Le mille luci di New York

I won't bother with recounting the plot--plenty of others here have done that--but I will give some thoughts from the perspective of a 40-something who remembers fondly the movie and the times from whence it came.

I remember hating this movie when I first saw it back in the day. I'd read half the novel and hated that too. My main memory of both of them, oddly enough, was the Coma Baby. It features heavily in the book but somewhat less so in the movie.

Watching it again so many years later and so many years out from the 80s, I was surprised to find myself enjoying it. Perhaps it was a nostalgia thing. My mind was certainly flooding with associated memories. 1988 was the year I finished high school. I was soon to leave my little red-neck country town and move to the big smoke where a whole new life would begin (and there have been at least three more since then!).

Some positives: I'm a huge Donald Fagen/Steely Dan fan, so Fagen's soundtrack was appreciated. It doesn't really sound like his regular stuff (until the very end), and was, frankly, often quite cheesy and even out of place at times. But I convinced myself I liked it. Other Fagen fans may also. The movie really grabs the 80s very effectively. Nightclubs, hair, blow, the whole bit. There is a surprising appearance from the wonderful Jason Robards which, shamefully, is uncredited according to IMDb. Considering the size of his role this is kind of odd.

Negatives: Phoebe Cates seemed completely unconvincing as a model and Michael J. Fox was completely unconvincing as a...sorry, but, hey...as a grown-up. He's never really any different from how he was in Back to the Future or even Family Ties. He's still all got up in jeans and a suit jacket, skipping all over the place, and gulping, "Shucks" (at least seemingly). No disrespect to the guy. Just that this movie reminds that he was never so well suited to anything with pretensions to being serious. And that last point sums up the problems with this film: it eventually becomes apparent that the movie is trying to be taken seriously. It just doesn't work though. A pretentious novel as starting place doesn't help. Ham acting and cheese dialog don't help none neither.

Still, an enjoyable time capsule. Kiefer does OK as wise-a** friend. The wonderful Frances Sternhagen, an appearance from the then-soon-to-be-late John Houseman, and even the magnificent William Hickey. Tracy Pollan is gorgeous and Swoosie Kurtz is her usual charming self. The ending is quite poignant, featuring Dianne Wiest, but isn't enough to really justify getting there.

If you're 40-something, watch this with ice cream and snacks on a lazy weekday evening. If you're younger or older than that...probably don't bother, coz it ain't really that great.

This great film and novel adaptation is obviously underrated.

Although I have not read the book, (and nor should I to be able to personally judge this film), my guess is that probably most people are whining that the book was better. That's like saying that the car was better than the bike. They probably complain that the movie was not a precise enough adaptation. When will people realise that an exact adaptation will usually result in a boring and overly long film?. The movie definitely has the essential qualities for a good film with it's intelligent script, compelling drama, sober realism and superb acting.

This is Michael J Fox's best role and he does a great job. I think he's such an underrated actor, he made Family Ties what it was and will never be forgotten as Marty Mc Fly in Back to the Future, but this is his peak film.

I could very much symphatise and identify with the main character that slowly loses grip on reality, eventually spending most of his time in a drugged state of mind. Drugs are his only joy, until he's finally confronted by his caring brother and becomes at peace with reality in a moderately positive ending (which was criticised by some). His loneliness and desperation are depicted in a very convincing way, with his heartless girlfriend (Phoebe Cates) and harsh boss. My favorite scenes are the ones at work, where his incompetence becomes painfully evident.

Having recently watched Requiem for a Dream (also about drug addiction), I realize this movie's even better. 9 out of 10.

A lot of the scenes take place in nightclub restrooms and other bathrooms. This is where the characters snort their coke, and stare at their own disappointed faces. What's remarkable for NYC in the 80s (in any decade, really) is that every single toilet stall and urinal is fantastically clean. I take this as a symbol for the movie as a whole - all rather sanitized.

It's not bad, but the plot falls off rather suddenly at the end. Some viewers might not notice, of course, since nothing was ever that worrying, in any case: it's all too well-scrubbed. All the main character ever has to do to fix things is tell his friends he's going to go home and get a good night's sleep. It's hard on a movie when the big question is "will he nap, or won't he?"

I read the original book for a Freshman English class, and was enthralled by a unique character study from a Second Person perspective. Then, the teacher showed us this, and now I understand why "film snobs" always complain "The book was better." In this case, it most certainly IS. There's a major plot point toward the end of the book (which I won't mention here, not so I won't spoil the movie, but the book), that puts all that you read into perspective and makes it all worthwhile. Here, the point is revealed in the first 5 minutes, and it ruins any reason to sit through this motion picture. Instead of reading and wondering "Why is he like this?," which was one of the main reasons the book was such a page-turner, the movie tells you why he does it, and you just sit there and watch him do it, knowing why. Remember how people say they hate people who reveal the endings to things? Well, this movie just up and DOES IT ITSELF! If you still want to see the movie, first read the book, then have some fun with friends picking apart this mish-mosh of a noble failure.

There are two things that went wrong with this film. First and foremost is that Michael J. Fox is totally miscast for his role. I can understand him wanting to break away from the Alex Keaton character on "Family Ties." But, although he tries, he simply isn't right as a coke-addled, anguished writer. And it knocks the whole film off-kilter. Another problem is that the story doesn't translate easily onto film. There are some compensations- great supporting cast, catchy theme song ("Kiss & Tell" by Bryan Ferry), and excellent use of New York City locations. But they weren't enough to make the film a success, and the disappointing returns at the box office bear this out.