IMDb user comments for
Color of Night (1994) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 10:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Index

100 comments in total

---

27 out of 36 people found the following comment useful :-
Director Rush Goes Down with the Ship, 8 July 2002

Author: jhclues from Salem, Oregon

There's a good film in here somewhere just aching to get out, but the filmmakers seem more interested in playing Box Office Wheel of Fortune than caring about the quality of the product they're trying to sell, and it makes `Color of Night,' directed by Richard Rush, one of those movies that makes you shake your head and think, Ah! what could have been if only! And that single `if' makes all the difference in the world with regards to what finally winds up on the screen.

When his treatment of a patient fails and ends tragically, leaving him with some pronounced psychological damage of his own, New York psychologist Dr. Bill Capa (Bruce Willis) quits his practice and goes to Los Angeles seeking the solace and, perhaps, the help of an old friend and colleague, Dr. Bob Moore (Scott Bakula). Capa quickly discovers, however, that Moore is having problems of his own, apparently stemming from a weekly group therapy session he has been conducting for some time. Moore, it seems, has recently received some death threats, which he believes are coming from one of the patients of this particular group, though he hasn't a clue which one, nor any proof of his suspicions.

Moore invites Capa to sit in on the next group session, hoping for a fresh perspective and possibly some insights into the matter. At the moment, Capa feels incapable of actively engaging in the practice of his chosen field of endeavor, but in light of the fact that he's Bob's house guest, he acquiesces and agrees to observe the group. But it proves to be an inauspicious proposition for all concerned, and subsequent circumstances quickly put Capa at the center of just the kind of situation he left New York to avoid. Once the hand is dealt, however, he has no choice but to play it out to the end.

Rush began his career as a director with low budget exploitation films like `Too Soon to Love' in 1960, and ten films later achieved legitimate status with the highly successful black comedy, `The Stunt Man' in 1980, for which he received an Oscar nomination (along with his leading man, Peter O'Toole). He did not direct again until this film, some fourteen years later, and during that hiatus, Rush apparently lost whatever expertise he had accrued by 1980, and his `roots' are clearly showing in this one. The violence of the film is inherent in the story, but Rush makes it unnecessarily graphic; and while this could have been an incisive and insightful character study (and intrinsically more interesting), he takes the low road, fleshing it out instead with scenes of gratuitous sex and nudity, as well as superfluous action (he works in no less than two ridiculous car chases, one culminating in a vehicle being pushed from the top of a high rise parking garage). Furthermore, he ignores motivations and character development almost entirely; the two areas that required the most attention if this film was going to work at all.

Rush especially lets his actors down, inasmuch as most of these characters presented real challenges that could have been met much more successfully with the help and guidance of the director. Rush would have served his actors, as well as himself, better had he taken the time to explore these people being portrayed with some depth. He apparently did not, however, and with one exception the performances by one and all suffer for it.

In 1994, Bruce Willis simply was not the accomplished actor he is today, and he, especially, could have used some help in finding his character. it was help he obviously did not get, and his Capa ends up being too much John McClane and not enough Malcom Crowe. Willis flounders between the two personalities, creating a kind of schizophrenic characterization that seriously affects the credibility of his portrayal. And it's the same fate suffered by Scott Bakula here. Even in the scenes which places them in their `professional' setting as psychoanalysts, they are simply not convincing.

Making the case of poor directing even stronger are the performances of Lesley Ann Warren (Sondra), Brad Dourif (Clark), Ruben Blades (Lt. Martinez) and Kevin J. O'Connor (Casey). Like Willis, all of them seem to have trouble defining their individual characters, vacillating between any number of personalities and unable to achieve that necessary, final focus. It's the kind of indecisiveness that is usually resolved during rehearsals, but inexplicably made it to the screen here. The single exception is the performance turned in by Lance Henriksen, as Buck, who unlike his costars, somehow managed to find his character and make him convincing.

The odd-'woman'-out of the entire bunch is Jane March, who as Rose has perhaps the most challenging role of all, and when given the opportunity actually displays some talent. Unfortunately, Rush-- for the most part-- uses her in a way that is demeaning and without merit, and she becomes the object of a sleight-of-hand that is nothing more than a cheap trick Rush pulls out of his hat. And by failing to use her in a more productive way, by not concentrating on developing her character (which is so vital to the story), Rush commits his most critical error of all.

The supporting cast includes Eriq La Salle (Detective Anderson), Jeff Corey (Ashland), Kathleen Wilhoite (Michelle), Shirley Knight (Edith Niedelmeyer), John Bower (Medical Examiner) and Andrew Lowrey (Dale Dexter). The high note of this entire project was played before it ever even got off the ground, that being the story itself; but screenwriters Matthew Chapman and Billy Ray proceeded to methodically remove any and all credibility it may have initially contained, and Rush took it from there, taking `Color of Night' straight into that black hole reserved for movies that fail to deliver on their promise. It is not surprising that Rush has not directed a feature film since this one; once the magic is lost, it's hard to retrieve. 2/10.

---

18 out of 24 people found the following comment useful :-
A real mental patient's opinion of this film..., 24 March 2001
Author: mentalcritic from Southern Hemisphere

As I sit and recall all the idiocies of this film, one of the most amusing that I remember is the idea put forth that a person with DID will disguise themselves to look like a different person when one of their alternates come out. In nearly eleven years of knowingly watching these patients switch from personality to personality, I have yet to see this happen. This is before we even get into the fact that Jane March's behaviour during this film more closely resembles that of a person suffering mania - hypersexuality, paranoia, irrational fear, and so forth.

Bruce Willis must also be wondering why he signed up for this stinker. I'm sure the shooting script must have looked wonderful, but a combination of extremely clumsy editing (the sex scenes in the middle of the film are a wonderful example) and poor character development turned this into another Plan 9 From Outer Space. To all of you who gave this turkey positive comments, I ask you to ask yourselves: what psychiatrist in their right mind would see patients in buildings where it is that easy for patients to off themselves? Especially in such a lawsuit-happy society as America? What psychiatrist in their right mind stays back late in their office without carrying a firearm when they know someone is stalking them? Finally, when was the last time you heard of a psychiatrist taking over a group of patients for a friend in the profession when one of them might have murdered him? Oh, and a special note on Ruben Blades' role: even beat police are not that ignorant about psychiatry, an especially important element of their job considering how often they may be confronted by psych patients waving weapons in the middle of an episodic crisis.

As a veteran of numerous therapy groups, I could not stop laughing at this film. If it had been approached with the intention of making a comedy, then it would have succeeded beyond all expectations. However, the advertising campaign and the babbling tone of the dialogue left me with the general feeling that this film was taking itself WAY too seriously. If you do take yourself that seriously, get a better script. If you have such a ridiculous script that will get laughed at by the 20% that will experience some form of psychiatric problem in their lifetime (that's just a statistical fact based on reported cases... the real incidence may actually be higher), don't take yourself so seriously. It's that simple.

---

18 out of 28 people found the following comment useful :-
An odd choice for Bruce Willis..., 21 February 2002

Author: moonspinner55 from redlands, ca

Knowing nothing about this movie before I saw it, I have to admit that it surprised me with its plot-twists...but looking back, I should have known better! That's the great thing about trashy movies: you can have a high time while it's playing, knowing you'll hate yourself the next day (and that you'll never have to watch the thing again). Bruce Willis is a psychiatrist troubled by a patient's suicide; he goes to stay with a friend and...to give any more away would be criminal! Suffice it to say, Bruce is nude in this one, and it's a long-held sequence that gives star-peepers what they've paid for. I didn't think the sex scenes were terrifically charged, but you gotta hand it to Willis: he takes a chance here and shows his courage. Yet there are times when he has question marks all over his face, as if to ask, "what's a nice box-office star like me doing in a piece like this?" ** from ****

---

13 out of 19 people found the following comment useful :-
Is it really Willis' Willis?, 20 October 2004

Author: jotix100 from New York

The director's cut, no pun intended, seems to be a much better film than the one that was shown commercially, but it still is a far cry from a satisfactory movie to watch. Richard Rush could have done better, but the psychological film we see, adds nothing to what has already been shown before.

From the beginning we realize who the killer is, as well as the person with the multiple personality problem. It's too obvious! The film relies heavily on the sexual attraction between Bill Capa and Rose. Much has been speculated in this forum about whether we are actually seeing Willis' willis, or not. Since most male stars wouldn't be caught dead showing their genitals, for obvious reasons, what is seen for a second in the pool scene is that of a body double. On the other hand, we see Jane March showing it all, which is a welcome attraction.

Only the final sequence has any impact. There are many things in the plot that don't add up and the viewer is ahead of the story at all times.

Bruce Willis with a hairpiece looks good. Jane March has a better chance with the character she plays. Also Brad Dourif, Lance Henriksen have their moments. The one that doesn't come across well is Ruben Blades, an otherwise excellent actor trying to do a Columbo routine in this film.

---

14 out of 21 people found the following comment useful :-
Willis bares his wiener!, 16 April 2004
Author: moviecollector from WI.

Now, I know this is not even close to being Willis's best movie or role. I still thought this was a decent thriller. A good supporting cast with Brad Dourif(voice of Chucky, the best Horror icon ever!) & Lance Henriksen(who will star in just about anything these days) just to name a few.

I can understand why Jane March hasnt done much, she'll be type-cast as woman who takes clothes off alot. & yeah, this is as close to a porn flick as you can get, when it comes to big named actors in studio movies.

In my opinion, there are worse movies with Bruce Willis. This is worth seeing if you're in the mood for a adult-orientated suspense thriller...with quite alot of sex. & yes, ladies, You can see Bruce's winky in this too.

---

6 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
Grisly Nonsense, 18 December 2000

Author: Eric Chapman (caspar_h@yahoo.com) from Pittsburgh, PA

I have to believe there was some studio meddling to make this more of a conventional thriller, because everyone seems to agree that this represents a major step backwards from the man behind the brilliant "The Stunt Man" - Richard Rush. There are little reminders of his talent early on when Willis' psychiatrist is getting to know the mercurial Jane March. Rush has a knack for making the viewer feel like they're being caught up and swept along in someone's feverish dream - the editing and camera placement seem haphazardly designed to make you feel a little dizzy and open to suggestion.

But otherwise, "Color of Night" is episodic, dim-witted, way over-long, and wildly overblown. There is a lot of over-emoting in this film, especially from that queen of over-emoters - Lesley Ann Warren. The movie's idea of excitement is to have various repellent characters scream the F-word a lot, have tears run down their cheeks and threaten to go off the deep end but never quite do. And there are downright idiotic chase scenes, particularly the one that takes place in the parking garage: for some reason, instead of just running him down, the mysterious Camaro driver pushes a parked car off an upper level and tries to time it so that it will land on Willis on the bottom level. And then of course in the very next scene, Willis is behaving as if nothing really traumatic has happened. In fact, Willis is tentative and under-directed throughout the film.

There is one interesting footnote however. Has anyone else noticed the similarity to "The Sixth Sense", at least as far as basic premise? True, the films couldn't be more different in terms of development of story or quality, but to wit: Both star Bruce Willis as a psychiatrist who feels tremendous guilt over a patient he's failed, and they both highlight the color "red". Hmmmm.

---

4 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Has everything but entertainment., 14 November 2000
Author: verna55 from cincinnati, ohio

This over-blown, over-heated Hollywood S & M mystery has everything but entertainment value. Oh yes, there's plenty of wild and crazy(but not particularly titillating) sex, typical of these mindless BASIC INSTINCT "inspired" porn-thrillers, and there are even a few kinky/gory murders thrown it. There just isn't anything that even remotely resembles a good movie. The film casts Bruce Willis as a psychiatrist(Please!) who becomes traumatized after a very disturbed patient commits suicide before his very eyes. He then suffers another blow(no pun intended) when his doctor-friend(Scott Bakula) is brutally murdered. Willis is then called in to take over Bakula's creepy group, and the mysterious murders continue. Meanwhile, Bruce gets involved with an attractive, but strange "fender-bender"(Jane March) who has some bizarre connection to the unfortunate chain of events in his life. Bruce is his inimitable DIE HARD-self, and Jane March is pretty in a girlish sort-of-way, but their sex scenes are very difficult to watch because Willis, while undeniably a good-looking guy, still looks every bit of his forty years, while his partner looks all of fourteen, effectively killing any sex appeal this film was suppose to have. But, of course, that is the very least of the movie's problems. Most of the problems can be traced back to the script, a ridiculous combination of BASIC INSTINCT/FATAL ATTRACTION/PSYCHO-type cliches. If you are wondering what the most suspenseful parts of the movie are, there aren't any. The true horror is in the fact that this ugly little number ever got made. This is the price we pay for going to see movies like BASIC INSTINCT. Believe it or not, this movie was directed by Richard Rush, the same guy who gave us the brilliant THE STUNT MAN.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Not all that bad! Very fun thriller...., 10 August 2007

Author: Joe Rubell from Brisbane, Australia

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Color of Night was widely panned and hyped for its sex scenes between March and Willis, but aside from that, it's an interesting, cleverly constructed thriller featuring a fine performance from supporting star Leslie Ann Warren.

Willis is likewise, and March delivers a sultry performance as the so-called "femme fatale" (although it's revealed in the climax ending she was innocent). After all the reviews, I was expecting some big-budget, corny action/sex thriller; but I was obviously under a very wrong impression.

Color of Night is an awesome pop-corn film and a fun party movie too.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Not too bad (SOME SPOILERS!), 29 April 2004
Author: gmoore44 from Western Canada

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

SOME SPOILERS! I must admit, my main reason to see Color of Night was for the hyped up sex sessions with her and Bruce Willis. I was surprised, to find out that the movie did get my attention, and I watched it to the end, and thought it was pretty good! Jane March was quite good, as the lovers of just about everybody in the group. It took me a while, before I recognized her, as the same woman in a scene with Lesley Warren's character, as the doctor's hot number. It might get a bit confusing, you need to pay attention, as the doctor attempts to uncover the entire plot. It's not a fantastic film, but there are worse movies you could see! Look for the Director's cut, so you can catch the entire sexual romp!

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Ever wonder how idiotic and dumb an erotic thriller can get? Just rent this movie!, 10 June 2001

Author: Creature Foley

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Anyone who wants to see how not to make an erotic-thriller would be wise to rent this movie (and possibly Sliver). Everything about this movie sucks: the acting, directing, script and sex-scenes are so stupid and horrendously staged that it's a wonder that this movie even made into theaters (it has direct-to-video fodder written all over it.)

WARNING-SPOILERS: The movie stars a hilariously wooden Bruce Willis as a psychiatrist who after witnessing one of his patients dive out of his office window, loses the ability to see the color red(!). He decides to go out to see his friend Scott Bakula who works with a group of people who have had something traumatic happen in their life and are having trouble making the rebound. Not too long after he arrives people around him start getting killed off and he also meets a beautiful yet mysterious young woman played by the gorgeous Jane March. Actually, the only reason I could see recommending this piece of junk to anyone is strictly for the scenes where Ms. March is nude. She really is quite spectacular with no clothes on!

The much touted sex-scenes are really bad. They try to be really explicit but come across as just forced or really goofy. The film also contains some of the most ridiculous plot twists that I've ever had the misfortune of watching. By the time the movie ended I felt like I had had my brain ripped out of my skull, dribbled like a basketball, nuked in the microwave for a couple of minutes and then put sloppily back in my head. Yes, this movie really is that bad.

And probably the greatest mistake this film makes is that it can't even be enjoyed on a guilty pleasure so-bad-it's-good level.

"Color of Night" is rated R and contains strong sexual content, nudity, graphic violence and strong language.

rating:1

---

---

Page 1 of 10:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Plot keywords
Main details	Your user comments	Your vote history