VALUTAZIONE IMDb
5,8/10
2556
LA TUA VALUTAZIONE
Aggiungi una trama nella tua linguaLinda is still tormented by giving up a baby for adoption at 15. She wants a baby, but her husband has enough in his model trains, mistress and being a doctor.Linda is still tormented by giving up a baby for adoption at 15. She wants a baby, but her husband has enough in his model trains, mistress and being a doctor.Linda is still tormented by giving up a baby for adoption at 15. She wants a baby, but her husband has enough in his model trains, mistress and being a doctor.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 2 candidature
Vance Colvig Jr.
- Mr. Ennis
- (as Vance Colvig)
Elijah Perry
- Redneck
- (as Jerry Rushing)
Toni De Rose
- Young Linda's friend
- (non citato nei titoli originali)
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizAfter screening the dailies of Gary Oldman screaming at the beginning of the film, projectionist Herbert Gambill suggested to the producer they use the John Lennon song "Mother" to accompany the scene, as both the scene and the song suggested primal scream therapy. The editors added it as temporary music and it wound up in the released film.
- BlooperAfter being confronted by Martin (Gary Oldman) during her attempted (pseudo)-suicide by drowning herself in the pool, Linda Henry (Theresa Russell) exits the pool for the very first and only-ever time and there is plainly seen a trail of dripping water leading from where she is exiting the pool over to where she is retrieving her towel, clearly left over from a previous take of the same sequence just moments before.
- Citazioni
Henry Henry: If there's one thing I've learned in this world, it's that women and trains don't mix!
- Colonne sonoreM.O.T.H.E.R.
By Theodore Morse and Fiske O'Hara
© 1915 Leo Feist Inc.
Used by Permission of Ascherberg, Hopwood & Crew Ltd.
Lyrics by Howard Johnson (uncredited)
Performed by Gary Oldman (uncredited)
Recensione in evidenza
A doctor's wife (Theresa Russell) tires of his obsession with model trains, and spends her days wondering about the son she gave up for adoption at birth...
How can you not love a film with Christopher Lloyd as a masochist doctor who drops his pants? And Gary Oldman as a weird, British man-child? And directed by the wonderfully under-appreciated Nicholas Roeg ("Don't Look Now")? Well, with this film, it is possible.
Janet Maslin has more than a few problems with it, as she says "the direction is so laden with contempt for the characters... Roeg's films can often be perverse... (but) they are rarely this silly." The film is "too mindless to have any impact" and she believes the actors' skills are "regrettably wasted". I will agree with that last point -- for as much as I love Oldman and Lloyd, I felt they were too confined by this film to really show off.
Roger Ebert gave the film three stars, despite saying he did not like it. He posits the idea that the film is "perhaps deliberately" unlikeable. Yet, the film is still a good one and "more interesting" because of it. Roeg's work is "strange" and "convoluted", as well as "bad-tempered, kinky and misogynistic."
While I am unsure of all that, I do agree with the overall point Ebert makes. I, like him, did not enjoy the movie. Yet, I see the psychological message it was trying to send, the odd symbolism and the cacophony of images. The direction is, in fact, top-notch. Oldman is frustratingly annoying, but that is who his character is. I think the goal was met, despite being a goal I had rather they were not striving for.
How can you not love a film with Christopher Lloyd as a masochist doctor who drops his pants? And Gary Oldman as a weird, British man-child? And directed by the wonderfully under-appreciated Nicholas Roeg ("Don't Look Now")? Well, with this film, it is possible.
Janet Maslin has more than a few problems with it, as she says "the direction is so laden with contempt for the characters... Roeg's films can often be perverse... (but) they are rarely this silly." The film is "too mindless to have any impact" and she believes the actors' skills are "regrettably wasted". I will agree with that last point -- for as much as I love Oldman and Lloyd, I felt they were too confined by this film to really show off.
Roger Ebert gave the film three stars, despite saying he did not like it. He posits the idea that the film is "perhaps deliberately" unlikeable. Yet, the film is still a good one and "more interesting" because of it. Roeg's work is "strange" and "convoluted", as well as "bad-tempered, kinky and misogynistic."
While I am unsure of all that, I do agree with the overall point Ebert makes. I, like him, did not enjoy the movie. Yet, I see the psychological message it was trying to send, the odd symbolism and the cacophony of images. The direction is, in fact, top-notch. Oldman is frustratingly annoying, but that is who his character is. I think the goal was met, despite being a goal I had rather they were not striving for.
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
- How long is Track 29?Powered by Alexa
Dettagli
Botteghino
- Budget
- 5.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 429.028 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 19.304 USD
- 11 set 1988
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 429.028 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 31 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
By what name was Mille pezzi di un delirio (1988) officially released in India in English?
Rispondi