I too saw this movie at a young age of 14, but I had read the book first. I agree that mostly of the characters were casted wrong. For instance in the book Maria is described as a fair skinned woman with white blond hair yet Sandra Bullock played her. Being the early 1990's no network would have been prepared to handle the open gayness of Dario (no-doubtly it wasn't "PC" yet) I think they could have added a bit more violence when trying to explore Mobster actions. It would be interesting if they remade the movie now would it resemble The Sopranos in some way would it be violent and hoping they would make better casting choices?? The book was better than the movie you were able to get more involved with the character's and their story.
Add a Review
-
corief28 April 2006
-
QueenMakeda8420 February 2005As usual, the movie is nothing like the book. I really enjoyed the book, because you became invested in the characters. However, I did the process backwards: I saw the movie before I saw the film and liked the film. I saw it at a fairly young age, but I still liked it. Vincent Irizarry was on my mother's soap, so we had to see anything he was in. Nicolette was not the right person for Lucky I think. And Sandra Bullock as Maria? The entire purpose of the character was not what Bullock represented, but it's how I first fell in love with her and remember her to this day. However, she wasn't right for the part either. The movie was fair enough, but you could tell that NBC wasn't ready to deal with Dario's homosexuality and real mob violence. It almost had the moral appeal of an after school special. The movie should of took itself more seriously. I liked the movie, but after reading the book, the actors were all wrong for the characters.
-
rebeckaflygare13 March 2020I have always loved this TV-series, and now I'm rewatching it for the fourth time I think. (Many years between the times) I also read the book in my early teens. I think this filmization is underated, it has that nice 80:s vibe that brings nostalgia and makes you feel good, the type casting and acting serves it's purpose perfectly. It's hard to not get engaged in the turns and thrills of the story.
-
movielover103016 July 2007Chances and Lucky are great reads, but to say that the miniseries doesn't do it justice is a HUGE understatement. It's not the worst thing ever made. I just wish that the powers that were had been a little more faithful to the book, at least in the casting part. I mean, blonde, blue-eyed Nicolette Sheridan as Lucky, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! That also goes for Sandra Bullock being cast as Maria and Shawnee Smith being cast as Olimpia. The casting director was either drunk or in a hurry. The closest that the casting people got was with Gino, played by Vincent Irizarry. There were also a lot of plots that were skipped, like Dario's homosexuality, Carrie's abuse and rape as well as how and why she came to be a prostitute, the stories of Gino's abusive father, and the list goes on and on. I would pay anything to see a "CORRECTLY CASTED AND NON-POLITICALLY CORRECT" remake of this movie, whether it be on the small screen or on the big screen, preferably on the small screen, or otherwise many subplots may have to be sacrificed due to time. Let me know if it ever happens.
-
bellamart1-121 August 2020I can't believe some reviewers have given this mini series such low ratings! True the movie doesn't hold a torch to the book, but that being said, I don't think anyone who's ever read ANY book first and then seen the movie version afterwards can say they didn't leave anything out. To be honest, I read the book a long time ago & thoroughly enjoyed it. When they showed the mini series on tv, I was also a little disappointed that so much had been left out but as with any book turned movie there are always things either left out or changed. They would have had to make the mini series much, much longer than it was. (Which would have been fine with me!) And let's not forget it was made in 1990. Just keep an open mind & don't expect the movie to be 100% identical to the book! While I agree some of the casting was hit or miss, IMHO, Vincent Irizarry was fantastic as Gino, Sandra Bullock as Maria, Michael Nader as Enzio, Phil Morris as Steven, & Nicolette Sheridan, while I never envisioned her to play the part of Lucky, she IS beautiful and she totally nailed the sexy, smoldering thing that Lucky always seemed to have going on. Now can we please talk about Tim Ryan as Lennie Golden for a moment? Holy moley, he looked as well as played that part to the tee - perfectly! He has that boyishly handsome charm about him & that sexy smile and laugh of his made me wish I was Nicolette Sheridan every time she made out with him! Talk about "lucky!" 😄 I was so bummed out that Tim didn't play Lennie in the sequel, Lady Boss. The other guy didn't hold a candle to him! I came on this site to see what else he's played in so I could see more of him. Bummer he doesn't play in more movies so I can lust over him longer than just short clips! 😁 It's too bad Jackie Collins has passed on since she was always one of my favorite authors. It would have been nice to see a lot more of her books turned into movies!
-
i would have given this "0" stars if i had been given the option here. this was absolutely terrible. virtually everything was different and not one character looked or acted the way they should have. dimitri is Greek but has a British accent, lennie is initially portrayed as telling off colour type bad jokes - which is totally inaccurate, olympia was short/small/brunette and small chested. if you know this character at all you will know that her looks (blonde/voluptous/and pretty) had a lot to do with how she floated through life from man to man. one of my favourite parts was lucky & olympia in the south of France, this several week jaunt took up less than 3 minutes on the screen. warris charters does not exist and most confusingly of all lucky and dario do not hate each other later in life when they should. if you are a fan of the books you will probably hate this miniseries as much as i did! i hope none of this info is considered a spoiler but i was trying to illustrate just how far off it was. hope it helps!
-
mandyhorn2628 April 2003I thought that this was a good movie and that Nicolette Sheridan did a great job in the role of "Lucky". However there are parts of this movie which are not the same as the book. Overall the casting of Vincent Irizarry and Michael Nader were perfect as "Gino" and "Enzio" and if you don't blink you will see Sandra Bullock in this film.
-
southrenbelle7314 October 2003Lucky/Chances is a good movie based on a good book. I read the books first prior to watching the movie and it does follow the book closely with a few minor chnages. Vincent Irizarry could not have made a better Gino and Nicollette Sheridan was perfect to play Lucky. The acting may have been a tad bit over-the-top, but many of Jackie Collins' books are and that's probably why the movie was done that way. I'd personally love to see a silver screen version of this book so that more details of the story could be shown (there was a lot that couldn't be shown on t.v.).
-
zeemaza5 April 2019Seriously?
A blonde lucky?
If you've read the books, then don't watch this. I know you won't be able to resist, but you'll end up regretting it. This is nothing like the book. The cast looks nothing whatsoever like the characters in the books; nothing.
This is nothing but a lame, flat interpretation of an otherwise colorful, full of life, story. None of the details that made the stories so much fun can be seen anywhere. Horrible! -
Knight Of The Cross28 September 1999I can't tell too much about this one. Yes it's a good movie, but not more. I've read the novel, but there isn't a big difference between book and movie. The book is little boring and in the movie plot is usual and actors' play was highly mediocre. So, this movie fits for review only once.
-
dinacavanaugh30 October 2019As other reviewers have already mentioned, the casting is awful and, with the exceptions of Gino, Enzio and Steven, everything else is inaccurate. I didn't have a problem with the first part of the series. It was the second half. It was a complete rewrite of the Lucky and characters were completely left out. I loved the books and had just reread them when I stumbled across the miniseries on YouTube. Now I know why it never made it to DVD. Awful. I can't believe Jackie Collins (as Executive Producer no less!) signed off on this hot mess.
-
Victor Field6 December 2002Funny how things turn out; while going through the site and checking up on "I Saw What You Did" with Shawnee Smith (whose on-screen appearances on "Becker," curiously enough, coincide with the times during that amusing but inessential sitcom when yours truly pays most attention to the screen. There, comments on two TV productions for the price of one), I found out that she was in this interpretation of two of Jackie Collins's novels... like one wouldn't have been enough. Joan's more attractive sister also wrote, executive produced and even got her name in the title of "Jackie Collins' Lucky/Chances," clearly eager to remind us just who exactly we have to blame for this. Consider yourself blamed, Jackie.
Six hours of dire pap (Sandra Bullock was also in this, and must have counted herself as the real lucky one since her character died at the end of part one), and with a cast seemingly intent on seeing who can give the worst performance, it's ultimately only endurable as a laugh riot. In amongst this Olympiad of appalling acting, Nicollette Sheridan romps home with the gold as Lucky Santangelo (as one American critic wrote at the time, she's as adept at playing the daughter of a mobster as Roseanne is at singing) and only Michael Nader matches her in the thespian-as-plank stakes; we don't even get to appreciate Nikki's sublime bubble butt. At least "Hollywood Wives" had Laura Branigan doing the title song (though how Aaron Spelling persuaded her to waste her talent on his behest we can only speculate).
Wait for "I Saw What You Did" instead. (That's three comments now.)