Color of Night

Good day! ‎📲 Earn daily income using just your smartphone & Whats App no pay ments, no hidden charges. ‎👉 Join @dominusupdates on Tele gram for the link, guide & more free updates!

I think one of the biggest goofs hasn't been mentioned: Jane March is wearing a wedding ring throughout the film, which is quite inadequate concerning Rose's role. However, I feel moved by the film. No matter what mistakes occur, or how non-realistic it is. For me it is similar to Hitchcock's Marnie. OK, maybe I feel touched by being saved by the love of a man who is sensitive and portrayed as a kind of psychologist.

I'm not going to pretend Bruce Willis movies are going to be remembered for their quality. I count Die Hard, Pulp Fiction, 12 Monkeys and The Sixth Sense as his only movies that will hold up. So the list of titles that might contend for Worst Bruce Willis Movie is crowded with contenders. Heck, his credits include several dozen movies in the past 20 years alone and I honestly wonder whether most of them didn't go straight to video. The shocking thing is Willis doesn't even put in the worst performance in this movie. So many quality performers chew through their scenes I simply have to let Willis off the hook here and blame the director. This movie has gratuitous violence, nudity and profanity. Which can be fun if used in service of a quality movie. But this ain't it. How they managed to squander $40M on this garbage would probably make for a good movie in and of itself.

This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, and I've seen a LOT of them. And if. you don't believe me, then just read Roger Ebert's review at its release. Roger was, if anything, not quite harsh enough on it. But he certainly wasn't wrong. Future "MST 3K" fodder, this.

Total ridiculous camp, but it's entertaining to see just how insane it can get. It's hard to believe a movie this off the wall received a major studio release. I was also surprised by how violent and gory it gets at time with some pretty gnarly effects work. The group therapy scenes are reason enough to watch it as a group of seasoned character actors sit around and try to figure out which one can chew the most scenery.

Two things happen at psychiatrist Bruce Willis' group therapy - one, he drops into a hot and heavy relationship with a tasty young thing and, two, patients start getting murdered. There are two ways of describing this movie. One is by applying the label "erotic thriller". The other is by describing it thus: ludicrous melodrama where half the characters remain at hysteria pitch throughout, and Bruce Willis reveals all in a series of sex scenes with Jane March who, despite getting her kit off frequently, fails to establish this as the breakthrough role it should have been given the scope of her character. This film is not un-entertaining, but it's for all the wrong reasons.

"Basic Instinct" was all the rage in the early 1990s, and many erotic thrillers tried to follow its path, upping the ante in violence and sex. "Color of Night" is one of those, and it cannot hold a candle to the 1992 film: there is little erotic heat between Bruce Willis and Jane March (who is cute, but no Sharon Stone in her prime), and the story is mostly predictable, with one major twist poorly disguised (no pun intended). It is also extremely long (140 minutes in its "uncut" form) for its genre. Nevertheless, it stays compulsively watchable for the duration. There are some great car stunts, some well-drawn supporting characters (Brad Dourif, Lans Henriksen), and a strong sense of humor (Ruben Blades, in particular, is frequently hilarious). The film is not nearly as bad as it is reputed to be in some circles. **1/2 out of 4.

This movie was made by a man who knows too much - about cinema history, about production detail, possibly about himself. While Richard Rush is no pedantic filmmaker, the movie has suffered because of his overreaching attention to detail. The criticisms about the film being unrealistic (in terms of group therapy and the raging cop) are true but don't get in the way of the general plot. As a whodunit, or who's doing it, it works well...as a slice of life, it's not there at all. Knowing that Richard Rush hadn't made a movie in years, is a perfectionist, has a weak heart, and that the film had been recut a million times (no doubt due to bad previews since Rush didn't have the power to control the cut despite bad reactions), I think it's safe to say that the whole project didn't have a chance to survive. As a sidenote, it was a delight to see Shirley Knight who gave a terrific but brief performance in a role that was basically all exposition.