Rob Lowe) who is a rogue, bravado guy who does whatever he wants. Michael (James Spader) is drawn to him.

    It starts out fun but Michael later finds out "grass is always greener on the other side", and his life was a actually pretty good when it was "boring".

    Rob Lowe his 80s good looking best. Fun movie if you were an 80s yuppie and want to see the South Bay Area in LA. Nostalgic.
  • Some people have got that influential touch that can bring any one out of their comfort zone. There are risk takers and those you play it safe. It's matter of personal choice. The clinically dark yuppie thriller 'Bad Influence' takes on a psychological power play between an enigmatically bold drifter (a tremendously venomous Rob Lowe) and a pinned-down marketing analyst (suitably acted by James Spader). Watch how the relationship grows and slowly treads dangerous ground, as the dream of being confident and striving to overcome one's fears is manipulated into a tormented nightmare of aggression and punishment for simple, ungraspable fulfilment for one's own gain. It's a game on someone's life and Lowe's icy portrayal of the controlling puppeteer works effectively. Sure the fundamental storyline isn't anything new (an old formula ala noir going contemporary) and some plot avenues seem a little too glossed over and hard to fathom, but Curtis Hanson's daringly sharp and tight direction cements intense empowerment and morbid curiosity in certain visual suspense. Using an almost voyeuristic approach he draws upon unearthing the violence, drug habit and sleaze trying to hide behind a materialistic obsessive society. Fascinatingly slick and stylish, and the cruise-like pace moves along well enough. The soundtrack has that steamy, on edge kick that doesn't show its age. Also for one in this time period, it's strangely underplayed and kept in the background. The support cast play trumps to Lowe and Spader, but Lisa Zane titillates in her all too short of a role. Fashionably entertaining psycho-thriller.
  • I think the real surprise of "Bad Influence" is that James Spader's not the bad guy. He's actually the good one, or this movies version of one anyway. The real sleaze is the fresh-faced Rob Lowe, going full-psycho.

    This movie pulls you in because Spader's a weakling, whose fortunes really take a positive turn after a chance encounter with the supportive Lowe. It's nice to see someone take charge and make things happen in their life; but that only lasts so long before the relationship sours and things get really bad. But there's also the moral quandary involved (Spade can't go to the police because hands aren't exactly clean) and that keeps things from settling into a tired stalker/prey groove.

    A good script and stylish direction really make this stand out as a noirish thriller. The two leads (on paper) seem better suited to the opposite roles, but they pull it off. And even though the ending has its surprises, it still stays true to the story.

    The influence might be bad, but the movie isn't.
  • jotix1001 March 2005
    "Bad Influence", directed by Curtis Hanson, prior to his much better, "L.A. Confidential", is a film that leaves the viewer with a feeling of deja vu. The screen play by David Koepp is mildly engrossing. "Bad Influence" is predictable, as we know how it will end.

    The evil character of Alex is always a step ahead of the action; Alex is a cliché. As with other characters in thrillers, these bad guys have a way to do everything perfectly. In contrast, his nerdy opponent, Michael, is a man that will be humiliated, beaten by Alex at any opportunity, because he doesn't have the guts to stand to the bullies in their lives. Michael sees in Alex the person he would like to be.

    James Spader is a competent actor; he is perfectly cast as Michael, the market analyst with too much ambition. There seems to be a homoerotic underplay between Michael and the handsome Alex. After all, Michael, goes along for the joy ride because he doesn't have a life. Alex, as played by Rob Lowe, has some good moments, but in the end, he doesn't show anything new to make this story more exciting.

    The film is still interesting because of Curtis Hanson's direction as he take us to a ride through a seamy side of L.A. many of us don't know it existed.
  • sol-kay26 January 2009
    Warning: Spoilers
    ***SPOILER*** Being pushed around all his adult life yuppie financial analyst Michael or Mick Boll's, James Spader, abusive life made a sudden turnaround when he accidentally ran into his "Knight in Shining Armor" the mysterious Alex, Rob Lowe.

    Just trying to be a nice guy Michael paid for a drink that Karen,Susan Lee Hofman,didn't have the cash for. In pops Karen's jealous boyfriend Willie, Jack Kaake, who in finding out that Michael acted like a gentleman to his now estranged girlfriend tried to plant, by slamming it, his face into the counter! If it wasn't for Alex coming to Michael's rescue, with a broken beer glass, the movie "Bad Infulance" would have been over almost as soon as it began.

    Taking the wimpy Michael under his wing Alex gets him involved, after getting Michael stone cold drunk, in a number of armed robberies that he later uses to blackmail him with. Alex also has Michael's rival, for senior financial analyst, at his firm Patterson, Tommy Maggio, beaten to a pulp in order for Michael to get the coveted job. Not that Patterson was an innocent party in his screwing Michael by erasing all the hard work, on his personal computer, that he did to get the job.

    It's later that Alex really gets to work on Michael in not only getting him in bed with hooker Claire, Lisa Zane, but video taping the sleazy and sordid event. Alex uses the incriminating video to destroy Michael's wedding plans to rich well beard and sweet Ruth Fielding, Marcia Cross, whom he was engaged to marry! Later in order to keep Michael in line Alex kills Claire, with Michael's favorite golf club,in his apartment leaving him as the police's prime suspect in her murder!

    As it turns out Alex's plan to have Michael under his control backfired in Michael becoming almost as smart and manipulative as he is. In fact Alex in trying to make Michael into his personal slave created a Frankenstein monster instead. A monster who in the end with the help of his even more scared and wimpy older brother Pismo, Christian Clemeron, would put the arrogant and sure of himself Alex in his place! By having him take a long walk off the end of a short pier on the Pacific Ocean!

    You never get to know what Alex's fascination with Michael really was. Alex like the "Lone Ranger" just shows up at the bar and takes control of Michael's life as if, Michael's confrontation with Willie, was planned far in advance! Alex getting Michael involved in his murderous antics also didn't make much sense in that Michael can, like Alex did to Michael, implicate him in them as well!

    The only explication I can see in Alex's actions is that he just wanted to corrupt, like the Devil, a harmless and innocent person. And as it turned out it was that person, Michael, who used Alex's underhanded tactics in his own self preservation by having them boomerang on him!
  • Groverdox27 September 2019
    I was interested to see "Bad Influence", because it promised an interesting exploration of cowardice and the dark attraction of psychopathy. It was a bit disappointing, though. It never really grabbed me. Spader is not a charismatic presence, though Lowe certainly is. I think the central role needed to be someone we could like and empathise with. I was also disappointed when the movie turned into a typical cat-and-mouse thing, where we're supposed to be shocked at how thoroughly the Lowe character has thought all this through and is able to stay ahead of his prey, but it's really just not interesting.
  • Could have been the inspiration for "The Fight Club" in some ways -- it has the same dynamic -- wimpy yuppie boy inspired to greater strenghts (and pulled into the darkness) by footloose mysterious stranger who seems to have it all together.

    The reason this movie doesn't work, I think, is interesting. I think they "mirror-imaged" the casting. Rob Lowe should be the yuppie wimp and James Spader the mysterious stranger who exudes both strength and danger. When you consider the types of roles these actors tend to play today, it seems bizarre that they were cast the way there were in "Bad Influence."
  • Rich-NYC15 August 1999
    Now that Curtis Hanson is on the Hollywood A-List after the excellent neo-noir "L.A. Confidential", perhaps "Bad Influence" will be re-discovered for what it is, a contemporary noir classic. Michael, played by James Spader, is one step away from a nervous breakdown. His fiancee is planning a wedding he is none-to-thrilled about, while his career is at a crossroads. Someone will get that key promotion, but Michael won't unless he can find his schedule report which has mysteriously disappeared. He suspects his work rival, Patterson, but is too much of a wimp to confront him. He has been doubling up in pain from what he thinks is an ulcer from the stress. He leaves work for a fateful drink at a beach dive bar. He lamely hits on a woman, whose boyfriend Michael does not back down from. Michael gets saved by Alex or Tony (?), played by Rob Lowe, who menacingly breaks a beer bottle and threatens the boyfriend. Alex we see at the beginning of the movie as leaving a beautiful woman's bed stealthily. The photo he destroys of him and the woman shooting guns together foreshadows the violence that comes later. Alex leaves Michael at the bar and Michael discovers his wallet is gone, but does not know how he lost it. While jogging later, Alex stops by the bar to leave his name for the wallet. He finishes his run at one of the L.A. piers, he sees Alex, who, of course, is with a woman pleading with him to stay with her. Alex blows off the woman and he and Michael have a drink together. Alex starts teaching him how to use the side of him that didn't back down to the gorilla at the bar. What ensues is a Freudian Cain and Abel story with Faustian overtones. Alex becomes Michael's tutor in the art of becoming a bad-ass, while Michael becomes something Alex hasn't had in quite some time: a friend. When Michael's backbone becomes strong enough to stand up to the unpredictably violent Alex, the movie becomes a cunning duel between two guys who know L.A. isn't big enough for both of them. The scenes of L.A.'s sinister club life and the people, like Alex, who thrive in it serve as superb snapshots of the decadence of the late-80s. The conspicuous consumption of yuppies and the advent of the home video camera as a sexual metaphor are wickedly exposed. This movie was simply ahead of its time. It's Rob Lowe's best work and James Spader is awesome, his transformation is expertly done. Plus, I'm eagerly awaiting Curtis Hanson's next movie. Has anyone ever captured the evil that lurks underneath the surface of L.A. better? "Bad Influence" is a must-see for the serious film enthusiast.
  • This kind of movie makes me wonder if we are so clean,mild-mannered to not bite the forbidden apple,a long game of the existence can suggest that all of us may be as immaculate as tainted,Rob Lowe was superb,so Curtis-alike and reminding me one of the greatest villains of all the times:Robert Mitchum,i apologize to compare the talent but some hints were displayed by Rob,about Spader i always believe he's undervalued and there are many bad players fooling around the screens instead,Spader is a great performer though he makes his best playing mean boys,but here is a confused yuppie bored to be good,this unhappy meeting will turn on his single mind:sex,violence,drugs are the fatal consequence by getting such undesirable friend. When something starts badly, the final doom is so hard to avoid,one rotten apple will rot another healthy apple,Michael Boll(Spader)will finish in the worst way the origin of the evilness,but he won't can shake loose from the violent virus already spaded in his soul. A lesson of morality to everyone:BE SURE TO KNOW EVERY NEW PEOPLE APPEARING IN YOUR LIFE,after all there's no human being is totally good or bad,man is born free, but the society can corrupt it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "Bad Influence" is an example of that sub-genre of the thriller which I have come to think of as the "……. from Hell" film. The basic plot of such films is that a stranger comes into the life of the hero. At first this stranger seems affable and friendly, but quickly reveals himself or herself to be a dangerous criminal or psychopath, and the hero finds that he is in danger. The genre is an old one; this is, for example, the plot of Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train". It was, however, given a new lease of life in the late 1980s and 1990s by the success of "Fatal Attraction" (or "One-Night Stand from Hell"). Other examples include "Pacific Heights" ("Tenant from Hell"), "Single White Female" ("Flatmate from Hell") and "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" ("Nanny from Hell"). This last film, like "Bad Influence", was directed by Curtis Hanson. There are also elements of the "…. from Hell" plot in "The River Wild", another Hanson film from the nineties.

    The plot of "Bad Influence" can be summarised as "Bloke-you-meet-in-a-bar from Hell". The hero, Michael is a young business executive, the sort of person who in the eighties or nineties would have been described by the now-dated slang term "yuppie". Yuppies during this period were normally characterised as pushy, aggressive, go-getting types, but Michael is anything but. He is a wimp who lacks self-confidence and allows himself to be pushed around at work by his unscrupulous colleague Patterson, his rival for an important promotion, and at home by his domineering fiancée Ruth. (Marcia Cross in the days before she became a desperate housewife).

    One evening Michael tries to chat up a girl in a bar, and is saved from being beaten up by her jealous boyfriend by a mysterious stranger, a young man named Alex. (Interestingly enough, the female antagonist in "Fatal Attraction" also bore this same unisex Christian name). Alex not only befriends Michael but also encourages him to be more self-assertive. Under Alex's tutelage Michael finds the courage to stand up to Patterson. Alex also engineers the break-up of Michael's relationship with Ruth, something which does not unduly concern him, partly because he was never really in love with her, partly because Alex finds him a new girlfriend, a sexy good-time girl named Claire.

    And then, of course, it all starts to go wrong. It always does in films of this nature. Alex turns out to be not only a criminal but also completely mad. Under his influence Michael takes part in two armed robberies, following which the two men break into Patterson's home and beat him up. Michael, alarmed at the way things are developing, tries to end his association with Alex, only to find that Alex is not a man to take no for an answer. He not only steals all of Michael's possessions but also murders Claire and leaves her body in his apartment. Not that Alex has anything in particular against Claire; he just wants her dead so that he can frame Michael for the murder.

    Well, it's not just Michael's life that's going Pete Tong. The film itself has been teetering on the edge of absurdity for some time, and it is around this point that it stops teetering and plunges in headfirst. Hanson and his scriptwriter have ignored two cardinal rules of the "….. from Hell" movie. The first is that the hero or heroine must be someone with whom the audience can identify. Michael Douglas's character in "Fatal Attraction", for example, may have been guilty of a moral lapse when he cheated on his wife, but he nevertheless remains an Everyman figure with whom we can sympathise, someone being punished excessively for a single error of judgement. James Spader 's Michael, by contrast, is less an Everyman than a prize jerk. Someone who will happily participate in no fewer than three violent felonies as some sort of virility test suggested by a casual acquaintance can only be described as both mentally and morally defective.

    The second rule that the film ignores is that, in the most successful "….. from Hell" movies the villain must also be someone whom the audience can at least understand, even if they cannot identify or sympathise with him or her. Both Glenn Close's Alex in "Fatal Attraction" and Rebecca de Mornay's Peyton in "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle" commit evil deeds, but both are motivated by very understandable, and all too common, human emotions, sexual jealousy in the first example and desire for revenge in the second. Rob Lowe's Alex is not motivated by anything other than an insane urge to commit crimes at the behest of the scriptwriter in order to make the film as lurid and sensational as possible. Alex's character might have been more comprehensible had the film explored in greater depth the latent homosexual attraction which is implied between the two men, in which case his villainy, like that of his female namesake in "Fatal Attraction", could have been explained as the result of anger following rejection by a lover. Even in the nineties, however, Hollywood could often be coy about turning gay subtext into gay text- see also "The Talented Mr. Ripley", etc- and this angle was never pursued.

    I watched this film largely because it was directed by Hanson who also made the excellent "L.A. Confidential", perhaps the best neo-noir of the nineties, and was also responsible for good thrillers like "The River Wild" and "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle". "Bad Influence", unfortunately, is just not in the same class. It is an over-the-top, implausible thriller whose ostensible hero is nearly as unsympathetic as its villain. 4/10
  • Rob Lowe plays the strikingly good looking GQ styled stranger who befriends an affluent wimp named Michael. He also introduces him to evil, threesomes and robbery. You never know why Rob Lowe does what he does(maybe it's sexual?) but it doesn't spell it out for you. He even tapes him while having sex so Alex clearly has a sexual power over Michael. Rob Lowe in his early movies was just a pretty boy who had cool hair but he was awesome in this movie. He taped himself having sex with minors just two years before this movie(he's facing his demons in this one). Oh well, Rob Lowe was the movie. Billy Zane's sister is ridiculously goodlooking and she has the mysterious, sexy look which makes her perfect in this. One question though, what is up with his stoner brother? The actor was pathetic and he looked like a librarian. He wasn't even necessary and his stupid scenes ate up time that we could have had more of the Rob Lowe-James Spader dynamic. That was bad casting but other than that this movie owns.
  • Ahead of the pack, 'Bad Influence' came to us in 1990 before the befriending-goes-wrong genre really took off. You might not be familiar with it as opposed to 'Single White Female' because it kinda fell under the radar. It's unfortunate.

    Written by David Koepp, directed by Curtis Hanson and staring James Spader and Robert Lowe. It hits all the right notes. Spader is easily convincing as a pushover and Lowe had the right attitude and look for a sociopathic manipulator. The story flows easily. Never feels forced or pushed in a bygone LA atmosphere. You can probably guess the ebb and flow of the movie. The new friend who makes your see a different side to life / yourself. It all starts out positively in tales like this until the dark reality comes a callin'. The trailer says "bad judgement", "bad habits" and "bad advice". Do we notice a pattern here?

    It's not totally wrong. He befriends you. Shows you a good time. Helps you find yourself maybe, stand up for yourself. Women. More sex. Then the switch gets flipped. It's a formula other films later used, but it appears here at it's freshest form.

    The scenario is a lot of fun played out on screen as I'm sure it would be like in real life in Spader's hypothetical shoes. It all starts as a fantasy. Then the reality of who this person who has entered your life comes crashing home. The ending is a bit contrived, but that didn't stop 'Bad Influence' from being a good time. Check it out if you get the chance.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Bad Influence is easily one of the best films to come out of the early 90s. In fact it was shot in 1989, which is why it really feels more like a late 80s film. And who better to have in a film like that than two of the most recognizable actors from that era. Indeed James Spader and Rob Lowe were a couple "Brat Pack" members who always had the ability to break out of the "Brat Pack" era and stereotype. Not that that was a bad thing. Hell, if you're going to be stereotyped, that's not a bad one to be a part of. Those kids (more like young adults) made some pretty damn good films (Pretty In Pink, St. Elmo's Fire, Less Than Zero, and one of my personal favorites, About Last Night...). But there's no doubt that, for most of the Pack members, that era was the peak of their film careers. Spader and Lowe were part of the few who broke out. And Bad Influence was, sort of, the beginning of that breakout. And speaking of breakouts, this was the film that really put Curtis Hanson on the proverbial map. Even though he had directed other movies, none of them were very successful. And, although BI was not a box office hit, it turned a small profit and, for the most part, was critically acclaimed. The acting was good, the story was compelling, the screenplay was well written, and the directing was sure of itself. Hanson allowed his characters to develop slowly and methodically, and yet never once did the film seem boring or bogged down. No, Hanson had confidence in audiences (he doesn't dumb the film down)...confident that they'll be patient enough for the movie's second half payoff. All of these ingredients (acting, writing, etc.) come together to make for a very good film. Not a perfect film, but a very good one. If the option was available, I would give it a rating of 7.5 stars.

    Side note: Although Spader is good in his role, Lowe was the highlight of Bad Influence. This is one of the best perfomences of his entire career. He's very effective playing the smart, young, and handsome antagonist. In a word, his portrayal of the diabolical and sociopathic Alex was chilling.
  • This psychological thriller, puts a spin on it's story, compared to other thrillers around this time. Here's a new wave original, the first film I actually saw to start off 91, and I must say, I was not the least bit disappointed. Actually shown at the cinema, in it's M version, it's R version which I saw, made me glad to wait, till it hit VHS, which was primarily the reason I hired it. Wimpy yuppie Spader avoids a close shave with this big rough dude, in a bar, after discreetly trying to crack onto the girlfriend, although Spader, wasn't aware he was around. Not backing down, at the sound of a beer bottle cracking, in steps new dude, psychopathic, manipulative and charming Alex (Rob Lowe in his best role yet). He forms a friendship with Spader showing him how to live, but he doesn't know where this is leading. Michael (Spader) soon realizes Alex's fun can get out of control, costing him some embarrassment, a marriage, where he inexplicably gets involved in a robbery while intoxicated, where the final show has him been set up by Alex, for a murder, all of it Alex's spared amusement, until Spader, with help from his geeky drug addicted brother, who I liked, must outwit him and if necessary kill him. Lowe does help him though, overthrow a rival worker, who's been involved in some funny business at work, where later he's beaten up by Lowe. Now this rival buries his head, when he sees Spader in the hallway of their workplace. Violence is occasional but BI is a well steered machine, intelligently written with some smart dialogue, and Lowe's chillingly cool performance is worth the rental fee. Koepp went onto to wrote the 2002 hit, Panic Room. Marcia Cross, way before her Desperate Housewife days, is really cute as Spader's disgraced girlfriend.
  • Michael Boll (James Spader) is a young stock broker executive being pushed around by rival Patterson. He's getting married to driven Ruth Fielding (Marcia Cross) but he's uncertain about it. Alex (Rob Lowe) rescues him from a beating at the bar. His brother Pismo is still struggling to overcome his drug dealing conviction. He runs into Alex again and falls into his murky world. Alex teaches him confidence as the psychopath Alex draws him deeper and deeper. He hooks up with Claire (Lisa Zane) and Alex splits him up from Ruth.

    Rob Lowe is an OK psychopath. Spader is probably even better. Also he has a larger range to play in this movie. Lowe smiles his way through this. He's a beautiful man. It takes a little too long before Alex's psycho ways get crazy dangerous. I wish they get to the dead body sooner because the movie gets better. However there are a few too many cheesy things going on.
  • A smooth, sleek, smart thriller, spoiled only by a certain vagueness regarding Rob Lowe's motives (other reviews hint at a certain plan he has that is only gradually revealed, by we never really find out what he's after, if it's not only the pure pleasure of manipulating people). Well-shot, well-acted, well-made. (**1/2)
  • I am a *big* fan of James Spader; I think he's done wonderful work and his acting is superb. He does a very impressive job in _Bad Influence_ as the milquetoast Michael. I laughed at him a couple times because I felt and empathized with his awkwardness.

    Rob Lowe does a surprisingly good job as a sociopath. His laughing is well timed and his complete lack of fear (mostly) gives his character more depth.

    Christian Clemenson is *great* as Michael's brother. I found his character delightful.

    And yet… …And yet I kept asking myself: "Isn't this thing over yet?" It just didn't draw me in. I found the story highly unbelievable in that the relationship between Michael and Alex isn't very strong. Granted, Michael is a natural follower and not a leader, like Alex, but the things Michael accepts about Alex are overwhelming and don't seem in-line with his morals. Moreover, what created this great bond between them? It's not explained and that left the movie feeling hollow to me.

    (I feel like freaking Roger Ebert here; I thought the movie was great because James Spader is an excellent actor and he's easy on the eyes. However, it kinda sucked because it failed to keep my attention and I could see no reason why Michael followed Alex)
  • I saw this when it came out. How bad was it? It was so bad that when people in the theater started talking, no one shushed them. So bad that the dialog the audience was making up was better. So bad that it didn't make it funny-bad or so-bad-it-was-good. Take a hard pass on this one!
  • To me this movie was about a lifestyle. The music in this movie was very underground and featured Skinny Puppy tracks ('Who's Laughing Now?')along with a host of other interesting songs. The main dance-floor scene was very well done and gave a glimpse into the underworld of recreation drugs. Rob Lowe and James Spader delivered convincing roles and were a perfect fit for this cult classic. I'm still looking for the song featured on this movie with the lyrics "I wanna take you down"... It was cool. The movie was cool. Guess you have to appreciate the music at one point in your life to appreciate this type of movie...

    regards...
  • When this cat-and-mouse thriller was released in 1990, starring two of that period's biggest young stars, Rob Lowe and James Spader, it coincided with Lowe's infamous sex-tape scandal and Spader's rise to stardom the year before with sex, lies and videotapes. This is interesting (albeit mainly academically) seeing as one of Bad Influence's main plot devices is the Spader character's video camera - one of many features in his life taken control over by Lowe's bohemian, effervescent character. What the shy, average, white-collar Spader at first welcomes as a breath of fresh air in his life eventually spirals into something he cannot control, and doesn't know the magnitude of. And the game is on.

    The director behind this obvious but not ineffective psychological thriller was a young Curtis Hanson, and he brings a lusciously attractive atmosphere to his film, with soothing images accompanied by Trevor Jones' jazzy score. And even if the plot is muddled and the antagonist becomes more and more plot-driven and less and less psychologically interesting as we go along, Hanson's visual skills and Spader's likeable lead performance keeps interest up. It's as superficially alluring as the yuppie culture it is set in.
  • Michael is a straight-flying young business kid who gets into a fight with a jealous boyfriend one night at a bar. Suddenly a mysterious stranger intervenes and saves him from a beating. The stranger disappears but later that night, while jogging, Michael bumps into him on a pier again (a foreshadowing of later events in the film).

    Soon the stranger named Alex steps into Michael's life and turns it upside down, revealing himself as a sociopathic monster after it's too late.

    If you think this plot summary sounds as if it has homosexual underlinings, perhaps it does. I mean for goodness sake what kind of grown man invites his hero to an underground club and lets him take control of his life? It's "Single White Female" with men. Maybe Alex and Michael love each other. I don't know. It seems like every film I've seen lately has been treating friendship as a sexual thing -- Freeman said "Shawshank" is about two men who love each other more than friends (which I disagree with), "Chasing Amy" was none too subtle and then we have all sorts of other films like this that imply some kind of homoerotic subtext. Frankly it's kind of grating, I miss those old films where two men were allowed to be close without being gay. ("Midnight Run", anyone?) This is kind of like "Unlawful Entry" meets "Fight Club," only it's worse than both. On one hand we've got really bad acting from Rob Lowe as a sociopath (please!) and James Spader doing another dork impression. (Oh wait, it's not an impression! Aha I get it now.) The script has no twists like "Fight Club" and the direction is mediocre.

    The script is by David Koepp, a good writer of thrillers but he turns this one into a parody of itself. Not an awful movie, but not as good as it could have been for sure.
  • When you encounter a bad movie, the tendency is to just blow it off. After all, most folks are largely incompetent at what they do. But if you check the credentials of the people involved, you have to think again.

    The writer has written successful movies as well as fine ones. "Snake Eyes" is great until the end, a fine examination or watching for us to watch. And "Panic Room" is an experiment in making a building a character.

    The director has written and directed films that show he understands the mechanics of noir, the very thing being tinkered with here. Spader has been involved in several noir-bending adventures, always as a contributor.

    What went wrong? The pitch certainly would have been "noir personified," specifically by mixing in the "visitor that changes lives" genre. Noir is when a man or couple get accidentally caught up in mischievous fate, fate that seems to actively play with their lives.

    A well established derivative is the "omniscient serial killer" genre, which to some extent puts a face on fate. "Funny Games" is a similar experiment in building calmly human dervishes. But it is an entirely different matter to make fate a friend. That's what's attempted here. It may be possible, but not the simple way that's tried.

    The minor fold here is that fate uses film (video) in the two events around which the story turns.

    Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.
An error has occured. Please try again.