Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

KnotMissPriceless Why so much hype?

Dirtylogy It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

theowinthrop Except possibly for the slapstick comedy FOR PETE'S SAKE, ALL NIGHT LONG is most likely the most obscure title in Barbara Streisand's career. It is hard, at first, to understand this. She is starring opposite Gene Hackman, and Dennis Quaid is in the cast (as is Diane Ladd, Kenneth Dobson - from Telly Savalas' KOJAC series, and the always droll and dependable William Daniels). But it is the character she is playing. Some of the writers on this thread have pointed out that her character is not well thought out. Certainly it does require fleshing. But Cheryl Gibbons comes across as a sweet, kindly, but essentially weak woman. The last portion of her character is not usual for Streisand, who usually is intelligent and strong in determination. Think of her trying to play opposite Robert Redford in THE WAY THEY WERE where she is not a fiery liberal and libertarian, but a mousy type. Redford's Hubble would probably not have been interested in her, but if he developed an interest he would have found her a perfect mate because she would never have tried to be his constant conscience.Here she is a sweet rag doll, first married to Dobson (who is somewhat abusive - more could have been developed there), then playing around with Quaid, and finally ending up with Hackman (who needs such an agreeable woman as his mate - he needs someone who will support and believe in him, not like the critical Ladd). To add to the character switch, Streisand is given blond hair in this film (the only time that happened). It is as though the production was determined to present Streisand as a totally different actress. And it succeeds.As an interesting exception to the rule of her films ALL NIGHT LONG is worth watching. It gave some nice moments for Hackman and certainly showed Dobson in a good negative part. But for all the good work from the cast, it is a decidedly minor film. I rank it a "7" because of the production, cast, and unusual situation for Streisand.

robb_772 A huge box office bomb upon release, ALL NIGHT LONG has been criticized by many for it's uncomfortable mix of odd-ball comedy and quaint slice-of-life drama. Though it received some positive reviews (most notably from Pauline Kael and ROLLING STONE magazine), most mainstream critics hated it and audiences all but completely ignored it. It is also often cited by most of Streisand's die-hard fans as their least favorite film of the actress. While the film is certainly not without it's flaws, I have interestingly always thought ALL NIGHT LONG contained somewhat of a bizarre charm, and I've always wished it would receive a re-evaluation from the film-going public.As mentioned before, the film has it's problems. It's paced too leisurely (it's only 90-minutes in length, but feels more like two-and-a-half hours), Jean-Claude Tramont's direction is too light (the film needs more of a thematic punch in several scenes), and much of it's humor is surprisingly too subtle (odd seeing that most film comedies have the opposite problem). Having said all of that, the film is still worth checking out. Though Tramont's direction may be a tad too limp, his skewed perception of the American dream gives the film a dreamy, almost art house-like feel that makes the film more inherently interesting than the screen play would merit alone.Also, the varied cast is a lot of fun, almost all of them playing against type. Gene Hackman brings a equal mix of unusual serenity and touching pathos to his role of the would-be inventor who manages to find his true self by losing nearly everything that was once-important in his life. In an early role, Dennis Quaid throws himself completely into part of Hackman's airheaded son, making the intelligent personae he would develop in later films like DREAMSCAPE and THE BIG EASY even more impressive. Barbra Streisand is clearly miscast the role of the bimbo housewife who woos both Hackman and Quaid (Streisand replaced Lisa Eichhorn, who was fired from the film after two weeks of production), but her performance is still worth catching. Though she's never totally believable as Cheryl (a role that was poorly-defined in the screenplay to begin with), she is still a very likable, always watchable, and occasionally an endearing presence in a unusual little film that deserves a second chance.

soranno Everything about "All Night Long" is off and never turns on. Why is it always the films with the best people that wind up being so bad? In this film's case of wasted star talent, the victim here is Gene Hackman. He portrays a middle aged drug store employee who feels that he has squandered his life so he solves his boredom problems by going on little nighttime charades with the odd insomniacs who prowl the streets during late night. Hackman is extremely miscast in this kind of role and Barbra Streisand's presence doesn't help to save it either.

kenandraf Fair comedy with the typical dark tone lighting effects that seemed to be the mode in a lot of movies in the early 80's.Despite this irritating cinematography style,the film was very entertaining due to the presence of Streisand and Hackman.The supporting cast was very talented as well with their roles and the love story was very reflective of most love entanglements.Not the kind of side splitting comedy but it was not intended to be.The story was a mix of comedy and drama and intends to illustrate the fickleness of life and love.In that regard it was a classic.Many say Streisand was misscast here and I say HOGWASH to that.Streisand portrayed that role very well.Her eyes beamed of yerning to be loved on equal terms and she oozed sex appeal as well which the role called for.Granted she looked a little uninspired by the role but this was due to the part being unchallenging for her tremendous talent.Also,she was trying not to steal the limelight from Hackman who I believe she was trying to hook up to be a true leading man as opposed to his well known prowess as a supporting actor.This was supposed to be one of those vehicles for Hackman to get to that next level.But alas,the mainstream decided not to help Hackman get there by nitpicking this movie any way they could find.The directing was below average,the screenplay was average and the script was good.....