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...
42 Reviews
A banal but well told story
valadas4 December 2005
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.
Entertaining schlock
Jeremy-12423 January 1999
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.
I remember the original being much more convincing.
ALOE4 September 1999
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 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.
Not an original set up but actually quite good despite the syrup
bob the moo30 April 2003
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.
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.
Hardly Glorious!
anaconda-4065830 April 2015
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
Insulting a master
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.
Definitely worth watching.
Jeffrey-14725 March 2012
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.
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.
Waste of time and money
free-radical-639 September 2018
This film is an absolute insult to John cassivettes and a slap in the face to Gena Rowlands! Actually an insult to myself and all viewers. This is the Sharon Stones most pathetic performance. We are supposed to believe that she is from Brooklyn or anywhere else in New York? I almost started laughing the first time she opened her mouth. This movie is one big fail, for the studio, for the public and for the supporting cast unless you're looking for a comedy.
Obviously it's not as "good" as the original. So what?
n-mo30 November 2018
Any film that bills itself a remake of John Cassavetes's 1980 'Gloria' is obviously putting itself up to an incredibly high standard, and without the benefit of the doubt of originality. This 1999 version thus not surprisingly fails to live up to its namesake, but if you go in resigned to this inevitability, you can still enjoy it albeit reservedly.
The real problem with this take is the writing. The concept is familiar enough to keep the essential plot elements together while still trying to do something different enough to hold our interest. To this end, the inciting incident near the start is done chillingly enough to give us hope that this might be good on its own merits. Unfortunately, as the film progresses, the original parts - save some nice one-liners - are executed progressively less gracefully. The pretext behind Gloria's pairing with the kid isn't 100% convincing (though could be worse) and the conclusion is decidedly sloppy. The plot feels by that time, as one writer said of a TV episode from many years ago, to hang together about as well as a soggy potato chip.
Fortunately, director Sid Lumet salvages what he can, ramping up the heat and the action as much as is tolerably possible to keep us entertained. Sharon Stone as a noticeably-younger take on the title character adds more than enough sex appeal - physical and emotional - to her character to hold our interest even when the script goes awry, as it often does. She plays the character with a lighter and somewhat less intense demeanor than Gena Rawlings did, but with just as much energy, and her airier way is arguably justified by the age differential. She definitely didn't deserve a Golden Razzie nomination for the role, but Jean-Luke Figueroa as Nicky, the kid, arguably did. On the other hand, he didn't have much to go on, either, the script withholding from him the kind of rough edge and from his relationship with Gloria the intense, almost romantic bittersweet tension that was there in the original.
"Less intense" is becoming something of a refrain in this review. It's an assessment that doesn't apply to *most* of the action but certainly to the interstices. But perhaps this too could not have been helped no matter what the script, performers or director: as other reviewers have pointed out, the original 'Gloria' was above all set in the gritty, dangerous New York that in hindsight existed only briefly from the 1960s through the 1980s. A 1999 version would have had to be a period piece to capture the same spirit as the original and even then would have been both a tougher task and a tougher sell.
Overall I'd give it a solid B-: worthwhile to see Sharon Stone as much as or moreso than to see her as the eponymous character, and good for a light, laid-back evening in to chill down after a stressful day, but don't go in looking for anything deep, analytical or thought-provoking.
The real problem with this take is the writing. The concept is familiar enough to keep the essential plot elements together while still trying to do something different enough to hold our interest. To this end, the inciting incident near the start is done chillingly enough to give us hope that this might be good on its own merits. Unfortunately, as the film progresses, the original parts - save some nice one-liners - are executed progressively less gracefully. The pretext behind Gloria's pairing with the kid isn't 100% convincing (though could be worse) and the conclusion is decidedly sloppy. The plot feels by that time, as one writer said of a TV episode from many years ago, to hang together about as well as a soggy potato chip.
Fortunately, director Sid Lumet salvages what he can, ramping up the heat and the action as much as is tolerably possible to keep us entertained. Sharon Stone as a noticeably-younger take on the title character adds more than enough sex appeal - physical and emotional - to her character to hold our interest even when the script goes awry, as it often does. She plays the character with a lighter and somewhat less intense demeanor than Gena Rawlings did, but with just as much energy, and her airier way is arguably justified by the age differential. She definitely didn't deserve a Golden Razzie nomination for the role, but Jean-Luke Figueroa as Nicky, the kid, arguably did. On the other hand, he didn't have much to go on, either, the script withholding from him the kind of rough edge and from his relationship with Gloria the intense, almost romantic bittersweet tension that was there in the original.
"Less intense" is becoming something of a refrain in this review. It's an assessment that doesn't apply to *most* of the action but certainly to the interstices. But perhaps this too could not have been helped no matter what the script, performers or director: as other reviewers have pointed out, the original 'Gloria' was above all set in the gritty, dangerous New York that in hindsight existed only briefly from the 1960s through the 1980s. A 1999 version would have had to be a period piece to capture the same spirit as the original and even then would have been both a tougher task and a tougher sell.
Overall I'd give it a solid B-: worthwhile to see Sharon Stone as much as or moreso than to see her as the eponymous character, and good for a light, laid-back evening in to chill down after a stressful day, but don't go in looking for anything deep, analytical or thought-provoking.
Almost unwatchable gangstress-with-a-heart-of-gold story
DoryO8 July 1999
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.
Might be a good rental for those playing Spot-A-Movie-Cliche-Take-A-Drink game.
Worth a Watch
superstar001224 May 2005
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!
Disappointing
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.
It's not so bad...
EdRooney22 January 1999
"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
John Cassevettes is SPINNING in his grave
Boyo-221 March 2000
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.
Wooden acting, straight forward dialogue, horrible direction. * out of ****.
Movie-1220 March 2000
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.
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.
It's one step up from awful..
Flints27 May 1999
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.
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.
Stone's dreamy but the movie is forgettable
pmtelefon4 August 2022
"Gloria" is a great looking movie. Sharon Stone's legs and the location photography are both terrific. The rest of the movie isn't so hot. The cast is hit and miss (Stone makes the hit side in a squeaker). The movie is uninvolving. Director Sidney Lumet seems to be going through the motions. This movie also has one of the most boring car chases you'll ever see. "Gloria" is a curiosity piece for fans of the original movie (like me). Dishonorable mention: the music.
ain't no Gena
SnoopyStyle19 March 2020
Gloria (Sharon Stone) is released from prison in her party dress. Her parole is in Florida but she immediately travels to New York City anyways. She wants her money from mobster boyfriend Kevin (Jeremy Northam) after taking the rap and spending three years in prison. Nicky is a young boy being hunted by Kevin's gang. His father had stolen a computer disk and given it to him as he goes on the run. The boy is alone after his family is massacred. When Kevin refuses to pay Gloria, she decides to take the boy.
Sharon Stone is doing some overacting. It's the heart of the problem and her greatest sin is that she's not Gena Rowlands. Gena shows glimpses of her heart but Sharon is doing an acting bit. There is some reworking of the premise but that is not solving anything. In the end, it all falls upon the chemistry between Sharon and the kid. If she calms down and has more time with the boy, the relationship would actually have the room to breathe. If taken as its own movie, this is marginally fine. As a remake, it is a step below.
Sharon Stone is doing some overacting. It's the heart of the problem and her greatest sin is that she's not Gena Rowlands. Gena shows glimpses of her heart but Sharon is doing an acting bit. There is some reworking of the premise but that is not solving anything. In the end, it all falls upon the chemistry between Sharon and the kid. If she calms down and has more time with the boy, the relationship would actually have the room to breathe. If taken as its own movie, this is marginally fine. As a remake, it is a step below.
She is rich, sexy, tainted, kind-hearted... with Puerto Rican child.
Moviefan-244 February 1999
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.
Gena Rowlands or Sharon Stone
csos16 May 2022
You decide. Actually no decision required. Gena a real actress that you get her just by her facial expressions (Sharon Stone only has one), her voice, her whole demeanour let's you know what's going on in her mind. Sharon Stone not so much. Bad remake of one of my favourite films.
I refuse to believe that Sidney Lumet directed this.
Rid.X11 March 2000
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.
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.
A ridiculous ending to an average film
neil_mc2 May 2003
CONTAINS SPOILERS
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.
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.
not the worst film ever, but it's a redundant effort, a seminal New York director remaking a New York director's film, and not even his best
Quinoa198411 November 2007
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.
Everything good about a bad Hollywood movie
caspian197823 October 2001
I can see him now, the Hollywood executive who sold his soul to the devil to sell out some of the best Independent cinema in order to make a few bucks. I don't care if Sharon Stone did a good job in this role. This was not a film that had to or should of been redone. Why? Because you shouldn't have to redo perfection. Not only was this film unrealistic, but my God, what was with some of these make believe characters and weak plot. If you wanted to make a fun film, you should remake Hogan's Hero...not a masterpiece of Independent film. If you ask me, they got George Scott to be a supporting character in the film and the rest was history. They might as well make a remake of Titanic again. Only this time, lets add an asteroid falling to Earth. They've only used the story line only 5 times in the past 3 years.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
