User Reviews (319)

Add a Review

  • Given that I see about 150-200 movies a year (mostly in the theater, but also on demand), it is absolutely amazing that I had never seen "Fatal Attraction", originally released in 1987 (119 min.), yes 33 years ago! So the other night I was channel-surfing for something good to watch, and there it was about to start on SHO. I decided to tune in.

    No point in introducing the film's plot, which everyone knows. So let me just add a couple of general observations. First, I was surprised how good the film actually was. I'm not sure where I had gotten the idea in my head that this probably wasn't going to be all that good, but it is an intense, very intense, stalker-drama. Second, the three lead performances are rock solid, led by a believable crazy-over-the-top Glenn Close. Her transformation from lover to stalker to hater is absolutely spine-tingling. Third, the movie of course feels a bit dated when you see not a single communication exchange on mobile devices. Instead, old landline phones actually ring out loud. No texting of course. Fourth, after watching this the other night, I read up a bit on the movie's history and legacy, and it was then that I learned that the movie's original ending was changed drastically into what we now know as the ending. The original ending sounds sounds more logical to me that what it eventually would become, although I can certainly see the shock value in the new ending.

    Bottom line, this movie was a pleasant surprise all around, and these 2 hours just flew by. Glad that I finally joined the rest of the cinema-loving crowd and now have seen "Fatal Attraction", 33 years after the facts. If you are one of those who like me hadn't seen this yet. I'd readily suggest you check it out and draw your own conclusion.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie about adultery, jealousy and a spurned woman's relentless pursuit of revenge is genuinely unforgettable and compelling to watch. It's definitely a movie of its time which connected strongly with audiences when it was first released and also seemed to tap into certain attitudes that were starting to become more prevalent in society at that time. The values associated with the permissiveness of earlier years were gradually being left behind and this movie's depiction of the dangerous consequences of indulging in casual affairs seemed to be a strong endorsement of this change.

    The impact and influence of this great box office success has continued to be significantly stronger than would normally be expected as it has successfully maintained its popularity over the years and even been responsible for the term "bunny boiler" becoming a universally recognised part of the language. Amusingly, 25 years after the movie's release, when Aerosmith's Steven Tyler announced his decision to leave "American Idol" to return to his band (which was his "first love"), he added "I've decided it's time to for me to let go of my mistress before she boils my rabbit".

    Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) is a successful, happily married Manhattan lawyer who meets book editor Alex Forrest (Glenn Close) when he does some work for her employers. One weekend, when his wife Beth (Anne Archer) and daughter Ellen (Ellen Hamilton Latzen) are out of town visiting his in-laws, he and Alex have a short but very passionate affair which he quickly decides to end but Alex is in no mood to agree.

    Alex initially reacts by slitting her wrists and later goes on to harass Dan by calling in at his office and later continuing to make telephone calls to him on his work number. When he tells his secretary that he's not prepared to take any more of these calls, Alex reacts by telephoning his home at all hours of the day and night and then even poses as a prospective buyer of his apartment to show her determination to make him take responsibility for his actions.

    Alex continues to terrorise Dan and his family by pouring acid on his car, kidnapping his daughter, boiling Ellen's pet rabbit and physically threatening Beth before the story eventually reaches its violent climax.

    Michael Douglas is very convincing as Dan who seems to have achieved his success so easily that he takes his comfortable lifestyle and happy marriage for granted. He's a man who, in a moment of weakness makes a bad decision and very soon after, regrets what he's done. His betrayal of his loyal wife and his inability to confess until he's forced to, are reprehensible and indirectly put his family in great danger.

    Glenn Close is genuinely scary in a very accomplished performance in which she shows the various facets of Alex's personality with such skill that she really makes her character's changeable and unhinged behaviour seem understandable. Anne Archer is also perfect in her part and the scene in which she learns of her husband's infidelity is extremely touching as she retains her dignity magnificently despite her obvious pain.

    "Fatal Attraction" is an attention grabbing title which is reminiscent of the classic film noir titles which also frequently alluded to death, danger, fear or entrapment and just like those films, this movie features flawed characters, aberrant behaviour and plenty of suspense.
  • gavin694228 September 2015
    A married man (Michael Douglas)'s one night stand comes back to haunt him when that lover (Glenn Close) begins to stalk him and his family.

    Apparently when this film came out it had some feminist backlash because it appears to show a career woman as psychotic, while the stay-at-home wife is good and subservient. That is one way to read it, but it would be putting meaning in there that probably was never intended.

    This is quite simply someone with mental issues going after another person. It has a bit of a morality tale in there, scaring men off of cheating. But there is not much in it about gender. It simple works better as a psychotic woman rather than a man, because a psychotic man with a knife is pretty mundane.
  • awpangle2 December 1998
    Warning: Spoilers
    This is an excellent movie about a pschyo(Close)who falls in love with Douglas and once he begins to realize he's doing the wrong thing she just won't leave him or his family alone. It is an excellent suspense thriller that moves like a rollercoaster and and keeps your attention from the beginning credits to the end credits, because the suspense never lets up once Douglas says to Close that he has to leave. This was one of Douglas' first in the "falling in love with pschyos movies" and it's the best. Some say Basic Instinct(which was basically all sex and very little suspense)was better, but this one has only one short sex scene and then it is suspenseful for the last hour and a half. It is definitely the best in his string of these kind of movies. Watch and judge for yourself. Ann Archer plays an excellent role as the determined and suspicious wife of Douglas(who pairs up perfect with pschyo Close). After the ending all you can say is WOW. ***1/2 out of ****
  • So here we have it, the granddaddy of the psycho-thriller genre and in all respects a more subtle and realistic film than you'd expect from a genre that later descended into cheesy madness and inanity. By the time these run of films had finished – and there are still some B-movies coming out, here and there – we'd had psychotic babysitters, mothers, fathers, children, nurses, co-workers, you name it. But FATAL ATTRACTION is the one that kicked them all off in a wave of popularity, even if there were precedents in the likes of Eastwood's PLAY MISTY FOR ME and the slasher genre. It's a simple story of the archetypal happy family and what happens when the father and husband has an affair with an unhinged woman.

    Michael Douglas is on top form as the slightly sleazy family guy who can't resist shacking up with loopy Glenn Close when his wife (Anne Archer) is away. Douglas later found a home in this type of film, menaced by more adulteresses (Sharon Stone) and even his own boss (Demi Moore). Here, though, he's fresher faced and more realistic, with the script making no bones of his adultery and the way he betrays both his wife and child by having an affair while they're away. Glenn Close is frightening in the role that made her name, but I have to say she doesn't cut it as an object of desire – with that hairstyle she looks like a maniac from the outset! The realism of the plot excludes the kind of murderous rampage sequences that later popularised the genre, and it's all the more chilling for it – the suicide attempt scene is far more disturbing than watching a madwoman running amok with a kitchen knife. Then, of course, there's that scene involving the favourite family pet that's rightly gone down in history as one of the most memorable of all time, and a now-familiar shock climax to polish things off. I did find the film somewhat subdued in places where it could have been more thrilling, but that's because it plays it as a character drama for the most part, more interested in getting to grips with Close's psychosis than bumping off a string of inconsequential types.
  • Ralpho9 September 2001
    Warning: Spoilers
    Although I found myself checking the elapsed time during this movie to get some idea of when it would end, the final scenes made me squirm with sympathetic fright for the characters.

    Roger Ebert says the filmmakers ruined a perfectly good psychological thriller by attaching a "Friday the 13th" ending. The IMDb Trivia page says the movie originally had a different ending in which Glenn Close's character commits suicide and Michael Douglas' character is arrested for her murder. Ebert and most serious film lovers would likely have preferred that ending. But making profitable movies sometimes means making them unpalatable for highbrow students of film.

    Nevertheless, the "flawed" film resonated with women. I have vague memories of female friends and acquaintances in the late '80s seeing "Fatal Attraction" as an example of what SHOULD happen to any man who cheats on his wife. The movie found a place in our culture for a while, and the title was a euphemism for similar happenings in real life.

    One wonders how much this movie had to do with the near universal creation of "stalker laws" in the 1990s.
  • It's amazing to think that dozens - maybe hundreds(?) - of movies, especially from the Lifetime channel, can trace their lineage to this film (and people like John Carpenter and Brian De Palma turned this down in part as they saw it as unoriginal, taking from Clint Eastwood's great debut, Play Misty for Me). I think that makes this hold up is the acting, pure and simple. Douglas and Close and also Anne Archer as the wife really make this material work as strong as it can - they sell every minute they can, and they have to. This is even in knowing that the movie doesn't really have a very firm moral leg to stand on; we should be on Michael Douglas' side, but he's the one that screwed up.

    Sure, Glenn Close is crazy, or a victim of abuse as well if one wants to dig a little deeper (who knows what happened with dear old dad before he died of that heart attack), but, and this is important, she's right (certainly initially) or at least has a point that should matter about how he's just tossing her to the wayside after a night or two of "fun". I like that Lyne and the writer have underlying implications that make it more harrowing and that it paints the two sides as neither right or wrong (though of course one is more wrong than the other, the wrongs don't make anything right) up to varying degrees. What makes it not stand up over time is the ending, or even the last act.

    From a writing perspective it should have ended how it was originally supposed to, with Alex killing herself and framing Dan as if it was murder. It calls back to the mention of Madame Butterfly, which is the set up and pay-off. But because the producers acquiesced it turns into the template for countless s***y movies where the character has one last hurrah to mess with the supposed heroes and blood is spilled and one more life is lost. In a sense my criticism is the same as Ebert's, that it kind of turns into a Friday the 13th movie. But at least for 85% of the running time, maybe 90%, it is a provocative, terrifying drama that has a simple moral message: don't cheat.
  • You don't hear much about this film anymore, but in its day, this was the most-talked about movie of the year. It was a 'favorite topic of conversation about the office water cooler' for a number of weeks. At the time, it was a shocker. Nowaways.....who knows? As we become more and more desensitized to violence, sex and profanity, it takes a lot more to shock us.

    Still, this movie had memorable moments that have stayed with us who first saw it at the theater 20 years ago. Most of those memorable scenes, if not all of them, involve Glenn Close's character, "Alex Forrest." Man, this is a woman who would not be denied what she wanted: in this case, married man Michael Douglas.

    No sense going into all the details. Everyone knows them by now, anyway. Looking back, I think the film was a good lesson for men (or women) thinking about cheating on their spouses and assuming nothing bad will happen as a result. Men may commit more crimes, but that old adage about a "woman scorned" certainly is demonstrated here in spades! Douglas' character, "Dan Gallagher," certainly can attest to that, but he is anything but a sympathetic character. Both actors do a superb job in here, but kudos also to the rest of the Gallagher family, played by Anne Archer (wife "Beth") and Ellen Hamilton Latzen (daughter "Ellen.")

    Also, the cinematography shouldn't be overlooked. The widescreen DVD certainly brought out how nicely this film was shot and directed. This two-hour film keeps your attention all the way. The only thing I would change is the language, toning it down a bit. Otherwise, it's a classic thriller and one of the most famous films in the '80s.
  • Had it not been for the performance of Glenn Close, this movie wouldn't really be worth the effort of watching. She shines in an excellent performance as Alex Forest, the spurned lover of Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas), whose obsession with their relationship becomes progressively more violent. Close manages to play Forest as the successful business type, the emotionally wounded woman and the deranged psychopath, and she makes every aspect of Alex believable. Michael Douglas is always competent, and is no less here than anywhere else, but his portrayal of Gallagher to me seemed a bit shallow and unconvincing.

    The story itself (of the spurned woman seeking revenge) is hardly original, and even the twists and turns seem typical and predictable, and more than a few things in the story made little sense. First, given that Gallagher seemed to have a good relationship with his wife Beth (Ann Archer) and a happy family life as the father of Ellen (Ellen Hamilton Latzen) it seemed to me that he fell too quickly and too easily under the spell of Alex. Their relationship didn't come across as believable to me. Then, setting up the last confrontation of the movie, Gallagher is shown locking the doors to his house, with his body language suggesting that he had forgotten to lock them before. What? After everything he and his family have been through at Alex's hands, he didn't think to keep the doors locked at all times?! How did this guy get through law school? Finally, the ending was predictable, and for about the 914th time in the movies we see a villain who seems to be dead come back to life. There's no shock to this anymore, although I suppose when "Fatal Attraction" was actually released (in 1987) it was actually only the 674th time this had happened. In short, there really wasn't much imagination at the end.

    This movie is all right as a way to spend a lazy Sunday afternoon, but except for a few scenes (the thought of the boiling pot in the kitchen - and its contents - will remain in your mind after the movie's over) this is hardly edge of your seat stuff. Watch it for the excellent performance by Close, though.

    6/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    One of the most talked about films of all time, Fatal Attraction, where married men learned a very valuable lesson: keep the pants zipped. I don't think there was a more talked about film in the 80's than Fatal Attraction, it made so many people think. It was a very intelligent thriller with great characters and a terrifying story. How many women get rejected by a man and haven't fantasized about just ruining their lives as revenge? Alex Forrest was the woman who didn't just fantasize, but lived it. How many men have a woman who won't let go of them no matter what they do? Even vice versa, but this was the movie that scared men right back into their wife's arms.

    Dan Gallagher is a successful, happily-married attorney living in Manhattan when he meets Alex Forrest. While his wife, Beth, and daughter are out of town for the weekend, he has a passionate affair with Alex. Though he thought it was understood to be a simple fling, she begins clinging to him. Dan explains that he must go home and Alex cuts her wrists in a suicide attempt. He thinks the affair is forgotten, but she shows up at various places to see him. She continues to call until he tells his secretary that he will no longer take her calls. She then phones his home at all hours, and then confronts him saying that she is pregnant and plans to keep the baby. Although he wants nothing to do with her, she argues that he must take responsibility. She will do anything at this point to make him be with her, even if it means destroying his family.

    Glenn Close who had only played the nice girl roles blew everyone's mind when she played Alex Forrest. What passion she put into the role and part of you couldn't really hate her. She brings up a great point to Dan "Because I won't allow you to treat me like some slut you can just bang a couple of times and throw in the garbage?". Your heart does break for her but at the same time you want to scream at her to let go of Dan and not hurt his family. Michael Douglas as Dan plays the role extremely well. He gives Dan a sense of realism, he's not a major jerk who just looks for random women, he makes a mistake and owns up to it. He's still very smart, but very frightened and rightfully so when he learns what Alex can do to him. You believe that he loves his family, he made a bad choice and don't we all? The consequences were a bit extreme this time. Ann Archer as Beth was not only beautiful, classy, but incredibly intelligent. She makes Beth so real and I loved her line that I found out was improvised when Dan tells her that he cheated "What is the matter with you?!", how many women or men have screamed that when getting hurt? Ellen Hamilton Latzen as Ellen, their daughter, is one of the best child actors you could imagine. She doesn't make her character annoying and when she sees her parents crying, she breaks down and you just want to hold her so badly. What talent at such a young age. Fatal Attraction was made so well and the reason why I think it holds up is because it is a very intelligent movie with great characters. You could relate in one way or another. Just a side note, I do wish they stuck with the original ending since it would have made more sense with Alex's character, I won't give it away, but it also would have been ironic with her and Dan's love for "Madame Butterfly". But people wanted to see Alex get what she had coming after her being named a "bunny boiler". But trust me when I say this is one of the best movies to come out of the 80's and I still love watching it.

    9/10
  • I'm from China. My English is not very good. So the first time I comment a movie I chose a simple one. I saw "Fatal Attraction" the day before.

    I have seen a few of Michael Douglas's movies. And I found he kept taking the same kind script and role for himself. He was a lawyer who had another affair with an attractive woman. By which the relationship brought him a lot of troubles.Even make his life over.

    I have to say that Michael had just given his basic performance, nothing special, and nothing would light his career at that moment. Meanwhile, Glen Close did a great job in the movie. We could touch her weird feeling, and her extreme mental troubles. You might even understand what she had done to Michael's family.

    This story told that sometimes an unfaithful relationship not only brought one night sexual enjoyment, but also ruined one's life.
  • ... so says Tom Hanks in 1993's "Sleepless in Seattle" to his son in reference to this movie and comparing its outcome to a strange woman who has been writing the widower (Hanks) as a result of him appearing on a radio show. But that's another movie.

    The point is, its lesson was still easily recognizable in popular culture six years after it was made. What looks like an easy lay with a beautiful single woman can easily turn into an object lesson on Murphy's law. Dan Gallagher (Michael Douglas) is a successful NYC attorney, and on a weekend when his wife and daughter are away from home at his in-laws' house, he has a work meeting that includes Alex Forrest (Glenn Close), an editor for a publishing company. This leads to a drink at a bar, and that leads to a passionate one night stand that turns into a two night stand when Alex attempts suicide when Dan tries to leave.

    Dan thinks it's over. Alex has seemed to come to her senses. But then she tells him she is pregnant, and no she is having this baby because she is 36 and it may be her last chance. When Dan insists he is not leaving his wife for her, that he does not love her - well, let's just say that the opposite of love is not hate it's indifference, and Alex at first stalks Dan and gradually turns up the heat until his entire family is at risk. The suspense builds until the harrowing end.

    The thing is, Dan always loved his wife, subtly played by Ann Archer. She is beautiful, supportive, and he still has passion for her. They have a little girl and are a very happy family. But he just could not say no to what looked like a one night adventure that nobody need ever know about that turns into a nightmare.

    There is more to the film than the cautionary "Don't cheat on your wife" message. I think it's because Glenn Close does such a fantastic job playing Alex. There's something about her portrayal that, to me, paints Alex as ultimately powerful, not just outright insane. Until the end she mostly dominates what happens to Michael Douglas' character's life. I think this one has aged well and would still recommend it.
  • "Fatal Attraction" is one of those famous things that got people talking during every free moment – and also one that's sure to be spoiled if you're like me and wait 30 years to see it.

    Plot-wise, I know that to expect; but it still surprised me in some ways. Like the character of Alex Forrest. She doesn't have very much depth and it reduced to a stock schizo, but you wouldn't know it from Glenn Close's performance. Alex's (let's call them) antics have an unpredictability to them. Even when they're outlandish, they still work towards terrorizing Michael Douglas. She just keeps closing in, man. I don't think I'm really spoiling anything by saying Douglas eventually comes clean to his wife (Anne Archer) about the affair and that look of abject devastation on her face is horrible.

    If the writing ever fails you (and it gets iffy) the acting won't. This can be a real nail- biter at times, and that's because the performances elevate the trashy script.

    7/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    One of the more popular and provocative shock (shlock?) thrillers at the time was also one of the more effective arguments against infidelity, up to a point. The living nightmare of an otherwise happily married lawyer following his illicit one night stand with a lonely young woman is every adulterer's worst dream of deception and exposure, and for maybe two-thirds of the film the plot is genuinely gripping and even psychologically sound. But the interesting reversal of assumptions (with irresponsible husband Michael Douglas becoming a victim of female aggression) is lost in the contrived climactic bloodbath, during which jilted lover Glenn Close is transformed from a bitter, neurotic woman into a psychotic she-devil (her loft is even located above what looks like a slaughterhouse). Alfred Hitchcock would have blanched at the bathtub finale, with its knives and guns and cheap thrill scare tactics, but let's face it: the film never intended to go anywhere else.
  • lucas_dunaway30 September 2002
    Warning: Spoilers
    I swear, I have seen Fatal Attraction at least 15 times, and each time I watch it, I am on the edge of my seat. Glen Close does an AMAZING job as Alex, a psychopath, who becomes obsessed with a married man (Douglas.) The first time I saw this movie, I was shocked... Every second something happened that made me become more and more trapped into this movie. Theres the slitting of the wrists, the baby, the Volvo... and who could forget the bunny?? (poor bunny fu fu.) Anyway, for any one who loves thrillers, one-night stands, or thrillers... this is the KING of all others...
  • It's a great movie with excellent actors; the story, sound etc gives you emocions like if you were living it. My point is 8 because some things doesn't pass in the real life.

    Glenn Close: Magical!
  • For a movie now going on 22 years, Fatal Attraction is a still a worthwhile thriller.

    Glenn Close gives a great performance. I felt like I had seen the movie already due to the numerous references to it in pop-culture throughout the years. As such I was probably not as shocked as I otherwise would have been. Nonetheless there are still some genuinely disturbing moments in this. One thing I have always wondered is why Glenn Close is the temptress in this, as good an actress as she is, I can't find her the least bit attractive. Although, in this she is actually done up to look quite pretty and I think another actress could've pulled off the psychopath woman-scorned act quite like she did.

    Speaking of which, how many hot sex scenes has Michael Douglas been involved in? Sharon Stone and Demi Moore if you don't mind. Lucky bastard! Anyway, he was good in this too. Overall, not a bad flick.
  • Sex plus desertion equals madness--at least in the completely overwrought example offered here, wherein a one-night stand drives lonely businesswoman in N.Y.C. to stalk her weekend-affair, his wife and daughter. There's nothing remotely realistic about the scenario (neither Glenn Close's neighborhood--where fires burn on wet streets--nor Michael Douglas' job at the law firm are especially convincing), but the set-up is designed to get people talking, and on that level the movie succeeds. It's salacious controversy in a boiling pot! Too bad the filmmakers don't know how to wrap things up, resorting to camera-tricks and uneasy manipulation to heighten suspense. I'm sure there were women in 1987 who felt empowered by Close's portrayal of the 'victim', yet the way the film is engineered, she comes off as both the seducer and the scorned, and director Adrian Lyne relishes in making her a nutcase. That's OK for a thriller, but discussions about the way men treat women, the sexual politics of an extramarital affair, and man's fear of a possessive woman end right about the time Close boils the bunny. It's recycled "Play Misty For Me", though it does look good and has some strong acting. Ultimately it plays things too safely, and the ending is a mess. **1/2 from ****
  • twanurit21 February 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    I've re-watched it on DVD and it's still an amazing, unforgettable nightmare film, spawning countless imitators and a multitude of discussion. Glenn Close will forever be identified as the unhinged colleague of married with child Michael Douglas who have a brief fling that Douglas lives to regret. Close should have won the Academy Award for her electrifying portrayal of an attractive, seemingly ground woman who eventually lashes out in acid-spewing, bunny-boiling, knife-wielding hysteria. Douglas is equally effective, beautifully conveying increasing angst and guilt (later he looks sick when he finds his wife chatting with Close). The subject was done before in at least "Possessed" (1947) and "Play Misty For Me" (1971), but not quite as effective and engrossing as this well-directed thriller. I definitely prefer the panic-stricken theatrical ending to the overly low-key and unexciting original cut. See it with a significant other!
  • First I should say Michael Douglas is perfect in his role, a role he would reprise to varying extents in Basic Instinct, Disclosure, and A Perfect Murder. However, and this is just my opinion and I'm not trying to be a smart aleck, Glenn Close looks like a man with a bad wig on. Come to think of it, I don't know too many women named Glenn... This bothered me throughout my viewing and I never could believe her as the disturbed seductress. The rest of the cast was serviceable enough. But because I never bought into Ms(?) Close's character I can only give the movie a 6/10.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I had never seen Fatal Attraction until yesterday, but I had already heard about the famous pet rabbit and the closing scenes. No matter – this is one heck of a thriller that combines terrific acting from Michael Douglas and Glenn Close with a thought-provoking story. Douglas' married Dan Gallagher and Close's Alex Forrest have a steamy affair while his wife is away. Except that Alex decides that it's not over. Her Alex is a maniacal nutcase who isn't above anything to keep Dan for herself, including terrorizing his family and kidnapping his daughter. Anne Archer plays Dan's wife; it's a role that many actresses can play in their sleep. She does a fine job, but it's similar to her roles in Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger.

    There is a larger issue here, though, and one that was discussed when the film was released: Aside from the moral problems of adultery, doesn't Alex have a point ? Isn't she entitled to something besides simply being used for a night or two ? The tension in this film is constant, although a lot of it seems too easily foreshadowed. Overall, though, a terrific thriller and a justifiably huge hit.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Spoilers:

    After the initial affair, Daniel repeatedly attempts to reassure himself, telling Alex that he is happily married with children. Alex's replies of, "then why did you do it?" are the most important lines in this film.

    First glances may reveal a film in which a man makes a simple mistake and is disproportionately punished. Actually, the mistake was well thought out and the disproportionate punishment is given to poor little Alex.

    Daniel does not suffer from a sudden attack of passion. He sees a woman he finds attractive, and makes use of the next opportunity he has to take her out to eat. Luckily, he thinks to himself, his wife is gone and he quickly proceeds to engage in propositions of a clearly sexual nature. If these hours of meditation do not reveal his extremely conscious infidelity, the fact that they are committed on back-to-back days surely does. Even more selfishly, Daniel waits until the moment when he has no choice to confide in his wife. No remorse is shown by Daniel, he simply wants to save his own hide.

    With Alex, the director explicitly attempts to dehumanize her into a crazy psychotic. Nothing of her past is shown to possibly explain her extreme dependence; we're reassured by this and can think, "She's JUST crazy." But the fact remains, it was Daniel who is the transgressor here. Breaking the bonds of marriage is incomparable to Alex's playful, single, copulations.

    In the end, Daniel emerges the victor and his family is at last whole again. Is it really? Alex's original question of "why" still remains unanswered. Daniel's infidelities were the result of an underlying disunity with his family. Only a heathenistic liberal of a director could believe that these problems could be solved with an abortion or murder. A just and wholesome ending would have Daniel be murdered. He was the original cause of the discord and Alex was merely infected by him. By destroying the consequent and edifying the cause, an unacceptable message of anti-family-values and anti the-sanctity-of-marriage is proclaimed. This movie, along with Daniel, must be burned.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The outline for this movie is almost a duplicate of Play Misty for Me. It starts with a one night stand with no strings attached, and turned into the same Fatal Attraction, even down to the crazed girl coming face to face with the real love of the male's life and the attack.

    The differences are there, too. The male in this case is married, while the other is just trying for a committed relationship. They have different jobs, live on the opposite coast, etc. This movie was MUCH better done than Play Misty, and they are many years apart so most people probably don't even see the similarities.
  • A not so innocent fling backfires to haunt businessman Dan Gallagher, played by Michael Douglas. Gallagher, a happily married man, enters into a weekend dalliance with a winsome lover, Alex Forrest, played by Glenn Close. Gallagher doesn't realize that Miss Forrest took the tryst to heart and is determined to take him away from his wife and daughter.

    A thriller that takes you on a rollercoaster ride. The one short sex scene in the kitchen packs a hard and heavy punch. Your total attention is captured all the way to the powerful finale. The lovely Ann Archer is Gallagher's wife and there is nothing she won't do to keep her man.

    It sizzles, simmers and scorches. Too hot to not watch. Totally fulfilling, but leaves you wanting to watch it again.
  • This was an obstreperous film, it took almost no responsibility for itself and was extremely predictable and transparent.

    The plot is formulaic: Douglas and Archer (his wife) are at a party, he accidentally meets an attractive and icy young professional (Close) and there is instant chemistry. Why is there this chemistry? Quite simply, the two find something about one another physically irresistible. Douglas simply thinks with his organ, nothing else appears to enter his mind. He appears to love his wife very much and one would think they have been enjoying a good marriage. He has a daughter, a good career he appears to enjoy, he is attractive and healthy. So what went wrong? Apparently nothing other than an arrogant chauvinism on his part. He made a mistake, a simple mistake in his mind, then things get ugly.

    Close is a loose canon and deeply disturbed. Why? Well, in a rather flaky moment this film attempts to address this question by showing Douglas breaking into her apartment and discovering the death of her father in a newspaper clipping. He died fairly young of a heart ailment, a fact alluded to (if allusion is even proper considering how obvious it was as a technique) earlier in the film when Douglas and Close are in Central Park with his dog. She is carrying some type of emotional baggage. OK. But to become a murderous, unscrupulous kidnapper, stalker, hell-bent, obsessive, suicidal manipulator? Did I miss something? And furthermore, what happened to that flourishing career of hers we briefly, ever so briefly, get a glimpse of at the beginning of the film? Does she simply forsake her entire successful career, a career that must have taken years to build and mould in order to flourish, (as it apparently has been doing), in order to stalk Douglas? That is almost nonsensical. Why would a woman, whose apartment they meticulously filled with books and manuscripts, become so vapid and wounded and prepared to ignore all of her intelligence and spiritual/emotional reserves, which ostensibly enabled her to rise to success, in order to do such damage? How could she have come so far with this type of vapidity and singular weakness? And one should also ask, why does she find Douglas so important? Has she never experienced rejection before? If so, then why is she single and wary of men at 36? Obviously she has some experience with loss, mistakes and disappointment. If not, then she is a spoiled executive and success who always succeeds. But then, why would she forsake her career so easily? Do you see how many holes this story possesses?

    And by the way, how is it that a magnificent controversy did not erupt over this film considering that Anne Archer and Douglas manage to kill the "pregnant" Close? Can you even imagine trying to get by with that today, with all of the arguing over abortion, stem-cell research and litmus tests for Supreme Court nominees? I am puzzled, if the "Last Temptation of Christ" could literally be crucified for its questions over the divinity of Jesus, how could killing an unborn child so cavalierly escape scrutiny? And what is worse is that the film simply ends there! The police come, everything is okay, Archer and Douglas have their arms around one another, there is no spiritual guilt, everything is discrete and tidy. Well, congratulations! How much more obstreperous and fantastic can we get? This script is unintelligent and cliche. Every action taken is predictable but what is worse is that it is predictably illogical. There is no character development in this film. None whatsoever. In fact, these characters are about as unidimensional as one could imagine. I don't understand all of the hype, the film did not even offer any surprises. It not only doesn't work as a story, but as a suspense film it lacks any suspense. We know immediately that Close is psychotic. We don't know why, the nuances of her personage don't exist, but that doesn't matter. She is simply psychotic and somehow that is all the explanation we need.

    Don't waste your time. The best film Adriane Lyne ever made was "Jacob's Ladder." Don't miss it! Forget this film, it is not worth consideration.
An error has occured. Please try again.