Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Ogosmith Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

somnopolis1 I absolutely love this movie. Figgis' use of music gives me chills and I don't find some of the 'coincidences', in the movie's plot too unbelievable. Rather than being a clichéd Hollywood film on adultery, I've always thought it to be a joyful celebration of life in the face of mortality. Robert Downey Jnr. milks a whole scene for comedic effect solely with the use of his owl-like eyes. While a similar scene in your average film would be knee-deep in pap miserabilism. There is something subversive in the director and actors finding humour amidst such morbidity. But it's the music that keeps me coming back. Figgis' enthusiasm for jazz is well in evidence here and there's even a neat use of Nina Simone's 'Exactly Like You'.Natassja Kinski and Ming Na Wen don't hurt none either.

brainfertilizer I hated this movie. It is quite possibly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.Part of my problem with it is the clever ending. Part of my problem with it is the typical Hollywood sympathetic portrayal of the Saintly AIDS-stricken Homosexual Wise Man. Part of my problem with it is that I just don't like Wesley Snipes much as an actor; to me, the same arrogant personality is present in every movie I've seen him in. Part of it was some extremely cheesy dialog meant to establish his wife's character: Wesley: "But, Honey, the kids...." Ming-na: "F*** the kids, I'm coming!"

Carl S Lau Life can be a series of happenstance which is what Mike Figgis has strung together into the plot of this movie. The cast is more than adequate and does quite well with Robert Downey jr., giving the best performance in the movie. The skill of a director and making a movie is to create an environment in which the viewer suspends disbelief and doesn't go back later and pick the movie apart. Figgis has failed, not because of chance encounters, but because the movie is too symmetrical for its own good. It is unbelievable because Figgis did not spend the time on screen developing the characters sufficiently to motivate what happens in the ending. The premise of a one night stand affecting one's life is more than plausible. When it all comes out in the wash, I simply don't see the chemistry between Nastassja Kinski and Wesley Snipes and without that the movie makes no sense and ultimately falls apart.

rowiddow I've just finished watching One Night Stand. I enjoyed it enough to want to write something and to read what others thought of it.Wow, some folks sure like to spew their venom! I'm surprised; I'm thankful that someone like Figgis actually has a presence in Hollywood, the home of superficial characters, simplistic plots, and unbelievable dialogue. Figgis doesn't fall into any of these traps.Instead, he goes against the grain by presenting a character, Max, played by Snipes (who does a superb job at understatement - who knew?) who is not entirely likable. He's arrogant, self-centered, and way-too-impulsive.Hey, wait a second: how am I going to identify with him? He's not all that slick or heroic (he discovers first-hand that his wife's having an affair and promptly loses her).But somehow Figgis drew me into the story. And he resisted using predictable ploys. He managed to reveal something important about this self-satisfied guy that turns things upside down: Max is terribly unsatisfied.Someone commented on the phoney quality of his wife's orgasm. Gee, maybe it wasn't the ACTRESS chewing the scenery, maybe it was the CHARACTER chewing it. D'you think that Mike may actually be sophisticated enough as a Director that he'd ask his ACTRESS to play her CHARACTER, which he scripted, as something of a loud-mouth? Seems plausible.The segment at the Dinner Party shows the complexity of the characters. During dinner, surrounded by people who are intricately connected with TV, Max makes a statement about the moral and artistic vacuity of the Industry. I mean, its almost as good as Peter Finch's "I'm mad as hell..." speech. (This alone made me admire Figgis and the character he created - a person who bites the hand that feeds him in an act of outrage takes guts!) Later, in the privacy of their bedroom, Max's wife tears into him, accusing him of being arrogant. Well, no, maybe he's just really sick of the way TV twists artists with integrity into hyenas.Doesn't her reaction help to explain Max's general malaise? He's caught in a career that's not all he thought it would be, that came between him and his best friend (R. Downey, Jr). And now his wife doesn't want to hear him speak critically of it.Question: Why are we genuinely surprised when we encounter something other than the flattest of characters? Answer: Because we don't recognize what is unfamiliar to us. And complex or nuanced charcters in a Hollywood movie are unfamiliar creatures.I respect Figgis for giving us characters whose next move you can't predict. It helps me regard the world with more nuance - which is precisely the sort of thing Art should be doing.