Lightdeossk
Captivating movie !
Robert Joyner
The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one
Tymon Sutton
The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.
tfrizzell
Los Angeles commercial director Wesley Snipes goes to New York to visit dying childhood friend Robert Downey, Jr. (who is in the latter stages of AIDS) and has a quick affair with yuppie Nastassja Kinski. Their secret seems safe until one year later Snipes returns to New York with his erotic, but oft-times mean-spirited wife (Ming Na-Wen) and they meet Kinski by chance when they find out that she is actually married to Downey Jr.'s older brother (a cold and seemingly unfeeling Kyle MacLachlan, even equipped with latex gloves because of his fear of catching AIDS). Would-be potboiler is actually pretty tame in the end with Snipes and Na-Wen providing a few light sparks with a couple of emotional sparring matches, but probably the greatest conflict actually occurs between Snipes and his boss (Thomas Haden Church who in the end is really only a window-dressing character here). Kinski and MacLachlan are more quiet and supposedly deep-thinking than anything else and in the end it is Downey, Jr. who is the revelation being almost unrecognizable as a young man whose body and mind are beginning to decay from his horrid illness. However, it is almost like he is in the wrong film as his part just basically is used as a bridge on more than one occasion between Snipes and Kinski. Writer/director Mike Figgis (who was fresh off "Leaving Las Vegas" in 1995) tends to use coincidence, chance, and splintered relationships between major roles to get his points across. The film stutters and drags to its finale, finally resolving with a would-be jaw-dropping conclusion which in actuality most could probably see a mile away. Just lacks the fire and intensity needed to be much more than a curiosity and little else. 2.5 out of 5 stars.
kittaya19
I thought this film is good to watch if you like human drama. It begins with Max (Wesley Snipes) visiting a gay friend who is dying of aids. When he was on his visit, he has an passionate affair with a white, blond woman (Nastassja Kinski), who turns out to be the wife of his friend.This film has a daring take on interracial relation. While racial words were hardly mentioned in this film, the racial difference was apparent in the love scene between Snipes and Miss Kinski. The difference of skin color was even more explicitly apparent in the love scene when both characters are in bed together, and Snipes puts his black hands onto Nastassja Kinski's white breasts. The whiteness of Miss Kinski's body is also a reflection of her innocent feelings. These sexually sensitive scenes are quite a take on the courage of Miss Kinski. (she has two children at the time and she has to think about the influence on her children when they see their white mom being filmed naked with a black man).If you like dramas, I would recommend this film.
trpdean
**** Spoilers THROUGHOUT - do not read if you don't wish to know plot ***I'd never heard of this movie. I find it interesting that it gathered such a high proportion of foreign reviewers. Was this more highly promoted overseas than in the U.S.? I've never heard anyone in the U.S. refer to this.This is an intriguing movie primarily due to the truly wonderful caution-to-the-winds casting and the understated, very lightly limned love affair that yields the title. I'd never seen a Wesley Snipes movie, so I know him only from advertisements for action movies I'd no particular interest in seeing. In this, he's very much the center of the movie - yet quite understated and somewhat disagreeable -- in somehow an appealing way.As fine a performance as Downey gives, I don't like the plot point of a dying man causing others to "seize the day". It's simply too obvious - and although I know this is the movie's central theme, I don't like it because I don't believe "seizing the day" should ever mean jettisoning those to whom one has pledged to be faithful throughout life. Nor do I believe that one should determine all decisions in life by the criterion of what is likely to yield greater fulfillment/satisfaction. Such a criterion would mean the jettisoning of any obligation, any pledge, any promise, that is burdensome, onerous, draining to honor. When such pledges are those of marriage vows made before God and man - I have no truck with those who say it's the better course to abandon them because life is short and better times lie elsewhere. Sure, perhaps one should have married another. So? One didn't. The past exists - and vows are made to be kept.So, do I disagree with the central theme of this movie? Yup.Yet I still enjoyed this very much - largely due to the casting and for a change, the very skeletal nicely written plot. Unlike a few others commenting, I did find Snipes and Kinski to have a chemistry together - and found the pairing of white Pole and black American intriguing.I loved MacLachlan's performance (so many of those around a homosexual dying of AIDS do NOT fit - and yet they are always shown in drama as being happily approving of homosexuality).Well Maclachlan isn't - yet amazingly the movie doesn't demonize him. He cares deeply, loves so strongly his brother - and hates the fact that immoral behavior caused his death. It's a great character. MacLachlan does a great job but so do all. Thomas Haden Church is superb (a strongly unlikeable character - all arrogance). One thing I like about the movie is its pretence that race is just wholly irrelevant to people's considerations. I sometimes like to think so - but don't really think all in the country act THAT heedless of race when it comes to fundamental decisions about marriage, children, etc. Hmmm, perhaps in L.A.? Does it matter to no one if their children will not resemble their own complexion? I doubt it - yet it's appealing to see a movie in which this indifference is assumed.The ending is meant to be a surprise - but isn't really - and does seem meant to produce a jack-in-the-box response in the viewer. (But the screenwriter just seemed to be having fun - that's OK but it does reduce the movie's dramatic effect).Do see this - it's remarkable for everyone's performances- but the story itself is just, well, quite intriguing.
rowiddow
I've just finished watching One Night Stand. I enjoyed it enough to want to write something and to read what others thought of it.Wow, some folks sure like to spew their venom! I'm surprised; I'm thankful that someone like Figgis actually has a presence in Hollywood, the home of superficial characters, simplistic plots, and unbelievable dialogue. Figgis doesn't fall into any of these traps.Instead, he goes against the grain by presenting a character, Max, played by Snipes (who does a superb job at understatement - who knew?) who is not entirely likable. He's arrogant, self-centered, and way-too-impulsive.Hey, wait a second: how am I going to identify with him? He's not all that slick or heroic (he discovers first-hand that his wife's having an affair and promptly loses her).But somehow Figgis drew me into the story. And he resisted using predictable ploys. He managed to reveal something important about this self-satisfied guy that turns things upside down: Max is terribly unsatisfied.Someone commented on the phoney quality of his wife's orgasm. Gee, maybe it wasn't the ACTRESS chewing the scenery, maybe it was the CHARACTER chewing it. D'you think that Mike may actually be sophisticated enough as a Director that he'd ask his ACTRESS to play her CHARACTER, which he scripted, as something of a loud-mouth? Seems plausible.The segment at the Dinner Party shows the complexity of the characters. During dinner, surrounded by people who are intricately connected with TV, Max makes a statement about the moral and artistic vacuity of the Industry. I mean, its almost as good as Peter Finch's "I'm mad as hell..." speech. (This alone made me admire Figgis and the character he created - a person who bites the hand that feeds him in an act of outrage takes guts!) Later, in the privacy of their bedroom, Max's wife tears into him, accusing him of being arrogant. Well, no, maybe he's just really sick of the way TV twists artists with integrity into hyenas.Doesn't her reaction help to explain Max's general malaise? He's caught in a career that's not all he thought it would be, that came between him and his best friend (R. Downey, Jr). And now his wife doesn't want to hear him speak critically of it.Question: Why are we genuinely surprised when we encounter something other than the flattest of characters? Answer: Because we don't recognize what is unfamiliar to us. And complex or nuanced charcters in a Hollywood movie are unfamiliar creatures.I respect Figgis for giving us characters whose next move you can't predict. It helps me regard the world with more nuance - which is precisely the sort of thing Art should be doing.
