Boobirt
Stylish but barely mediocre overall
Plustown
A lot of perfectly good film show their cards early, establish a unique premise and let the audience explore a topic at a leisurely pace, without much in terms of surprise. this film is not one of those films.
Tayloriona
Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.
Mischa Redfern
I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.
gridoon2018
"Basic Instinct" was all the rage in the early 1990s, and many erotic thrillers tried to follow its path, upping the ante in violence and sex. "Color of Night" is one of those, and it cannot hold a candle to the 1992 film: there is little erotic heat between Bruce Willis and Jane March (who is cute, but no Sharon Stone in her prime), and the story is mostly predictable, with one major twist poorly disguised (no pun intended). It is also extremely long (140 minutes in its "uncut" form) for its genre. Nevertheless, it stays compulsively watchable for the duration. There are some great car stunts, some well-drawn supporting characters (Brad Dourif, Lans Henriksen), and a strong sense of humor (Ruben Blades, in particular, is frequently hilarious). The film is not nearly as bad as it is reputed to be in some circles. **1/2 out of 4.
Neil Welch
Two things happen at psychiatrist Bruce Willis' group therapy - one, he drops into a hot and heavy relationship with a tasty young thing and, two, patients start getting murdered.There are two ways of describing this movie. One is by applying the label "erotic thriller". The other is by describing it thus: ludicrous melodrama where half the characters remain at hysteria pitch throughout, and Bruce Willis reveals all in a series of sex scenes with Jane March who, despite getting her kit off frequently, fails to establish this as the breakthrough role it should have been given the scope of her character.This film is not un-entertaining, but it's for all the wrong reasons.
mnpollio
The Color of Night is actually one of those rare achievements that no director or screenwriter could possibly strive for if they wanted to. A film that fails at pretty much everything it aspires, but manages to become compulsively viewable to see how much further a train wreck it can become and, by some strange twist, actually attains a level of guilty entertainment value it really does not deserve. Blending together the elements of a psychological Hitchcock thriller with the eroticism of Basic Instinct/Fatal Attraction/late night Cinemax films, the filmmakers end up with a conglomeration that was probably a far cry from what they intended, particularly given that director Richard Rush was actually a director of some reputation. Psychologist Bruce Willis has gone color blind since his inept attempts at counseling led to the unintentional suicide of a patient. He decides to seek solace with an old colleague Scott Bakula, who ends up murdered. Police seem to believe that the culprit is one of the participants of the group therapy sessions that Bakula oversaw and Willis steps in to ferret out the culprit. Meanwhile, Willis crosses paths with enigmatic young sexpot Jane March who may be more involved than he suspects. The group therapy sessions are a great source of unintentional comedy. Made up of fairly reliable character actors like Lance Henriksen, Kevin O'Connor and Lesley Ann Warren, all seem to realize that they are in glorified garbage and find intriguing ways in which to embellish their characters and hog the screen. In between, comical therapy sessions, Rush inserts an obligatory chase scene, a bloody murder, or an energetic sex romp between the leads. No one can ever accuse the film of being a bore. Unfortunately the ham factor does not extend to the leads. March has been handed a virtually unplayable part filled with assorted pitfalls, and even the more remedial elements seem out of her reach. She never seems vampish enough to attract the kind of attention bestowed upon her in the film. Even worse, March's distinctive looks render a latter-film plot twist psychotically absurd when the audience has been leagues ahead of everyone else on screen and the respective characters' bafflement seems downright jaw-dropping. Much press was spilled about the torrid sex scenes compiled for the film, including much ballyhooed full frontal exposure from leading man Willis, but the leads generate no sparks. I give Willis credit for a) generously stepping up to the plate and showing substantial skin at a time when most American mainstream leading men would have run in the opposite direction, and b) trying to play the lead role seriously, but he is positively lifeless in this film. One has no rooting interest in either his relationship with March, his ability to counsel his patients, or whether he will even make it out of the various chase/attack scenes in one piece. He has rendered himself into a virtual stick of wood devoid of any emotion. Yet, in spite of its miscast and outmatched leads and the thoroughly incompetent direction, the film has that car accident quality that keeps one watching well past the point where it should be turned off. The conclusion is pure Grand Guignol corn with a bit of a cheat on the murderer, but what an unintentionally hilarious loony ride it is to that point.
yupuripics
This film begins with promise. The stellar cast list seems impressive and there's an intriguing air of mystery. But it rapidly disintegrates into afternoon TV clichés. The plot is asinine. The dialogue is so weak that it fails even to drive the plot let alone give any depth to the characters. Where there is characterisation it is woefully shallow. And the eventual denouement with its shlock horror and tired Hitchcock clichés is risible.Poor Jane March seems to be there only for the director to show her body off with the scriptural subtlety of a porn film. And the rest of the usually excellent cast do their best. But as they say here in the UK - you can't polish a t**d....