User Reviews (15)

Add a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is similar to 'The Player' and 'Adaptation', a movie within a movie, which most of the comments seem to miss. All of the comments on this movie seem to assume that 'Matthew' is really a homeless person. The last part of the movie, however, indicates that Oliver is really Matthew Delacorta. You hear his fellow mates at the shelter saying he had a wad of $20's. You see him tip the diner waiter generously. This man has money. His new movie is supposedly named 'Diversion'. He mentions the stars in the movie to be his fellow shelter bums. In the penultimate scene, what is popping out of the computer printer is an article on a movie 'Diversion' with a picture of someone who looks like Oliver.

    This explains the scene at the end, where he stares at her and she looks depressed, because she realizes he really is Delacorta and is not a homeless person she picked up. He really is staying at the shelter to soak up some atmosphere. Realizing their relationship was based on her fantasy, which no longer exists, he leaves. We assume that subsequently he makes the movie about that day and calls it Sunday. A nice twist to a well-acted flick.
  • I went to see this movie because I know the producer Amy Hobby. I was very pleasantly surprised at what a nice film it is- a look at two lonely people who meet for a day and are a little better for knowing one another. The sound was muddled on the print I saw- but the overall effect was a nice film for an afternoon- honest filmmaking with people who look real, not the pretty boys of Hollywood... if you see it at the video store rent it for a pleasant experience.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Talking to a family friend about films he was after,I got told about an indie movie starring David Suchet. Checking on Amazon,I was surprised to find that it had only come out on DVD in France,which led to me watching it before the end of the week.

    The plot:

    Walking back home with a plant, former actress Madeleine Vesey spots a homeless man who looks just like film maker Matthew Delacorta. Believing him to be Delacorta, Vesey takes him for a bite at a diner. Attempting to talk about his work,Vesey finds Delacorta's memories to remain vague. Over the next few days "Delacorta" hints to Vesey that he is actually a different guy called Oliver,which leads to Vesey struggling to tell what is real and what is fiction with Oliver/Delacorta.

    View on the film:

    For a title shot in the US with two non-American leads using fake US accents and the film itself only being on DVD in France,co-writer (with James Lasdun)/director Jonathan Nossiter fittingly goes for a peculiar atmosphere,with the indoor scenes being shot in cramped camera angles that bring a tight closeness to Oliver/Delacorta and Vesey's relationship. Making his first non-documentary work, Nossiter retains the grit in his fiction debut via taking inspiration from the American New Wave and shooting on the streets of Queens New York.

    Subtly slipping in an ingenious twist ending,the screenplay by James Lasdun and Nossiter keep the dialogue wonderfully brittle,as Oliver / Matthew Delacorta vagueness over his identity allows Vesey to paint their relationship/ the "homeless man" into the corner that she sees fit. Bravely appearing naked in sex scenes, Lisa Harrow and David Suchet each give impeccable performances as Vesey and Oliver / Matthew Delacorta. Openly stating the pity she feels for him in front of his face,Harrow gives Vesey an expressive bohemian vibe,which strikes a fuse when Vesey learns left-field secrets about Oliver / Matthew Delacorta. Playing his real identity constantly in doubt, David Suchet shines in his timed exchanges with Vesey,and a fumble nature in revealing personal info at the end of the week.
  • The film's gritty outer-borough images of Queens, familiar to any born and bred New Yorker, got my attention instantly. But it was the film's two principal characters--both middle-aged, both survivors of difficult lives--that sustained it. He, an out-of-work middle management type, is a victim of corporate downsizing now living in a homeless shelter among a multiethnic, multiracial horde of down-and-outers, where he struggles to maintain bare-minimum standards of privacy and personal hygiene--and where remnants of his middle-class life set him apart from his surroundings. She, a faded beauty and still-struggling actress, maintains an oddly genteel life in a rundown two-family house nearby, surrounded by weedy lots and shuttered factories. As they meet and proceed to remove their masks, a kind of love story--brief, impossible, and ultimately doomed, is ignited. This is a beautifully shot and acted film, and a deeply affecting one.
  • This film was shown on the IFC channel. I had not heard of it before. After seeing it, I believe it deserved a wider distribution and more formal review by the critics.

    I found the film to be hypnotic. The two leading actors, David Suchet and Lisa Harrow, played their roles in natural and unabashed manner that in a way kind of made me feel less like a voyeur, but more as an observer. I found myself drawn to protagonists in a very sympathetic way and into their short lived relationship.

    Watching this film is time well spent.
  • What a risky, amazing film! One could call it small, but only in its focus on "ordinary" needy people. In its theme and treatment it has a humaness and innovation that most so-called "big" movies totally lack. A man,Oliver, who has lost his job, family, middle-class status, is living in a homeless shelter with truly down-and-outers. It's Sunday in New York, Queens. On the street a has-been actress mistakes him for a director she once knew. He plays along...The viewer gets to know these sad people inside-out as they begin a relationship. The city itself and its derelicts are intercut into the continuity, becoming significant "characters" in themselves. The musical score is rich and fitting, international and enhancing. Jonathan Nossiter, the director, deserves more accolades than he probably received. See this film!!!
  • If Queens is truly an `un-place,' then 'Sunday' is an `un-film.' That is to say un-believably magnificent! To give this masterpiece a particular label, would rob this wonderfully imaginative film of the root of its quirky charm.

    I was not familiar with the work of either David Suchet or Lisa Harrow, though I did recognize the name of the director, Jonathan Nossiter.

    This delightful and honest film rearranges stereotypical categorizations and societal stigmas by transporting us to the `other side of the glass.' While not in great detail, we are acquainted with each member of the men's shelter, which is the location around which 'Sunday' revolves. Some characters are endearing, such as the Vietnamese man who sings opera tunes to canned music in the subway for change, or Ray, the red-haired chain-smoking man who roams the street looking at women's legs and relentlessly searching for the ultimate porn mag.

    I believe that this again supports the central theme, which discourages as well as discredits the practice of labeling and stigmatizing. The viewer is forced instead, to get to know the men and appreciate each of them on the basis of their individuality.

    'Sunday' creatively addresses many issues: shame, regret, pride, and deceit. Suchet's character, the protagonist, Oliver Levy-who may or may not be an alias for the famed film director, Matthew de la Corta-is a disillusioned middle-aged fellow who, by way of an unlikely exchange on the streets if Queens, meets Harrow's Madeleine, a woman of similar age and emotional status. The pretense of their meeting is initially awkward and unusual, if not completely bizarre.

    However, as the film progresses, a most amazing transformation occurs. Within a mere twelve-hour period, amid large amounts of uncertainty, assumption and tactful execution of the imagination, Madeleine and Matthew become tremendously close. By evening, after a few choice run-ins with Madeleine's estranged (as well as strange) husband, Ben, she and Matthew are seen holding hands in a Queens diner, talking intimately like old friends.

    The point is finally stated-after having been corroborated by the preceding film-that although the world would like to base our worth on `what we do,' in the sense of corporate achievement, the true quality of a person lies, rather, in who we think we are. The way in which we are perceived and subsequently accepted by the people who love us and believe in our potential to succeed, is far more instrumental in our pursuit of fulfillment.

    Life, inside as well as outside the shelter, is a collection of intricate and unique parts that constitute a whole. Each person has within himself or herself the power to be great, but greatness is subjective. This film proves that love can be found anywhere, whether in a shabby diner over the odd Ozarta, or while walking back from a subway lugging a large house plant.

    'Sunday' gloriously shows us that whether ones glasses are on or off, it is not with the eyes, but with the heart that we can clearly see the wondrous spectacle of true love.
  • Sunday (1997) is a beautiful film about a lost day in the lives of two lost people. It is also about their attempts to locate themselves and connect to each other. It is complicated, sad, haunted, angry, hopeful, sweet, awkward, mysterious, confusing, gritty, and ultimately quite everyday and ordinary. Something tremendous is happening in this film, and this something is poetry.
  • One of the most unique films I've seen in years. An indie film with a meticulously well thought-out story, full of clever twists and surprises; not a comedy but an offbeat drama with some amusing moments. Excellently conceived and directed, with Lisa Harrow as the standout (great body, too). The only minus is the amateurish overacting provided by Richard Harris's little boy, Jarred. I have no idea how this talentless, nepotist, unsympathetic nerd manages to get his face into so many interesting movies.

    Unfortunately, indie films have already had their heyday in the 90s, and are by now (2006) as good as dead. Today, nearly every indie film has to have a PC message, and is made by a talentless moron.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I loved the beginning--the way you can't quite tell what the setting is, or who the main character is...the story is out of focus the way the world is to Oliver when he takes his glasses off.

    At the beginning, it stated somewhere that this film was based on a story called "Ate, Memos: the Miracle". All while watching it, I kept trying to figure out what the memos were. A lot of the film was in blue and orange. I wonder what those colors meant to the producer?

    When they were telling each other those stories, Oliver's was true but Madeleine didn't know it (although at first I thought she did)--and Madeleine made hers up, but Oliver thought she was telling the truth (and so did I!).

    That husband of hers was really scary. What was he trying to do? I didn't quite catch the story about the ex-husband and the couple in the shower, but it probably was supposed to connect with the scene where the plant was in the shower.

    That scene on the street when they run into the other men from the shelter was really weird--very spooky and unreal the way Oliver was suspended between them and Madeleine. Must have seemed that way to him, too. Lots of blue and orange there, too. When Oliver paid for their meals at the diner, I knew their relationship was doomed. How could he afford to keep up the pretense?

    What was the significance of those plants behind plastic in the bedroom? Did they represent Oliver? He was half dead (spiritually, anyhow), Madeleine brings him home and revives him, but doesn't really see him. It's like she's looking at him through not very clear plastic.

    Madeleine looked like Manet's Olympia, the way she was posed on the bed at the end.....I wish I knew what happened between Oliver's gazing at her there and ending up back on the street. Did she see that fax and realize that he was an imposter? Or did she know already and not care? Could he have told her the truth before he left? Was she using him, thinking of course that he was a producer? It didn't seem like a love story to me, just a couple of unhappy people who got caught in a time warp together.

    The saddest part was watching Oliver warming his hands on her radiator, knowing that he was going to be on the street all night in the cold, because it was past curfew. I wonder if that one day of being considered a "real" (read: not homeless) person was worth losing his place at the shelter. I expect Madaleine probably went back to England and Oliver managed to pull himself together, find some sort of a life.....but changed, of course!

    I really want to see it again and try to figure some of this out.
  • hdavis-2917 January 2017
    Warning: Spoilers
    I doubt many people will care about this review of a 20 year old movie. I've read over 30 previously posted reviews and the verdict seems pretty consistent. This is a unique, brave, sensitive project with two stellar performances at its center. There's a lot of ambiguity and confusion in the script, leading to quite a range of reviewer interpretations. Is he, isn't he? Can they, can't they? These two lost souls have the ability and opportunity to rescue each other as friends and lovers, but come the crunch seem to back away from it. They come tantalizingly close, but just can't make it happen. They're both too broken. She refuses to let him be who he is, even though he's risked everything to admit his identity. She just won't have any of it. When he wanders off into the lonely night at the end, you realize they aren't capable of more.

    Only two reviews I read here, both "professional," commented on the nudity. It is so refreshing to see un-self-conscious nude scenes by two middle aged actors. Lisa Harrow was a beautiful 54 year old woman when she made this film. Women everywhere, especially those who rail against the cult of youth, should applaud Ms. Harrow for her willingness to bare all for her art. One critic observed that her character seems more comfortable in her body than in her life.

    The documentary-like footage of a homeless shelter was my least favorite part of the film, but arguably it is necessary to establish the indignity to which David Suchet's life has fallen. All in all, this is a rewarding film. It's not a date movie (unless you want to get a real quick read on your partner). It's not a family movie. Are they still making indie films like this? If not, the loss is ours.

    I wrote that review seven years ago (and forgot that I had). I re-reviewed it 7 years later, almost to the day. Here is the new review: I've watched this film ( on a VHS tape!) three times over the last 25 years. Each time I take it out, I think, this is it. This time I'll get rid of it and free up some space. And each time I come away thinking, what a fantastic piece of filmmaking. Other than the ending, which I still don't like, this is a damn near perfect film. It is essentially a two actor piece (probably originally a stage play) that has been beefed up into an extremely low budget New York film. The central roles are perfectly cast. The writing is terrific and the story is clever as hell. It is essentially a "small" film with one core idea that is strong enough to support the entire enterprise. That it got filmed and distributed in the first place speaks well of the industry 25+ years ago.

    The audience for this kind of film is admittedly small. No car chases, no explosions. Yes, it's got nudity and some explicit sexual references, but it's middle-aged sex. No flawless 20-year-old bodies on display. The ending, as I've suggested, is very downbeat and perhaps even disturbing. In fact of all the ways this film might have ended, this is perhaps the least uplifting. And maybe the most realistic. It seems to have been shot entirely on the streets and subways and diners of Queens, New York. For all its low budget charm, you won't see the plot twists coming.

    Seek it out if you can. Keep your expectations in check and this film might just blow you away.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I've seen this movie a number of times, and it still has the ability to raise questions and provoke discussions for me. There are so many possibilities that are never definitively answered. SPOILERS AHEAD: For example, when Madeleine looks at Oliver's wallet, does she find his identification, proving he's not the movie director, and she goes on pretending to believe he is? Why was the supervisor of the homeless shelter so willing to accept the baseless accusations of the others against a man who wasn't there to defend himself? Why does Oliver leave Madeleine looking sad that he's seemingly rejected her, as they were about to make love? Was he just unable to go on with the pretense anymore? And what is the exact relationship between Madeleine and the guy who seems to be her ex-husband? He appears to be living downstairs in the same building, but it wasn't all that clear. The true point is, of course, the fundamental loneliness of human existence, and the need to reach out and make a connection with others, something that Madeleine and Oliver experienced briefly. I feel the seduction scene between the somewhat intoxicated Madeleine, and the slightly less intoxicated Oliver ,is both strange and hilarious. You really don't know where that scene is going for a while. At first, I thought she was being cruel,and really putting him down, as she was obviously taken aback by the true story he told her. But when she leaned into him and touched her forehead to his ,and claimed, in a goofy dramatic voice, that she had drugged his drink with something that would turn him into a potted plant, as she had done with her other victims, and he grabbed her and began kissing her, leading to the staircase seduction, with them mostly dressed ,and she on top, I realized I'd seen something truly original. Recommended for viewers who enjoy a slow, thoughtful kind of movie, that makes you think a lot about apparently small stuff that's actually pretty important in our lives.
  • I went to see this movie because I knew Amy Hobby the producer. I was pleasantly surprised, except for some bad sound at the beginning, it was a movie that addressed the idea of loneliness and desperation in average people. Both the actors did a good job of bringing sensitive interpretation to their roles, but I was a little confused by the ending and I never did figure out the husband's place in the trio.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I watched this movie only because David Suchet was in it. I have followed his career for the past 7 years or so. It is frustrating to find anything beyond the 'Poirot' series with his name in the credits. I am not here to analyze the story but David Suchet's contribution to the overall success of the film.

    According to his website, Sir Laurence Olivier was Sir John Gielgud's mentor in acting. Sir John Gielgud was David Suchet's mentor. That means that from a thespian genealogy, there is a relationship between Olivier and Suchet.

    In this film, I realized why Suchet's talent for years has mesmerized me. His performance reminded me of Laurence Olivier in his powerful quietness. He evoked such angst and emotion without any outburst, tears or flailing of arms. He said volumes silently through quiet eyes. I simply felt like I was watching Olivier performing in Suchet's skin.

    I have seen this briefly in other films but never so unleashed as in 'Sunday'. This was the right script and the right director for David Suchet's talents. It was not a perfect script. It may not be the best film but it was a good script and a talented director. I know because I got to see a brilliant actor shine.

    I found the movie a bit difficult to follow but attributed that to artistic style. Every author and director has their inclination and desire to make their own voice heard. I can accept that and suspend my own sense of disbelief, at least for a couple of hours. After all, it was for the performance of the lead actor I had settled in.
  • morjim12 November 2002
    A delight in a world where "if you don't know what's going on in the first thirty seconds, you're lost." The first half-hour or so lets a viewer take in another world, one with which she may not be familiar, and allows a gradual "easing into" the plot, which sheds far more light on human behavior than almost any ten glossy, big-budget H-wood films out there. Most won't want to do the work required to fully appreciate this film. Take the time, talk it over, then get Signs and Wonders.