The movie's last scene made me so sad and I consider it the best kindness scene in a movie, Sally's hide of the letter about splitting up from Olivia which will makes her sad and at same time Olivia's call record message hide to his wife was amazing thing, heart is thinner than a glass and get break fastly and this is what touched me while watching this scene.
58 Reviews
Somewhat outdated-looking, not with too many redeeming features
jrarichards25 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
If you think the presence of Richard Gere, Sharon Stone and Martin Landau might be enough to encourage a dabble with a 1990s movie, please be warned that the late great Landau is lamentably underused, while Stone does better than Gere. In spite of that, Landau as "Neal" - the boss of Gere's character Vincent Eastman gets the best line in the film, as he tries to reinform Vincent that, while he has a new woman in his life (Lolita Davidovich as Oliva), he still co-works with his wife Sally (Stone), there is even occasional office semi-flirtation between them, and Vincent is also a regular visitor at Sally's (his former) home, even though her new guy now appears there regularly. Vincent and Sally also have a teenage daughter (played by a Jenny Morrison who arguably offers the best moments of acting here, as we first see her face brighten up so naturally when her dad appears at her ballet class, and then - unlike in any film you've ever, ever seen - IS prepared to accept the peace gestures offered by "other woman" Olivia, who really does manage to convince the young daughter that she is not a wicked witch).
Apart from such moments of mini-inspiration (there is another with a child actor featuring sweet-rolls!), exhaustingly much of what we get in this Vancouver-based movie from Mark Rydell is Gere reminiscing and soul-searching about how things were with Sally (occasionally good, but often also bad), and also how things were with Olivia (pretty good, but always with her somehow looking like second choice, and not quite as hot to boot).
Needless to say, the topic is a familiar one which has plenty of merit. But it will not escape anyone's notice that what really matters here is the nature of the breakdown between Vincent and Stone's ravishingly-attractive Sally. And answers come there few, except that it seems Sally is a bit too controlling, and not quite as sexy in behaviour as Vincent (and perhaps also the audience) would like her to be.
Given the shared love for daughter Meghan and several things Sally and Vincent (as opposed to Sally and Olivia) still have in common, this scarcely seems enough data on which to hang a 98-minute film. And in any case, it's sad (but also enigmatic) to see how two people who really might get on do not do so. The impasse is such that the makers here have just one obvious way out, and needless to say they take it.
That just enhances the sadness, obviously.
Gere does not come over as a particularly negative character, but the aforesaid Landau line makes it abundantly clear that Vincent does not really know what he wants...
And that's it, really...
Apart from such moments of mini-inspiration (there is another with a child actor featuring sweet-rolls!), exhaustingly much of what we get in this Vancouver-based movie from Mark Rydell is Gere reminiscing and soul-searching about how things were with Sally (occasionally good, but often also bad), and also how things were with Olivia (pretty good, but always with her somehow looking like second choice, and not quite as hot to boot).
Needless to say, the topic is a familiar one which has plenty of merit. But it will not escape anyone's notice that what really matters here is the nature of the breakdown between Vincent and Stone's ravishingly-attractive Sally. And answers come there few, except that it seems Sally is a bit too controlling, and not quite as sexy in behaviour as Vincent (and perhaps also the audience) would like her to be.
Given the shared love for daughter Meghan and several things Sally and Vincent (as opposed to Sally and Olivia) still have in common, this scarcely seems enough data on which to hang a 98-minute film. And in any case, it's sad (but also enigmatic) to see how two people who really might get on do not do so. The impasse is such that the makers here have just one obvious way out, and needless to say they take it.
That just enhances the sadness, obviously.
Gere does not come over as a particularly negative character, but the aforesaid Landau line makes it abundantly clear that Vincent does not really know what he wants...
And that's it, really...
Day-time soap with A-list actors
fredrikgunerius6 August 2023
In this meandering drama set in the Vancouver area, director Mark Rydell (On Golden Pond) aims for deep and thought-provoking, but ends up with a rather sluggish melodrama which only occasionally is able to lift itself up from its structural chains and address the real-life issues on hand with any kind of sincerity. The writing has a day-time soap vibe, even if the actors are among the Hollywood A-list and give it their best shot. Richard Gere looks marvellous and is well cast. His Vincent Eastman could have been fine in another movie. But Sharon Stone is uncomfortable to watch in her atypical part, and Lolita Davidovich, who finds the right note for her role, is edited to look like a potential bad guy. The filmmakers obviously were clutching at straws to give the movie an edge which it severely lacks, except for in contrived plot devices. James Newton Howard provided the uninspiring score. It was Rydell's penultimate film.
patience and reward
ulmerspirit16 December 2002
This unpopular film showcases wonderfully nuanced performances that flesh out a simple story with an interesting twist. Multiple flashbacks (or shifting timescape) delineate the story, making for a complex movie, but the patient viewer is rewarded in the end.
Richard Gere, Sharon Stone, and Lolita Davidovich breathe life into the three corners of a love triangle. Stone is especially good as the calculating Sally, whose formidable personality holds together only at the fast pace of high-end social and professional success. Gere manifests the ambiguity of a man who must choose not only between women but between parts of his soul. Spirited Davidovich is very appealing as a vital woman deeply connected to fundamental contentedness and freedom.
Some philosophy is in order when considering this intimate, thoughtful film. It portrays various aspects of the human condition without embodying them. For instance, Richard Gere plays a man in the grip of profound indecision, but director Mark Rydell's hand is sure and his intent clear (`Whatever you're going to do, do it!'). The movie compresses the many small but meaningful moments that make up a lifetime into a taut montage of images flashing before the viewer's eyes, evoking the close link between life, time, and death. It shows how the simplest, smallest gesture can trigger an epiphany of profound meaning as someone struggles to find clarity in their life. Best of all, the movie illustrates how, even in tragedy, everyone can come away with something positive worth clinging to, whether it's a message on an answering machine, a hurtful letter undelivered, or a plunge into the depths of peace.
Richard Gere, Sharon Stone, and Lolita Davidovich breathe life into the three corners of a love triangle. Stone is especially good as the calculating Sally, whose formidable personality holds together only at the fast pace of high-end social and professional success. Gere manifests the ambiguity of a man who must choose not only between women but between parts of his soul. Spirited Davidovich is very appealing as a vital woman deeply connected to fundamental contentedness and freedom.
Some philosophy is in order when considering this intimate, thoughtful film. It portrays various aspects of the human condition without embodying them. For instance, Richard Gere plays a man in the grip of profound indecision, but director Mark Rydell's hand is sure and his intent clear (`Whatever you're going to do, do it!'). The movie compresses the many small but meaningful moments that make up a lifetime into a taut montage of images flashing before the viewer's eyes, evoking the close link between life, time, and death. It shows how the simplest, smallest gesture can trigger an epiphany of profound meaning as someone struggles to find clarity in their life. Best of all, the movie illustrates how, even in tragedy, everyone can come away with something positive worth clinging to, whether it's a message on an answering machine, a hurtful letter undelivered, or a plunge into the depths of peace.
Life and Death
willows-7801420 October 2021
I saw this movie for the first time today (I should be working on a project for my class...) and it was okay. Not horrible but not exactly anything amazing either. One thing I thought was interesting was the fact that they made one woman the embodiment of life and the other woman death (I'm trying not to spoil anything for those who may not have seen this movie yet). Once Vincent made his final decision on whom he wanted to be with, it was basically sealing his fate. Which was then reiterated during the operation scenes.
First Gere
johno-211 March 2006
Richard Gere stars in this American-made remake of the 1970 film Les Choses de la vie of French Director Claude Sautet based on the novel by Paul Guimard. This time around Mark Rydell, who enjoyed success with On Golden Pond, Cinderella Liberty, The Rose and The Reivers among others is the director. Sharone Stone, Lolita Davidavich and Martin Landau round out the cast but this is clearly a Richard Gere film. Although I'm generally not a fan of Gere he is excellent in this. This does have the feel of a European film and although I've never seen the original I would like to. I'd likely find it better as a whole. This is a good drama and although not a big movie it has a good look to it. I would give this a 7.0 on a scale of 10 for it's likable story and performance by Richard Gere,
Not good enough to be good, not bad enough to be "so bad it's good".
MBunge23 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This listless and confused tale of love gone lame is useful only as a crystal clear demonstration of the difference between movie stars and everybody else.
Vincent Eastman (Richard Gere) is a man with more hair than he can handle, speeding down a road through the Pacific Northwest when he swerves to avoid a stalled hippie van in the road and heads straight on into a semi. In the midst of the accident, the movie becomes a flashback of the last few days of Vincent's life. We see that Vincent is recently divorced from his coldly beautiful wife Sally (Sharon Stone), working to be a good dad to their daughter Meaghan (Jennifer Morrison) and banging his wild, redheaded girlfriend Olivia (Lolita Davidovich). Though Vincent doesn't want to be with Sally anymore, he doesn't want to leave behind his family and the architectural business he and Sally own together. So we get a bunch of blase' crap about him being torn between his old and new life and resenting the fact that Sally is moving on with a new man, even though Vincent hooked up with Olivia when he was still married. Then we get flashbacks during the flashback, showing us how Vincent was never really happy with the controlled and separate Sally and how he was swept away by the lively and engrossing Olivia. Then we catch back up to the time of the accident and, after subjecting us to flashbacks within flashbacks, the movie chucks a few fantasy sequences at the audience and closes with an ending that's supposed to be all touching and stuff, but which actually proves these filmmakers never understood exactly what they were doing with the rest of the film.
The most painfully obvious thing about watching Intersection is that Richard Gere and Sharon Stone are movie stars but Lolita Davidovich not so much. Whatever quality it is that movie stars have on screen, you can see it in Stone and Gere but you couldn't see it in Davidovich with an electron microscope. There's no sin in that. Most actors and actresses lack that quality. But if you're doing a story with three main characters and two of them are played by movie stars and the third isn't, that dog won't hunt. It also doesn't help that Davidovich, while pretty enough by any reasonable standard, is not in Stone's league when it comes to beauty. Olivia is supposed to be this amazing woman who reignites Vincent's passion after years of being unfulfilled with Sally, so Davidovich being less impressive than Stone on just about every level fatally undermines that whole idea.
Davidovich can certainly act, though Olivia is such a compromised character she's not really a person as much as she is a puppy dog who'll do anything to make her master happy. Vincent isn't much better. Outside of a scene where he acts like the uncompromising architect out of an Ayn Rand wet dream, he doesn't really do anything but mope around. He's got this lovely, smart, capable woman who gave him a child and is largely responsible for his professional success, but he's not satisfied with her. Then he's got this new woman who's funny and fresh and fiery and only wants to please him, but he's not satisfied with her. I'm supposed to sympathize with this putz?
Sally's the only decent character in the whole story and Stone is up to the job. She got a lot of praise for her work in Casino, but I think this film is where Stone really demonstrated her chops as an actress. Sally honestly loves Vincent and there's nothing wrong with her. She simply doesn't have it in her to give Vincent what he needs.
So, Intersection is a movie almost exclusively about three characters. Only one of them is well drawn and only two of them are portrayed by movie stars. That cinematic math doesn't add up.
There is a ridiculously gratuitous topless scene with Davidovich's perky rack on display. There's also some laboriously ham handed direction that tries to emphasize how deep and meaningful this story is supposed to be. Then there's than ending where these filmmakers forgot that you can't make a story completely about one thing and then make it about something else at the very end.
Intersection is another one of those bad films that isn't aggressively bad. It's just so flawed in so many fundamental ways that it can't amount to anything.
Vincent Eastman (Richard Gere) is a man with more hair than he can handle, speeding down a road through the Pacific Northwest when he swerves to avoid a stalled hippie van in the road and heads straight on into a semi. In the midst of the accident, the movie becomes a flashback of the last few days of Vincent's life. We see that Vincent is recently divorced from his coldly beautiful wife Sally (Sharon Stone), working to be a good dad to their daughter Meaghan (Jennifer Morrison) and banging his wild, redheaded girlfriend Olivia (Lolita Davidovich). Though Vincent doesn't want to be with Sally anymore, he doesn't want to leave behind his family and the architectural business he and Sally own together. So we get a bunch of blase' crap about him being torn between his old and new life and resenting the fact that Sally is moving on with a new man, even though Vincent hooked up with Olivia when he was still married. Then we get flashbacks during the flashback, showing us how Vincent was never really happy with the controlled and separate Sally and how he was swept away by the lively and engrossing Olivia. Then we catch back up to the time of the accident and, after subjecting us to flashbacks within flashbacks, the movie chucks a few fantasy sequences at the audience and closes with an ending that's supposed to be all touching and stuff, but which actually proves these filmmakers never understood exactly what they were doing with the rest of the film.
The most painfully obvious thing about watching Intersection is that Richard Gere and Sharon Stone are movie stars but Lolita Davidovich not so much. Whatever quality it is that movie stars have on screen, you can see it in Stone and Gere but you couldn't see it in Davidovich with an electron microscope. There's no sin in that. Most actors and actresses lack that quality. But if you're doing a story with three main characters and two of them are played by movie stars and the third isn't, that dog won't hunt. It also doesn't help that Davidovich, while pretty enough by any reasonable standard, is not in Stone's league when it comes to beauty. Olivia is supposed to be this amazing woman who reignites Vincent's passion after years of being unfulfilled with Sally, so Davidovich being less impressive than Stone on just about every level fatally undermines that whole idea.
Davidovich can certainly act, though Olivia is such a compromised character she's not really a person as much as she is a puppy dog who'll do anything to make her master happy. Vincent isn't much better. Outside of a scene where he acts like the uncompromising architect out of an Ayn Rand wet dream, he doesn't really do anything but mope around. He's got this lovely, smart, capable woman who gave him a child and is largely responsible for his professional success, but he's not satisfied with her. Then he's got this new woman who's funny and fresh and fiery and only wants to please him, but he's not satisfied with her. I'm supposed to sympathize with this putz?
Sally's the only decent character in the whole story and Stone is up to the job. She got a lot of praise for her work in Casino, but I think this film is where Stone really demonstrated her chops as an actress. Sally honestly loves Vincent and there's nothing wrong with her. She simply doesn't have it in her to give Vincent what he needs.
So, Intersection is a movie almost exclusively about three characters. Only one of them is well drawn and only two of them are portrayed by movie stars. That cinematic math doesn't add up.
There is a ridiculously gratuitous topless scene with Davidovich's perky rack on display. There's also some laboriously ham handed direction that tries to emphasize how deep and meaningful this story is supposed to be. Then there's than ending where these filmmakers forgot that you can't make a story completely about one thing and then make it about something else at the very end.
Intersection is another one of those bad films that isn't aggressively bad. It's just so flawed in so many fundamental ways that it can't amount to anything.
Touching Movie
anibose9 July 2020
Intersection (1994)
fntstcplnt22 October 2019
Directed by Mark Rydell. Starring Richard Gere, Lolita Davidovich, Sharon Stone, Martin Landau, Jennifer Morrison, David Selby, Ron White, Scott Bellis. (R)
On the verge of a traffic collision, Gere reflects on his troubled relationships with his frigid wife (Stone) and spirited mistress (Davidovich). Bulk of running time is spent in dreary flashbacks (timeline often unclear) where these three characters mope and sulk at length; they're largely unappealing, and not in interesting ways, so it's a drag to spend so much time in their company (the actors do their best, but they're no magicians). The conclusion strives to turn the whole thing into a weepie, but it's unearned and ultimately unmoving. A remake of a French film called "Les Choses de la vie" (adapted from a book of the same name), which is warning enough that this movie won't work--European films of this persuasion tend to have plots that follow the whims of the characters, while their American counterparts tend to have characters that follow the whims of the plot.
33/100
On the verge of a traffic collision, Gere reflects on his troubled relationships with his frigid wife (Stone) and spirited mistress (Davidovich). Bulk of running time is spent in dreary flashbacks (timeline often unclear) where these three characters mope and sulk at length; they're largely unappealing, and not in interesting ways, so it's a drag to spend so much time in their company (the actors do their best, but they're no magicians). The conclusion strives to turn the whole thing into a weepie, but it's unearned and ultimately unmoving. A remake of a French film called "Les Choses de la vie" (adapted from a book of the same name), which is warning enough that this movie won't work--European films of this persuasion tend to have plots that follow the whims of the characters, while their American counterparts tend to have characters that follow the whims of the plot.
33/100
I loved the ending
pedrambmail9 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I really love the sacrifice both women made at ending without knowing the other one doing the same for them. They choose a burden to carry forever and not telling the other one that the man abondoned her (in their view of truth)
A boring remake of a masterpiece
didbecu7 May 2021
This movie from 1994 is another perfect example that remakes rarely work. The original Les Choses De La Vie by Claude Sautet with Romy Schneider and Michel Piccoli is a real masterpiece, but this is just a very boring version of it. This film lacks of inspiration with two leads who are horrible. Richard Gere is playing his usual romantic role and it just doesn't work as there's no chemistry between him and Lolita Davidovich. Even Sharon Stone seemed bored by Intersection...
Very enjoyable.
magnifique195822 May 2005
As a consummate and long-time fan of Richard Gere's, this was a 'must have' for me and the acquisition was not a disappointment. As usual, Richard gave an excellent performance, for which I am never disappointed. Sharon Stone and Lolita Davidovich were great choices for the female characters and effectively displayed the contrast between the personalities of the women. This movie contained real aspects to a person's dilemma's in relationships...from a sterile, business 'association' with his first wife to a passionate and truly loving 'real-life' affair with the woman he met in a chance encounter. The drama of the accident was well done and suspenseful. In the end, the most touching aspect was that neither woman wished to hurt the other by disclosing what they each believed to be true - both were loved and wanted. I enjoyed it very much and it is a much-watched movie in my home with all actors performing excellently. I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys a love story which is true to real-life.
I don't like the ending .....
herrick41622 June 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I've watched this movie a few times somehow hoping it has a different ending ... because it's too darn abrupt and I don't like things that don't make sense. Why would the surgeons be gabbing about who's on the table one minute as if this is a piece of cake procedure and suddenly it's not a piece of cake. If this local hospital was unequipped in experience of staff to handle what they make sound almost routine as it begins, then why didn't they call in someone of the talent to succeed. Of course the answer could be for lack of time but I felt manipulated to be lead to believe this wasn't critical then shocked by the grim outcome. Yes both women were kind and decent to protect the other from their understanding of the truth. Clever. But grim isn't any fun.
Wrong turn on the intersection
jordondave-2808510 May 2023
Warning: Spoilers
(1994) Intersection
DRAMA
(Spoiler warning) Dull and pointless which may have worked better as a 25 minute stint for a syndicated TV show. The movie starts off with the Richard Gere character as Vincent Eastman driving along a highway and then he gets into a car accident and we don't even get to see whether or not he even make it or not until the end which is very unfortunate but before all of that the film then jumps back weeks or months before for the movie doesn't say- it wants us to figure it out for them. What follows is a bunch of 'nothings' such as him and the Sharon Stone character as his ex called Sally, who used to be a couple since they're both architecture designers of buildings and museums, and they happen to have a 13 year old daughter together. Vincent is also attached to journalist Olivia Marshak (Lolita Davidovich) for we get to see how they had met but not when. There's no plot nor any love triangle since they're just doing their own thing what regular people do for the only dilemma is him such as babblings about what the Gere character wants to do and how he wants it, that it would require a couple of random strangers near the end of the film to make him realize that what he really want is to get married. You know I think I've seen this done before on many soap operas my sisters used to watch and so forth... and all kinds of comedy and drama shows made in the 60's 70's and 80's - even a cartoon called "The Simpsons", why would this be interesting to be made into a theatrical film because it's not interesting at all since it's cliché and that it can done on several different ways. I was drinking and driving until.... just when I jumped off the cliff.... I was hit by a ball very hard ... I fell off my bike to skateboarding off a ramp. All I can say is that if you want to see a movie which came from an old adage stretched into a movie involving a fictitious character's 'life flashes before your eyes' stretched into two hours of nothing then this film might be for you. I bet you anything if anyone were to "just" watch the beginning and then use the fast forward button while playing until near the end still be able to understand the whole point of the movie without even having to watch it. I was hoping it was going to be another "Shattered" or 'love triangle gone wrong' but what I get instead is something people in general can pick up while growing up. And you know while I was watching this, it almost seemed that everybody who has worked on "Intersection" wanted something in it from the director, writer and star since it's close to pure babbling. Bomb.
(Spoiler warning) Dull and pointless which may have worked better as a 25 minute stint for a syndicated TV show. The movie starts off with the Richard Gere character as Vincent Eastman driving along a highway and then he gets into a car accident and we don't even get to see whether or not he even make it or not until the end which is very unfortunate but before all of that the film then jumps back weeks or months before for the movie doesn't say- it wants us to figure it out for them. What follows is a bunch of 'nothings' such as him and the Sharon Stone character as his ex called Sally, who used to be a couple since they're both architecture designers of buildings and museums, and they happen to have a 13 year old daughter together. Vincent is also attached to journalist Olivia Marshak (Lolita Davidovich) for we get to see how they had met but not when. There's no plot nor any love triangle since they're just doing their own thing what regular people do for the only dilemma is him such as babblings about what the Gere character wants to do and how he wants it, that it would require a couple of random strangers near the end of the film to make him realize that what he really want is to get married. You know I think I've seen this done before on many soap operas my sisters used to watch and so forth... and all kinds of comedy and drama shows made in the 60's 70's and 80's - even a cartoon called "The Simpsons", why would this be interesting to be made into a theatrical film because it's not interesting at all since it's cliché and that it can done on several different ways. I was drinking and driving until.... just when I jumped off the cliff.... I was hit by a ball very hard ... I fell off my bike to skateboarding off a ramp. All I can say is that if you want to see a movie which came from an old adage stretched into a movie involving a fictitious character's 'life flashes before your eyes' stretched into two hours of nothing then this film might be for you. I bet you anything if anyone were to "just" watch the beginning and then use the fast forward button while playing until near the end still be able to understand the whole point of the movie without even having to watch it. I was hoping it was going to be another "Shattered" or 'love triangle gone wrong' but what I get instead is something people in general can pick up while growing up. And you know while I was watching this, it almost seemed that everybody who has worked on "Intersection" wanted something in it from the director, writer and star since it's close to pure babbling. Bomb.
I actually managed to like Sharon Stone !!
nicholas.rhodes15 November 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This film is a vastly superior remake of a French film called "Les Choses de La Vie" by Claude Sautet starring Michel Piccoli and Romy Schneider. I had known the original film for many years because of its theme music....which is absolutely magnificent, and composed by Philippe Sarde. The film itself is really a load of slow, boring and tedious crap ........a car accident is repeated in slow motion I don't know how many times but enough to drive one mad on that score alone ! Also it was very repetitive and had little deep character development. In short, its saving grace was its soundtrack !!!
Intersection, on the other hand, which I saw when it came out in Cinemas in France and subsequently bought on DVD has always been a great favorite of mine ! So much better than the Les Choses de La Vie that to compare the two is, quite frankly, a total waste of time. To be truthful, when I saw Intersection, I did not make the connection with Les Choses de La Vie, such was the greatness of Intersection compared to the banality of the other film ! It's only by reading about the film that I discovered this.
From what appears to be a relatively limited plot, we have magnificent performances from the three principal actors, especially the two ladies ! Of course the red-haired Olivia Marchak was an absolute beauty, but even Sharon Stone, whom I don't usually like in films, had something attractive about her ! Gere had a weak, cowardly and annoying character ( I don't like seeing people cheat on their wives ) but I must admit he played the part very well. I was especially subdued by Olivia, both by her physical beauty and here quasi-unflappable character in what could have been tense situations.
The final fifteen to twenty minutes of the film is the best part because ......you know it's going to happen .....but you don't want it to ......but it's destiny. I liked the bit about the letter he wrote to Olivia but never posted plus the message he left on Olivia's ansafone but where SHaron Stone came by accident into possession of the letter which was written but never posted. All that really got to me at the end and filled me with a strange emotion somewhere between happiness and sadness and is very difficult to describe. By this deft twist of the plot, each of the Ladies believed he loved ......her !! An excellent way to finish the film.
I have watched the film four or five times and each time I am filled with the same emotion .....so there must be something there !
Intersection, on the other hand, which I saw when it came out in Cinemas in France and subsequently bought on DVD has always been a great favorite of mine ! So much better than the Les Choses de La Vie that to compare the two is, quite frankly, a total waste of time. To be truthful, when I saw Intersection, I did not make the connection with Les Choses de La Vie, such was the greatness of Intersection compared to the banality of the other film ! It's only by reading about the film that I discovered this.
From what appears to be a relatively limited plot, we have magnificent performances from the three principal actors, especially the two ladies ! Of course the red-haired Olivia Marchak was an absolute beauty, but even Sharon Stone, whom I don't usually like in films, had something attractive about her ! Gere had a weak, cowardly and annoying character ( I don't like seeing people cheat on their wives ) but I must admit he played the part very well. I was especially subdued by Olivia, both by her physical beauty and here quasi-unflappable character in what could have been tense situations.
The final fifteen to twenty minutes of the film is the best part because ......you know it's going to happen .....but you don't want it to ......but it's destiny. I liked the bit about the letter he wrote to Olivia but never posted plus the message he left on Olivia's ansafone but where SHaron Stone came by accident into possession of the letter which was written but never posted. All that really got to me at the end and filled me with a strange emotion somewhere between happiness and sadness and is very difficult to describe. By this deft twist of the plot, each of the Ladies believed he loved ......her !! An excellent way to finish the film.
I have watched the film four or five times and each time I am filled with the same emotion .....so there must be something there !
ultimately uncompelling story
SnoopyStyle4 February 2016
Vincent Eastman (Richard Gere)'s car is approaching an accident. In flashbacks, he's having an affair with magazine writer Olivia Marshak (Lolita Davidovich). He is married to Sally (Sharon Stone). They run an architecture company together and have daughter Meaghan (Jennifer Morrison). Sally finds out about the affair and Vicent has to decide between the two women.
I saw this in the theaters on a double date. I did not make for good conversation afterward. More than that, it's not a good movie. Vincent is not a compelling character and his affair isn't that compelling either. The movie is prodding and lacks any tension. It's not until the ending where something interesting happens although it's a very manufactured construction. Ultimately, I don't care about these characters.
I saw this in the theaters on a double date. I did not make for good conversation afterward. More than that, it's not a good movie. Vincent is not a compelling character and his affair isn't that compelling either. The movie is prodding and lacks any tension. It's not until the ending where something interesting happens although it's a very manufactured construction. Ultimately, I don't care about these characters.
I like Richard Gere
dovesrun7 April 2021
Even for a chick flick female fantasy this is too much
mladen9823 June 2020
I remember watching this as a kid with my mom and even then I could not believe Sci-Fi plot of this movie. Its basically about this irrational female fantasy that a dude like Gere would leave his hot and LOVING Sharon Stone wife in her Basic Instinct prime for an ordinary YOU. Just imagine that, a Catherine Tramell without her knife stabbing psycho element that loves her husband even COOKS for him, is horny etc. is not good enough, no he wants BB. Ladies, we both now something like that would NEVER happened anywhere in the universe. If a movie at least try better to represent her as cold, evil, estranged...no, not even then. So, 2 points for hot Sharon Stone and that's it, rest is just ridiculous.
Gere Up For Double The Love
dunmore_ego6 December 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Whadaya know: if you're skidding headlong into a death-tastic car accident, and you happen to be Richard Gere, your life *does* flash before your eyes well, your *love* life, at least. If you're Richard Gere.
Almost a Chick-Flick version of "Memento", as Vincent (Gere) reminiscences back through his life of juggling his lover (writer Lolita Davidovich), with his ex-wife (business partner Sharon Stone), adoring daughter, and a successful architectural profession.
The plot hinges on who Vincent will choose as his life's love. Weaved throughout are scenes of a unique clock (which Vincent bought for his lover), with a ball-bearing winding mechanism which tilts one way and then the other, metaphorically mirroring Vincent's indecision.
The body of the movie, consisting of scattered vignettes, is rife with clues as to which of the two women would be his ultimate choice: Stone's architectural planner (who, in her most passionate moments with Vincent, exuded a clinical iciness that he chose not to perceive due to her social positioning and surface charms), or Lolita's columnist (independent, yet clutching at Vincent for primacy of attention).
His moment of clarity, alas, comes too late. But no matter - he's Richard Gere!
(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)
Almost a Chick-Flick version of "Memento", as Vincent (Gere) reminiscences back through his life of juggling his lover (writer Lolita Davidovich), with his ex-wife (business partner Sharon Stone), adoring daughter, and a successful architectural profession.
The plot hinges on who Vincent will choose as his life's love. Weaved throughout are scenes of a unique clock (which Vincent bought for his lover), with a ball-bearing winding mechanism which tilts one way and then the other, metaphorically mirroring Vincent's indecision.
The body of the movie, consisting of scattered vignettes, is rife with clues as to which of the two women would be his ultimate choice: Stone's architectural planner (who, in her most passionate moments with Vincent, exuded a clinical iciness that he chose not to perceive due to her social positioning and surface charms), or Lolita's columnist (independent, yet clutching at Vincent for primacy of attention).
His moment of clarity, alas, comes too late. But no matter - he's Richard Gere!
(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)
Bad, Bad, Bad
drsecond19 October 2001
While the acting in this movie was pretty decent, the plot and storyline were pedestrian, simply showing the results of a bad marriage and the resulting affair, a story we have seen 1000 times. But, to further drop this film into the mire, the story was told as a series of unconnected flashbacks within flashbacks within flashbacks. Now, sometimes, this technique is needed for a particular or special type of story, but here, it is simply annoying. The minimal plot becomes even more meaningless when told this way. Probably the worst film of Gere's career, but not his worst performance (Sommersby wins that honor.)
This has the wrong trailer!!!!!!
caronabhern21 November 2020
Sealed With A Kiss
sol-kay8 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** Speeding along a lonely stretch of highway outside the city limits of Vancouver Canada architect Vincent Eastman, Richard Gere, reaches an intersection on the road as well as in his life as his car swerves to avoid a stalled van and goes tumbling down an embankment. Vincent's life goes flashing before his eyes as he as well as us in the audience see the events over the last few years that lead to what just happened to him.
Married to his boss' daughter Vincent went far in his father-in-laws building business but his marriage to Sally, Sharon Stone,had cooled off over the years. Being estranged from Sally yet working in the same office with her made life almost impossible for Vincent to take. Knowing that Sally was living with Richard, David Selby, and having Richard spend more time with his thirteen year old daughter Meaghan, Jennifer Morrison, then he did didn't make things better for him either.
Having an affair with magazine columnist Olivia Marshak, Lolita Davidovich, was also taking a toll on Vincent's life since he couldn't complain about Sally's affair with Richard which really disturbed Vincent to the point of almost being physically violent towards him. With a lot of thought and anguish Vincent painfully came to a final conclusion on what his decision on who to be with, Sally or Olivia, and puts it on paper.
Out in the country as Vincent was about to mail the letter to the women who he was going to spend the rest of his life with something strangely happened to him. Like a preordained vision that was conjured up for Vincent by destiny he saw who the woman in his life was to be and knew now what to do with his life and who to spend it with. Is was then that fate unexpectedly intervened and made it all right for everyone involved, Vincent Sally & Olivia, but sadly at the expense of Vincent's life.
Haunting eerie and original love story that, despite it's slow pace, will really move you like it did me and many of the reviewers on the IMDb in the end. Richard Gere is both sensitive and explosive as the emotionally drained Vincent who has to make up his mind, to keep from losing it, between Sally and Olivia but who has his decision made up for him by circumstances beyond and far out of his control.
Sharon Stone gives one of her best performances ever as Sally Eastman Vincent's estranged wife. Sally in the end somewhat realizes the truth about Vincent's feelings for her but, touchingly so, keeps it to herself as well as from Olivia. And Lolita Davidovich is both sexy and caring as Vincent's lover Olivia. Who unknown to Sally knows what Vincent really felt about her after he wrote, what turned out to be, his last will and testament which Sally quietly ripped up and threw down a storm drain as the movie ended.
Married to his boss' daughter Vincent went far in his father-in-laws building business but his marriage to Sally, Sharon Stone,had cooled off over the years. Being estranged from Sally yet working in the same office with her made life almost impossible for Vincent to take. Knowing that Sally was living with Richard, David Selby, and having Richard spend more time with his thirteen year old daughter Meaghan, Jennifer Morrison, then he did didn't make things better for him either.
Having an affair with magazine columnist Olivia Marshak, Lolita Davidovich, was also taking a toll on Vincent's life since he couldn't complain about Sally's affair with Richard which really disturbed Vincent to the point of almost being physically violent towards him. With a lot of thought and anguish Vincent painfully came to a final conclusion on what his decision on who to be with, Sally or Olivia, and puts it on paper.
Out in the country as Vincent was about to mail the letter to the women who he was going to spend the rest of his life with something strangely happened to him. Like a preordained vision that was conjured up for Vincent by destiny he saw who the woman in his life was to be and knew now what to do with his life and who to spend it with. Is was then that fate unexpectedly intervened and made it all right for everyone involved, Vincent Sally & Olivia, but sadly at the expense of Vincent's life.
Haunting eerie and original love story that, despite it's slow pace, will really move you like it did me and many of the reviewers on the IMDb in the end. Richard Gere is both sensitive and explosive as the emotionally drained Vincent who has to make up his mind, to keep from losing it, between Sally and Olivia but who has his decision made up for him by circumstances beyond and far out of his control.
Sharon Stone gives one of her best performances ever as Sally Eastman Vincent's estranged wife. Sally in the end somewhat realizes the truth about Vincent's feelings for her but, touchingly so, keeps it to herself as well as from Olivia. And Lolita Davidovich is both sexy and caring as Vincent's lover Olivia. Who unknown to Sally knows what Vincent really felt about her after he wrote, what turned out to be, his last will and testament which Sally quietly ripped up and threw down a storm drain as the movie ended.
the final 30mins are really good
jiang_xin7 March 2013
I can understand why the movie is rated 4.9 in 2013. The emotion in both relationship is not well reflected in the first 60 mins. As a men of 40 something, I am not convinced by the screen play.
But the final 30 mins really took my breath away, the letters, the red-hair girl, the phone booth, the accident, the dream...... and the final ending.
If the director can refine the first 60 mins, this film will be remembered by more audiences.
Richard Gere, Lolia Davidovich and Sharon Stone performed pretty well in the movie. The good performance is ruined by the unrealistic story line.
I wish another director will re-create the potential masterpiece.
But the final 30 mins really took my breath away, the letters, the red-hair girl, the phone booth, the accident, the dream...... and the final ending.
If the director can refine the first 60 mins, this film will be remembered by more audiences.
Richard Gere, Lolia Davidovich and Sharon Stone performed pretty well in the movie. The good performance is ruined by the unrealistic story line.
I wish another director will re-create the potential masterpiece.
An inexcusably shallow movie
kennethpitchford24 June 2008
I honestly found this a deplorably cheap piece of sh*t. How shallow can you get? Gere was disgusting in his pathetic ambivalence. He's supposed to be a principled Buddhist. He can rake in dough for this kind of sleazy grossness? Davidowitch was terrible. The plot was terrible. Stone was the least terrible element in the movie, which is saying a lot. The whole movie is predictable, boring, and without a spark of creativity. That it is about rich people with no concern for the rest of humanity is appalling, especially considering Gere's alleged social conscience. What else can I say? I would rate this movie close to zero. /
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
