Lucybespro
It is a performances centric movie
Spidersecu
Don't Believe the Hype
Philippa
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
brchthethird
This is a decent erotic thriller/mystery brought down by predictability, cliché and some rather bad writing. The film does have an impressive pedigree, having been directed by William Friedkin, and starring Chazz Palminteri, Linda Fiorentino as well as a pre-CSI: Miami David Caruso. All of the actors do a serviceable job, but they have to deliver some of the hammiest dialogue I've ever heard. The script is devoid of any real surprises or thrills, and so it relies on an over-insistent score. It's like it's shouting "Look at me! Take me seriously!", except it's impossible to take anything in this movie seriously. The most impressive part of the movie is the intro (before the score has become overbearing), which features some creepy music and surrealistic camera-work. It's too bad that they overuse the style throughout the film, though. Another bright spot was a well-filmed (but ridiculous) car chase through San Francisco, but it wears out its welcome once they hit Chinatown and the movie almost literally comes to a halt. So, there's also some issues with pacing, particularly in that sequence. However, the biggest problem with this movie is the script, penned by Joe Eszterhaz (who also wrote BASIC INSTINCT and SHOWGIRLS). Not only is the story relatively unengaging, but it's rather misogynistic towards its female characters, and the voyeuristic camera-work doesn't help in that regard either. At best, it's a rather bland erotic thriller with some decent performances, but it could be worth a late-night watch if you're into this sort of thing.
LeonLouisRicci
Sleazy, lurid, and kinky. A murder mystery in the trashy tradition of paperbacks and post censorship Hollywood done with a glossy style and a bit of swagger that befits this type of thing. The confusing plot does not allow for too much intellectual intrigue but has enough of a thread to keep things moving from one set piece to another. The Director reaches into his briefcase of blue and sets off a series of sexually oriented, rather raunchy rants, counterpointed by some exciting, offbeat violence and chases. It is a bit too clever for its own good and the complexity is confrontational to the B-movie charm that is the best of this.Visually stunning in parts, but if you are prudish or turned-off by soft-core sex and uncomfortable discourse about intercourse, this may not be for you.
Samiam3
Ignoring a plot line that is recycled, a climax that is a bit shaky with a twist that is strangely predictable, I'd say Jade could pass for an entertaining neo-noir. Starting with a delicious title sequence, the movie is stepped mostly in style. Something about it recalls Brian de Palma. Within the frame, it is staged quite theatrically, and it works. Jade maintains enough coherency to keep us involved, and director William Friedkin avoids overselling the sex factor (which was the mistake Paul Verhoeven made when adapting Joe Eszterhas' previous script, Basic Instinct, and also Showgirls). It is definitely worth noting that Jade is exceptionally well shot. Everything looks rich and elaborate, including a car chase sequence that feels like a roller coaster ride. Based on the appropriate lens choice and camera angles, cars appear to leap into mid air when driving over San Franscso's many street bumps. The film is also well scored, even though it borrows a bit much from Igor Stravinski's Rite of Spring. The only thing I wasn't too comfortable with was the story. It is derivative and cheesy, but even at that, it could've been worse. When all is said and done, Jade (even with its problems) has enough to sell to make it worth a ninety minute time investment for noir fans.
jzappa
Despite being directed by William Friedkin, who here reprises his knack for car chases, and being a detective thriller full of very edgy scenes of kinky sex, Jade is a dud at its core. It's packed with a lot of interesting things, and it never sets off. It's not boring at all, yet it just sits there, neutral to me.David Caruso doesn't stand out at all, but the absolutely stunningly beautiful Linda Fiorentino, who gave the performance of a lifetime in The Last Seduction, gives a different but still very secretive and naturally elusive character. I like her character because she's seen objectively by the writer, the way her type of personality is always seen. Rarely does anyone truly come to know someone like her. Fiorentino very deeply projects her very inward character. Chazz Palminteri matches her as a very extroverted fireball of cockiness. This is all well and good, but they are carrying a movie smaller than them.One of Friedkin's car chases is a panicky ride down the hill of a San Francisco street in a car with a severed brake line. This falls short of any action sequence Friedkin has ever done in the twenty years he'd been working before this film. It's filmed wrong. It's not exciting the way it should be. The second car chase of the film, wherein Caruso is desperately tailing a mysterious and murderous black car, is a very stressful little set piece, and keeps the audience's attention better than it was before.You see, I think where the problem lies is in the writing. Joe Eszterhas's Jade is a mystery about a brutal murder, blackmail of a threatening senator, a circle of long-time friendship between the cop, a lawyer, and the lawyer's wife, a Japanese symbol, and how everyone has more to hide. Where does everything really tie in? Yes, the story leaves no real loose ends, but why doesn't it feel like it's come together tightly? Jade has no true focus on any of the themes just listed.
