Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

denis888 Guess the riddle - what is in black and white, pretentious, vapid, utterly silly, full of trite clichés, to the point that even Kristin Scott Thomas hated her part here, full of awful missteps in the plot and then leaving a sour aftertaste? This is Under the Cherry Moon - Prince's absolute flop on all cylinders, empty and useless barrage over dead desert and a total waste of anybody's time. My advice - forget this awful flick, give it a Zero and throw all the rotten tomatoes on it.

SnoopyStyle Christopher Tracy (Prince) and his brother Tricky are in the south of France scamming the rich. Outrageous shipping heiress Mary Sharon (Kristin Scott Thomas) is set to get $50 million on her 21st birthday. They go to her birthday party to try to scam her. She is taken with the wild boys but the problem is that her father (Steven Berkoff) is not happy. Christopher starts to fall for his target.I don't know if Prince is making a comedy, a spoof, or a whatever. He's acting completely different than almost everybody else. It's oddly unreal. It's almost amateurish. The problem is that he's the director and nobody is able to tell him to do it differently. He needs to figure what he wants and hire a good director to help him achieve it.

Steve McQueen The people who dislike this film because it doesn't fit into popular convention or wasn't a bock office success are missing the point. At best it's an elitist point of view. Here's why:This film is about control. It's about people who are the gatekeepers of things (wealth, a lifestyle, accolade, whatever.) and the lengths those people will go to to keep it. Mary is one example, she thinks she's the odd, charming, center-of-attention. In fact, she is, until the strange gigolo, Chris, comes into her life and is even stranger and more narcissistic than she is. At first she hates him because he offends her, possibly poses a threat to her world view.Mary's father is another example, he's clearly a control-freak reveling in the hold he has over his daughter, wife, and everyone else around him. The third example is the film itself. It's genre-mashing and disjointed, juxtaposing many elements that seem to conflict from the presence of two black playboys in South France to the contemporary music and the choice of black & white. The movie deliberately is clearly and deliberately making a mockery of cinema standards. He went to great lengths to cast some of the finest acting talent, execute beautiful cinematography, and evoke a certain feel just to walk in an unapologetically represent a point of view that isn't often referenced on screen. Film critics love to cite films that speak to their own cultural references, their own aspirations for beauty and prestige, or their own tastes or history. But that's only a perspective, Prince not only challenges that perspective but defies it by being himself -- comedic, crass, sexual, even borderline offensive in his role.Critics call UNDER THE CHERRY MOON awful, amateurish, a 'disaster' and all sorts of other names. But I often wonder if they've ever considered that maybe that was the whole point -- part of Prince's artistic point of view?One could say as much about his entire career: he is a control freak, he plays all the instruments on all his albums, he writes songs that don't conform to popular convention, he isn't always at the top of the charts as a result - but in spite of all these this he remains a success. He thrives in the opposite of conformity and his three movies are perfect examples of that. This one, in my opinion, being the most "Prince".Before he made this movie and after, he couldn't care less what you thought about it. Some might call that arrogant. I see it as a very distinct confidence in being able to do exactly what you want -- not expecting everyone to love it but equally not caring either way. In the placing of two black-American hustlers in South France and telling a love story while shooting a contemporary film in the style of the early 20s, this film is deliberately challenging a lot of social norms. The only real shame here is how dismissive the entire industry has been to a film that was clearly a carefully crafted message of disdain for their very existence. Razzie? This movie deserves an Academy Award.

ErinDLindsey ***POSSIBLE SPOILER WARNING.*** I first saw this film when I was around 13 or 14, during my Big Prince Fandom Phase (I still consider myself a fan, and I love his music, but I am nowhere near as obsessive about it as I used to be.) People have called this movie "surreal." I would say that this is an understatement, but in a *good* way. As much as Prince and Tricky's bantering, the black-and-white cinematography makes this film the truly unique viewing experience that it is. And as other comments have pointed out, some of the quotes have become catch-phrases amongst the folks who have seen this film ("WRECKA STOWE!") (Seriously, where *does* one obtain a Sam Cooke album?) **now for the spoiler** And yes, I did cry at the end. After the lighthearted comedy that encompasses most of the action, I was not at all expecting what ended up happening. Despite this, I feel that Under The Cherry Moon should be appreciated for what Prince was trying to do with it. This movie was not well-accepted or well-understood by the critics and the viewing public, and that's their loss.