User Reviews (34)

Write a Review

  • Warning: Spoilers
    The feeling of nostalgia one experiences watching the original "Gloria" with Gena Rowlands, is sadly not present in this modern remake. Noticeably gone is that sweeping, dramatic score for the original, which added a sense of sadness and later, a sense of hope for Gloria and her young companion. "Gloria" first and foremost, is a New York story, and the city plays the largest part. Face it, the gritty, diverse and savage NYC that existed in 1980, is sadly no more. And that is why this 1999 effort lacks the heart, the quality that made the original a classic. Sharon Stone is quite good here, but she is too young here to play the middle-aged, world-weary Gloria; she simply does not look all that much like a woman who has had a truly rough life. And the young actor Jean-Luke Figueroa, while being very adorable, and a fine child actor, isn't always convincing as the streetwise, Spanish kid from the Bronx. Sometimes he reveals himself as a spoiled, very Americanized kid who has never seen the inside of a ghetto in his life. Remember John Adames, the kid from the original? Now that little guy was the real thing, seemed like he had lived all his life in the barrio. I believe his acting was weak because he wasn't an actor, just a real kid cast as a character like himself. The realism that made the first so great is lost here, in a remake that is too slick, and too stylish to have any real heart. Another thing that is missing is the grittiness, such as the hotels they are hiding in when the mob is chasing them. In the original the sleazy flophouses and shady hotels Gloria and Phil were staying in really added to the level of danger and desperation. This time around, Sharon Stone and 'Nicky' (they changed the boys name for some reason?) are staying in 4 star hotels! Generic and a bit boring. Of course the weakest thing about the remake, is the total lack of connection between Gloria and the boy. They don't seem believable here. In the original the little boy actually falls in love with Gloria, almost in a romantic way, and that was the sweetest, and most endearing thing about their relationship. Maybe in this day and age it was thought inappropriate to go that route. And the ending for the remake does not really work. For the audience to believe that the mafia would simply release a boy who witnessed them murder his family, they would have to be pretty gullible. No, the boy was 11, and all would assume that in a few years, he would return to avenge his family. notice in the original, Gloria and Phil planned an elaborate escape, where the mob would assume they were both dead, which added an extra level of suspense. For the average viewer, 1999's Gloria is a fun, enjoyable movie, but was a pointless remake. seeing this I can only pray that some idiot doesn't try to remake "Taxi driver." What a disaster that would be, for the same reasons that this one failed...
  • Hawk-3124 January 1999
    The 1999 remake of "Gloria", is an insult to the great John Cassavettes, who wrote and directed the original in 1980. Sidney Lumet proves that he is not even in the same league as Cassavettes. This new version completely lacks the energy and the intensity of the original. Ridiculous melodrama and overblown sentimentality is the only thing Sidney Lumet has to offer. And Sharon Stone's acting ability seems laughable when compared to Gena Rowlands, who originated the role in 1980. Rent the original and skip the remake. Make Cassavettes proud.
  • Even though I was a kid when I saw the original, I can remember it being much more endearing and convincing than this Sharon Stone remake. It's not great, it's not bad, but Sharon does not ever convince me that she is a "mother-figure" to the orphaned boy she wants to help. She's always just a little too abrasive, too tough, and trying too hard to be sexy in this role.

    The boy who plays one of the lead characters comes off better than Sharon. I'm wondering what kind of recruiting they needed to get George C. Scott and Jeremy Northam in this movie. My advice is to stick to watching Sharon Stone in her usual glamorous, sex-pot type roles. They are much more suited to her style.
  • The veteran Sidney Lumet wastes his talent here by presenting us with a well told but banal story of a woman involved with the leader of a criminal gang who accidentally becomes aware that the gang is willing to kill a little boy in order to eliminate a possible undesirable witness and decides then to save the boy at the risk of her own life, initiating a course of hide and run well shown in a sequence of scenes thrilling enough to rivet our attention. However neither Sharon Stone in the role of the woman who develops maternal love for the boy nor Jean-Luke Figueroa in the role of the little boy suddenly orphaned and becoming sentimentally attached to her, are very convincing indeed and that's the weakest part of the movie. The best part of the movie is the acting of George C. Scott another veteran, here in a minor role but showing his great talent every time he appears on screen. A fair movie after all.
  • I never really believed a second of this movie -- it feels like contrived Hollywood schlock. But I enjoyed it anyway. Sharon Stone's performance is fun, and her wardrobe alone is worth the price of admission. There's also one of the best car chases I've seen in recent years.
  • Gloria is released from prison having done her time the right way and never mentioning anything about her mobster boyfriend Kevin or his boss Ruby. She returns to find that he has not kept his end of the bargain. Also in Kevin's custody is Nicky Nuñez, a 6 year old boy whose family was killed for a disk of incriminating information. Gloria feels that the murder of a child is a step further than she can deal with and takes him and the disk. As the mob hunt them down Gloria realises her chances of survival are slim and tries to work out how to save Nicky.

    I expected nothing from this when I sat to watch it – in fact I was genuinely surprised when I saw that Sidney Lumet had directed it, as I had expected a trashy thriller-come-comedy of some sort. However the mood of the piece is set out early on when Nicky's family is murdered by Sean. This is a powerful and unpleasant scene in the film – not overly gory but moving. The main thread of the film is the old `hooker with a heart of gold' type of thing and I must admit that this element is often it's weakest part. It's here that I felt old ground was being treaded and that the sentimentality was allowed to get a little out of hand. This is particularly evident in the final 10 minutes (awful ending by the way) but it raises it's head several times during the film where `Gloria learns valuable life lessons about herself' etc.

    Happily for the most part this is offset by a some good thrills – such as some good car chases, moments of violence and a good sense of menace from the mobsters. Stone has a difficult role. It is one that could be swimming in it's sentimentality. She doesn't totally succeed (her accent is a little forced at times) but she carries it reasonably well. Figueroa has an even harder role in being the cute kid. Sadly for the most part he is the `cute kid' and is a little irritating but he does have a few strong scenes that show there is more to him and he is good considering his age. Northam is OK, Starr brings real menace, Scott and Moriarty have clearly both been cast to add some class to the film but only have small roles.

    Overall this is a reasonable film. To some extent we've seen it before and the sentimentality really threatens to sink it at times. However a real sense of menace and some strong scenes make this a better film and the thriller scenes, although not great, are solid enough when combined with these to make the film watchable – just don't expect this to be without big areas of weakness though.
  • Sharon Stone with a Bronx accent? British actor, Jeremy Northam, copping same accent to sound like a mafioso? Ridiculous. Sharon must have agreed to do this movie to make a statement about her maternal side, wanting a baby, who knows! She plays a gangster moll who rescues a 7 yr old from being rubbed out (truly!), after which the entire movie shows the pair bonding in coffee shops an running from armed henchman. Will she leave the kid in an upstate Catholic school where he will get good care, education and A LIFE? Or will she be forced by the tug of her heartstrings to raise him herself in spite of having nothing but a criminal record to offer? What do you think? Ugh.

    Might be a good rental for those playing Spot-A-Movie-Cliche-Take-A-Drink game.
  • "Gloria" Having not seen the original Gena Rowlands version, I was very surprised to feel entertained and satisfied with this remake. Not much happens in this film, so therefore no marketing angles to work. It all depends on your tolerance for Sharon Stone. I have no problem with her. She has had some very fine performances in the past, and she is more capable then most actresses. Yet, her sheer ego and the "glamour" she sweats daily gets in the way of her natural charisma. In "Gloria" she is given full opportunity to own the frame with a detailed and rich performance. Her interaction with the child of the film is funny, and at one point - achingly heartbreaking. She works overtime to make the film connect. Working in the same old NY/LA vortex that has absorbed modern movies, the film is not really ground-breaking in any way, just simply enjoyable. Lately, that's all I ask from a movie. The Brooklyn mob hitmen that are the nemesis of Gloria are boring and cliched, but director Sidney Lumet does a fine job making the violence in the film pleasingly bloody and memorable. This version - I would bet - does not compare favorably to the 1980 Cassavetes's film, but for now I'm amazed how well it works.--------------- 7
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I looked this movie up on IMDb, because it had only 1-1/2 star rating on our UVerse movie guide, and I thought this must have been a mistake. (After all, they didn't even have Sharon Stone listed in the cast. But the IMDb reviews are low as well.

    I'm flummoxed! It's far from the miserable film described in some of the other reviews. If you listen to them, you might miss an enjoyable film experience. Sharon Stone is excellent, the child actor is excellent. The other characters are incidental and don't matter much, but they are generally good as well. The story is engaging enough... .and even if slightly contrived, in places, who cares? I recommend you give it a try.
  • shahrad24 August 2000
    One of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know why such a movies must be made. May be studios don't know how to spend their money. Sharon Stone's character as a mother is very, very ridiculous. It doesn't worth watching even for one time. Don't waste your time.
  • Yeah, I realize what it says under the director's credit. But there is no way in hell that I'm gonna believe that the man that gave us "Network", "Dog Day Afternoon", "Running On Empty", and his own quartet of NYPD dramas ("Serpico", "Prince of the City", "Q&A", and "Night Falls on Manhattan") is even associated with this. This is quite possibly the worst mainstream film of '99, in the cozy company of "Bats", "Virus", "She's All That", and (gasp!) "The Haunting", just to name a few.

    Where to begin? The script for starters. How the writer managed to completely foul up the original source material is beyond me. Much of everything that comes out of Sharon Stone's mouth is unintentionally funny, especially in one scene where she tells her young companion, "I'm trying to teach you a philosophy of life here!" after telling him opportunities in his future (these include going to a race track, lovemaking, and "chasing a skinny blonde girl with big boobs.")

    And while on the subject of Stone, it's roles like this that manage to solidify the claim that maybe, just maybe, her brilliant turn in "Casino" was a fluke. Please Sharon, say it ain't so!

    Like other users have mentioned, the film's only saving grace is the car chase. But there's a lot of tedium to get through until the chase scene comes. Then again, why bother?

    Avoid. I can't stress this enough.
  • I personally felt that Gloria was a good movie. Sure, it had a crummy start but the movie got better and better as time went along. As a viewer, I began to develop a sympathetic passion for Gloria and her relationship with the little boy. It was clearly obvious that she knew nothing about the principals of child rearing. But, there are a lot of people in the world who are not aware of them nor do they want to be. Yet at the same time, these people have a good enough heart that if put in the situation they can at least try. You can only teach with the knowledge that you have. Gloria was only trying to do the right thing, and I commend the character for that very reason. To whomever reads this, you should watch the movie on your own and come up with your own conclusion. In the end, that is all that matters anyway. Peace out!
  • GLORIA / (1999) *

    Starring: Sharon Stone, Jeremy Northam, Jean-Luke Figueroa, George C. Scott, and Bonnie Bedelia Directed by Sidney Lumet. Written by Steven Antin. Running time: 108 minutes. Rated R (for strong language, violence, and brief nudity).

    "Gloria" is a movie of such horrible proportions it is tough explaining in words the incredible ineffectiveness it presents on screen. The movie is robbed of almost all good qualities. There is no substance, style, or creativity here. It's all flat, contrived, and boring. The scenes consist of nothing but talking heads. "Gloria" is easily one of the year's worst movies and undoubtedly will place on many critics list of least liked productions.

    The film's opening is extremely week. We meet the title character, who is supposedly our hero, as she is being released from a hardened prison on parole. As she cusses at security guards walking out dressed as a cheap prostitute, this woman's attitude and condition of living make us sick.

    The second part of the first act has a family killed at gunshot by a gang led by a man named Kevin (Jeremy Northam), who murders these people because they withhold a computer disk containing information that could put every member in prison. Before the family's demise, however, the man of the house gives the valuable disk to his son, Nicky.

    A good movie usually begins with the introduction of its main character after the development. After the first act setup, the characters' morals and intentions should be clear. "Gloria" takes none of these preparations. The audience never becomes accustomed to any of the characters--thus we could not care less about what happens to them. This is especially true for the Nicky character, who is only a plot device. He has no interest, intelligence, important lines, or memorable scenes.

    The story's conflict revolves around Gloria adopting Nicky after Kevin threatens to kill both of them in order to recover the secret disk. Throughout the plot, the characters chase each other like a cat and mouse, with several key events leading the film's direction in the wrong way. The conflict's introduction with some proper material is good--although begins a little straight forward and seems jump started. The movie contains good structure throughout. The film features dialogue that is so straight forward and non descriptive, and the subtext is so blandly dumb, it is literally unbelievable. The conversations have no impact or meaning. They are just there, contributing nothing to the story. When Gloria exchanges consultation with Nicky, she talks to him like an object. This is exactly why the two characters share no charisma.

    The performances are wooden and uninspiring. What is Sharon Stone doing in this picture? Movies like these are way under her league. None of the characters are believable or interesting. Compare the young actor Jean-Luke Figueroa with the much more talented Haley Joel Osment from "The Sixth Sense."

    There is no emotional context here, nor is there any depth, energy, or involvement. The picture does not take any of the characters, situations, or actions seriously. I never once believed a character's life was at stake. Not much happens in the film, creating struggle for the advertisers and producers. Anyone like well-known Sharon Stone may draw some audiences in, but before long word of mouth should sink good old "Gloria" faster than the Titanic.

    Brought to you by Columbia Pictures.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Gloria (1999): Dir: Sidney Lumet / Cast: Sharon Stone, Jeremy Northam, George C. Scott, Cathy Moriarty, Bonnie Bedelia: It is a burning question as to why Sidney Lumet would remake the John Cassevette film for which he starred his wife Gena Rowlands? Plot regards a prostitute who takes a boy under her care. Sharon Stone spent three years in prison to cover her boyfriend's ass. He operates a mob in search of a disc that he killed a family to obtain but a boy survives. Feeling betrayed Stone protects the boy and steals the disc. Typical and predictable with way too much that we have seen before. A subway scene does nothing more than have Stone pursue the boy, and a scene involving her sister is not followed up. Directed by Sidney Lumet applies his skill but he is not creating the art he established with Network or Dog Day Afternoon. Stone is surprisingly good and handles humour effectively. She has seen the inside of a jail cell and the result of her sacrifice but now she slowly becomes a woman with responsibilities. Jeremy Northam plays the stereotypical villain. George C. Scott appears briefly and Cathy Moriarty is featured as Stone's sister who never seems to be used effectively. Regardless of one's thoughts on the Cassevetes film, this pointless remake does little to inspire interest outside stone's obvious sex appeal. Its themes cannot distract the fact that this is an unnecessary remake. Score: 3 ½ / 10
  • I rated this film a "2" because Sharon Stone wants soooo bad to give a "great", "oscar-winning" type performance.

    So many gaffes in this production and I am surprised what with Sidney Lumet's track record that he allowed it.

    See the first "gloria" with Gena Rowlands - it is much, much better. However, if you like Sharon Stone, she is okay in this movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The original "Gloria", a 1980 John Cassavettes film starring his wife Gena Rowlands, was an instant classic; be it his direction, the acting (particularly that of Rowlands, who so deserved her Oscar nomination for her performance as the titular character), the gritty look of the film, the authentic New York City locations in all their pre-Guiliani glory, or the screenplay, the film worked on just about every level. This remake, however, stands in pale (VERY pale) contrast in virtually any aspect one can think of. When the film opens, Gloria (Sharon Stone), a gangster's moll, is released from prison and returns to the home/hangout of her lover, Kevin (Jeremy Northam). By the time she arrives, she meets a young Latin boy, Nicky (Jean-Luke Figueroa), whose family Gloria's lover has had killed. Seems the young boy's father worked for this gangster and not only "knew too much" but was about to tell all. Having believed her lover's story that there would be money set aside for her while she cooled her heels in prison, Gloria soon finds out there is nothing, so, enraged and knowing the boy's worth, she kidnaps him at gun point and off they go, on the run from the mob. Poor Sharon Stone: trying SO HARD to match Gena Rowlands but constantly tripped up by a "Noo Yawk" accent that's often downright funny. Still, it's so apparent she's trying so hard that, throughout, you can't help but feel for her, a feat helped by the fact that she is obviously the only cast member who tries to create a character, though as written it's still the "hooker with a heart of gold" type, which is NOT the case with the 1980 film. In the original, Gloria is indeed a former gun moll, kind of ballsy but classy, never really hard-edged; here, as written, she's little more than a cheap, hard floozy. Jeremy Northam, a talented British actor, is slumming here, complete with laughable accent that rivals Sharon Stone's. As the boy Stone goes on the run with, and with whom she is supposed to bond with, Jean-Luke Figueroa isn't necessarily untalented, and in a better-made movie he might even be good; however, be it the dialogue or direction, he makes very little impact, a fact not helped by the lack of ANY chemistry between he and Stone. Bonnie Bedelia (as Stone's sister) and George C Scott (looking very ill, as a Mafioso head) are featured in small supporting roles but are essentially wasted. Sharp-eyed movie lovers will also notice the ubiquitous Mike Starr as a 'heavy' (he's the one who hangs on to the car Stone is driving); like character actor Dan Hedaya, Starr seemed to inhabit just about every film Hollywood made in the 90's, though here, Starr's part is strictly dramatic and not his usual comedic one. Behind it all is Sidney Lumet, a once-talented director who has helmed a few masterpieces in his time; however, whatever muses guided him towards those masterpieces has, in the last decade or two, abandoned him, for here he is again, delivering yet another celluloid stillborn. Not since 1982's "The Verdict", with Paul Newman, has he given the world a solid success. He isn't helped any by a screenplay that manages to ape the original while making absurd "updates" and taking liberties that cleanly toss out such things as believability and common sense. For instance, at the end, Gloria meets with the Mafioso head and asks that she be absolved of any wrongdoing AND to have the kid. He agrees. And off they go, into the wild blue yonder. In the original, Gloria has to shoot her way out to keep this young boy alive. One doesn't have to be particularly wise to mob life to understand that a Mafia capo isn't exactly going to let someone with that much knowledge just walk away. I absolutely adore the original film; I think it's exciting, moving, thrilling storytelling. If you feel the same way, avoid this picture at all costs. I happen to like Sharon Stone; I think in some ways she IS underrated as an actress, though one wishes she'd choose pictures that didn't suck. If you like her, you may enjoy her performance, if not the film. She tries, perhaps too hard. But like so many remakes, this one's a bust in every respect. Stick with John Cassevettes' original and understand why they shouldn't have even bothered with this new one.
  • Why is this woman taking that little Puerto Rican boy with her? She never even liked children! I guess she had to. It's just like the story says. Everyone died, and she had to keep the kid. This is a strange story. Here's a woman that, even though she's on parole, is evidently in full control of her destiny. ...And now, with a little Puerto Rican, that says she's her mother, father, sister, girlfriend, everything. I guess is good if the boy does not swell the statistics of the child protection offices in the tri-state area. The kid could very well have wound up in Paterson, and part of the famous "corridor". She did nothing to cause the child's predicament. I guess she felt a kinship, also victimized. There are two things I liked a lot about this movie. The story is not one of them. I can think of other Stone films where the story was one I understood and liked better, for instance, Sliver. But this film is quite an achievement, I think. I often felt as if I was watching a very current film, directed by Hitchcock. A lot of sequences look quite a bit more artistic, than one would expect to go with the story, while simultaneously remaining perfectly current. I think Sharon was, as always, real good. Her fans will recognize her best as the great piece she is, during the first scenes, when she leaves the pen in NJ. But after that, everything takes a back seat to the problem with the Puerto Rican bundle of joy. I recognized Lyndhurst Castle, one of the oldest buildings in NJ, where the school scene was filmed. And although I have never been to any of those localities in the city, the film makes them look familiar but not so threatening. I wonder what happened next, did she become the little boy's mother? Did they live together in blissful domesticity? Well, in any case she did a great job with the boys I thought. I won't see this one seven times, like Sliver, but I'll see it again.
  • This movie has no business connecting itself with the great movie made in 1980 called "Gloria" and starring Gena Rowlands and directed by her husband John Cassevettes. That movie's opening credits sequence is better than the entire thing here - the paintings and the beautiful music set the mood for the movie.

    On the whole a really disappointing offering from Sidney Lumet which I would rate at 3/4 out of 10. I just felt that there was little to no chemistry between Gloria and Nicky throughout the whole film as she seemed intent on calling him "kid" all of the time - and I mean ALL the time. It's even more annoying that the makers of this film felt it necessary to use this ploy to show how Stone was trying to keep her distance from "the kid". Plain annoying and unnecessary.

    I found the ending of the film to be a sequence of very unbelievable occurrences. It's very odd that a bunch of "gangsters" would let Nicky go free when he knew that they had murdered his family. To think in realistic terms, it would be a conceivable possibility that when he grows he may just be a bit angry at these supposed gangsters for killing every member of his family and would be after them. Instead he goes free as Lumet presents us with a set of blundering, gun-waving idiots who are summed up by their pursuit of a bright yellow(!) floppy disk. I didn't see 'comedy' on the genre listing but the ending - and for the most part the whole thing - had me laughing for all the wrong reasons.

    If anyone hasn't seen this one already, I would say don't bother you haven't missed anything. Even for Stone and Lumet fans(like me before this), I would definitely steer clear. Even if the reason is no more than Stone's accent - I agree with some of the other users, it is ridiculous and does seem plenty overdone at times.
  • It would seem there is more to Gloria than meets the eye; this is in fact a remake of a film from 1980 and one that was directed by John Cassavettes. Interesting even more, then that upon discovering this was a remake shortly after I had seen it, and genuinely disliked it myself, that I would have new ammunition to use against this picture. If a film is made in the contemporary era of post 1960, why bother to remake it unless the idea was so brilliant and the initial execution was so poor. I haven't seen the original but from my own mind and other people's writing, it seems it was good idea, executed well; so why redo it?

    In 1980s Hollywood, the buddy genre it would seem enjoyed a strong series of successions. In 1999, are we still entertained by wise-cracking buddy formulas? The Rush Hour films say 'no, we are not'. But Gloria goes ahead anyway and by the time the credits have begun to run, what could have been set up, presented and told in about forty minutes has taken an hour and a half. Such is the nature of the film, Gloria (Stone) runs around the city with kid Nicky (Figueroa), for just about the entire runtime; getting into mis-adventures; scraps and situations oh, and the kid does a whole load of annoying moaning in-between. Gloria is a film that outstays its welcome pretty sharpish; the idea for the film is pair together a gangster's moll and a kid whose family was on the wrong end of the gangster's she's connected to and have them ride around the city for a day or two as we watch them; that's it.

    It seems strange Gloria and Nicky would even hang around for as long as they do. Gloria has to be in Miami for a parole hearing in a couple of days but they stick around anyway despite being able to go whenever they please after Gloria cashes in some stolen jewellery. During the course of the film, Gloria and Nicky should've learnt a few harsh lessons about life; they should've been able to know a new something or two about themselves: Gloria merely picks up on the importance of friends; something she's probably never had before given her role in society and the life she had chosen. Likewise; Nicky is only seven and is thus too young to learn any serious, valuable lessons about life – all he comes away with is a deceased family and a new mother figure. But that's all he needs; that's all he cares about: someone to help him along; someone to cook and clean for him; someone to tuck him in at night hence why the scenes where they share beds and talk about love are just disturbing since Gloria has adopted that motherly role.

    But the harshest lessons in life occur for Gloria in the film's set up; ironically the films best part. The idea of a seven year old and a gangster's moll trying to survive the gangsters gets old after about ten minutes so everything before then is quite fun. There's a good shootout at an apartment after a Hispanic family fall foul of the gangsters and that taboo of child killings is toyed with somewhat (albeit off screen) but the scene emphasises Hollywood's inability to branch out: of course the victims are Hispanic; they couldn't be white, American, could they? Also, there are extensive readings into the 80s buddy movie and how the formula of white guy/black guy works and revolves around one another. There is Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, 48 Hrs. and the rest: here, Gloria (white) adopts the 'white' role and the seven year old is the binary opposite: non-white, male, a child, etc. But Gloria learns in the elevator coming down that she has wasted her life; she has just paid the price for being a submissive bimbo/moll the instance after she is thrown out of her own apartment by the man who 'loves' her. She has been in jail for too long and now what was once hers is now someone else's.

    Initially, Gloria might have saved the child just to antagonise the guy who has taken everything from her. There is that fear of harm coming to the child but initially, I feel that is vacant. And so, what follows is a series of pranks and situations that are not interesting; not scripted well and are just rather bland. The kid moans a lot: "I'm hungry; I'm thirsty; I'm tired; I need the toilet." and that gets very repetitive – was it done for laughs? I hope not. Secondly, the film's buddy partnership however quaint does not work either: bad acting, bad script and too many scenes that feel they should be heart warming but are just duds. Especially disappointing considering the 'motherly' role that is very much present. In between all this, Gloria gets the chance to dish out some bad advice for the scamp. After receiving good advice from his own father, Gloria fills up Nicky's head with things like: "Life is a dream, it only lasts a minute" and "When you grow up, you're gonna make lots of love, drink and gamble." Has that elevator ride down in the first fifteen minutes not taught her anything? How sad.

    Gloria's best bit is a car chase but that is disappointing in its own right in the sense it is a complete rip-off of 1954's Seven Samurai; the Kurosawa classic. The editing and pacing of the two cars involved is like-for-like meaning Gloria's best bit is actually a copy of something else; again, how sad. By the time Gloria has made up and changed her mind in the penultimate scene and you see them walk off into the sunset (so to speak), you may have your head in your hands – anti-climatic and too dull to be anything special, Gloria is one to avoid.
  • Gloria was originally a film by John Cassavetes. I could understand any serious filmmaker wanting to take a stab at material that came out of one of the kings of independent American film. But with Gloria it's a story that could have been told by a lessor filmmaker, a story that might've been told anyway had Cassavetes not jumped on it first. With Sidney Lumet's version, there's not too much of a difference except having in Sharon Stone in the Gena Rowlands part. That's not the main issue to have with the film though, as she is a fine actress. It's the fact that it's just not entertaining, that the connection between Stone and the little boy she saves is not strong or believable ("smoke when you're 10" is a line that stuck with me, sarcastic but not all that funny), and the whole gang story surrounding them also just sits like a lump. There's nothing that Lumet, with all of his skills in his own right, can do to uplift the material or present it in a manner that's fresh or absorbing. I'd say if you had to pick one go for the original. Then check out the rest of the films by Cassavetes, and with Lumet as well. It's a New York story for the birds.
  • Some of best overacting ever in a major, expensive Hollywood remake. All of the characters seem like characterizations, even the little boy.

    The New York locations are never used as anything more than a framework for this farce. The thrills are few and so staged that they call attention to the fact that this is a stagnant series of unoriginal clichés.

    Embarrassing at times and even laughable. It is a grandly grating gang of stiffs that are as uninteresting as they are unbelievable. This is so heavy handed and unintentionally humorous it borders on bad and unworthy of the urban crime thriller.

    A complete letdown and we have, once again, a why did they bother to remake if they can't remember.
  • Sharon Stone gets the chance to show she's more than just a skirt. It isn't often she does any actual acting, but this is one occasion on which she demonstrates true chops, playing a tough-as-nails broad from Brooklyn who, despite herself, warms to an orphaned kid. Nice to see Cathy Moriarty, of course, in anything -- another strong talent who usually gets called on to use very little ability. One of her more enjoyable turns outside the gritty job she did in Copland and the stock but nonetheless winning turn in Analyze That. John Cassevettes (it's amazing just how versatile this guy have proved to be over the years) script works well. Nothing terribly profound in this spitfire-gets-tired-of-being-shafted-by-her-crook- boyfriend-so-the-mob-catches-hell scenario. But, then, not everything has to be profound. All in all, it's a fine little film.
  • Movie Nuttball30 August 2005
    Gloria is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Sharon Stone, Jean-Luke Figueroa, Jeremy Northam, Cathy Moriarty, George C. Scott, Mike Starr, Bonnie Bedelia, Barry McEvoy, Don Billett, Jerry Dean, Tony DiBenedetto,Teddy Atlas, Bobby Cannavale, and Sarita Choudhury. The acting by all of these actors is very good. Stone is really excellent in this film. I thought that she performed good. The action and thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Sharon Stone, Jean-Luke Figueroa, Jeremy Northam, Cathy Moriarty, George C. Scott, Mike Starr, Bonnie Bedelia, Barry McEvoy, Teddy Atlas, the rest of the cast in the film, Action, Thrillers, Dramas, Crime, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!
  • 'Broad' as an American slang word for a woman must be pretty out of date now. I wonder if anybody still talks about either 'broads' or 'dames', as perceptions of women have moved on a bit. I don't believe they are 'chicks' or 'birds' anymore either. They also aren't any longer 'skirts' because so many don't wear them. All of these terms were somehow derogatory. 'Birds' were to be 'pulled', 'broads' were to be 'laid', and so on. In retrospect it is clear that these were all slang terms for women used by men, as put-downs to reduce women to objects of lust. It was OK to 'pull' a 'bird', but you can't linguistically speaking properly 'pull' a woman. So by reducing women to linguistic categories designed to diminish their worth, they could then safely be exploited without troubling one's conscience. A 'woman' still has some dignity, so in order to be exploited for purposes of lust, she must first be reduced in status to that of 'broad' or 'bird'. The reductionist urge to diminish women linguistically is equivalent to the use of the word 'untermensch' ('sub-human') by the Nazis to diminish the Jews so that they could kill them. Killing, 'laying', 'pulling', are all different destructive modes applied to linguistically diminished categories of humans specially targeted but who first need to be placed into special categories where it is OK to do anything to them that one wants. I say all of this because there is one remarkable moment in this film where Sharon Stone says of herself: 'I've always been a broad'. She has spent her life as a mobsters' moll, and in her moment of self-realization, freely confines herself to the category of 'broad' in recognition of her lifelong willingness to allow herself to be a lust-object for hire, to sleazy men who go around killing people. Sharon Stone is eerily convincing at being a 'broad' and she has the New York accent of a 'broad', and such a 'broad's' attitudes and mannerisms to perfection. So hers is a stunning performance in the central role of Gloria. The mobster whose moll she has been most recently is played by Jeremy Northam. For an English actor he did amazingly well at speaking like a New York gangster. He must have studied hard with his voice coach to pull that off! His casting is a typically inspired example of lateral thinking, doubtless by Sidney Lumet, the director. Lumet was such a thorough pro that he pulls off this film (please note that 'pulling off' is not related to the 'pulling' above mentioned, nor does it have anything to do with pulling off a jumper; are these linguistic notes becoming tiresome?) with his usual aplomb. The previous mobster whose moll Stone had been is called Ruby, and is played with unrivalled brilliance by George C. Scott, who oozes the most charming form of evil out of his eyes like lizard gall bladders being squeezed in a juice bar. And it glistens! Stone has just come out of prison after serving three years for something Northam had done. She comes to claim her money which was their 'deal', but Northam reneges, and the broad realizes she has been a chump. (Do people still say 'chump'?) And that is when the story really begins. Northam has just 'bumped off' (that euphemism is still in use) a family of Puerto Ricans in Washington Heights because the man had stolen a computer disc listing all the criminal contacts of the mobsters, such as which police officers and judges 'and even a congressmen or two' are on the mobsters' payroll. But the six year-old son of the Puerto Rican has escaped with the disc. Northam captures him and he is sitting in Northam's apartment where Northam is in dispute with a subordinate who wants to bump him off but Northam says: 'I won't kill a kid.' And that is when Stone turns up. Through complex circumstances, Stone and the kid (brilliantly played by child actor Jean-Luke Figueroa, who was actually nine but looked six) go on the run together. It gets more and more complicated. Stone has never liked kids or had any maternal instincts, and the film is largely about the transformation of her character through the enforced proximity to the kid. She starts to go all gooey, and the kid adopts her as his new mother, and it thus becomes a psychological drama. Lumet keeps this on an even keel and the film works because he was such a pro, and the same goes for Stone. The film could easily not have worked in lesser hands. But because it was done so well, the film is worthwhile, surprising, and very engrossing to watch. I noted that John Cassavetes was credited as co-writer and then discovered that he first directed the film GLORIA in 1980 with Gena Rowlands playing Gloria. I was unaware of that Cassavetes film and will now try and see it for comparison. Some have said it was far superior to Lumet's remake of it, and I would not be surprised. Gena Rowlands is respected on all sides for her great talent, and must have been stunning as Gloria. Certainly Rowlands was so overwhelming in Cassavetes's OPENING NIGHT (1977, but my rave review of it mysteriously disappeared from the IMDb website long ago), that I have no hesitation in pronouncing her a genius. So we shall see, but meanwhile, this film is very good regardless and should not be denigrated even if its predecessor were superior to it. Good remakes are very rare, and this certainly is one of those. Let's be fair.
An error has occured. Please try again.