What makes this movie so interesting?
For one: The ratings seem to be wider spread, than for the vast majority, so, depending on ones expectations, it obviously did a bunch of things quite good and failed bad in others.
DePalma, without any doubt, is a director of exceptional craftsmanship, who knows about great timing, motion and complex camera work, using elements like rain, light and perspective, which all work out in this one.
Also, DePalma always had Hitchcock-level stories and above-average cast.
So there we are, what might be the point with this one: It is not clear, whether/why some performances just didn't develop well, or if the scenes and character development were meant to be rather flat.
Considering the trivia, a lot of roles seem to have been handled like a hot potato, leading to low chemistry, not feeling as smooth and intense like in e.g. Mission Impossible.
Bruce Willis - no, glasses, a bottle, (still) hair and wearing a hat funny doesn't make him a struggling journalist.
Morgan Freeman - does great by delivering two essential statements, while Willis/Fallows adds nothing to it. Though on the other hand, both violate the credo: show, don't tell. Anyway: This guy knows how to do speaking parts (compare Under Suspicion).
Melanie Griffith ... hard to tell, if she was meant to play the mistress in a hurting flat way. In "Working Girl" she demonstrated, she can get way deeper.
Tom Hanks delivers a solid, calm performance and 2 great moments, one maybe re-interpreting his hysterical outbreak from "Money Pit", while one gets no real impression, what Sherman does in his job, in contrast to Gordon Gecko/Wall Street.
F. Murray Abraham - noticeable, and in one scene, reminds of Pacino in Scarface, 7 years before.
Poor Saul Rubinek got a lifetime subscription for some barely likeable loser stereotype.
Honorable mention: Beth Broderick molesting the copy machine.
So what might be the central problem? Maybe the script, that fails to add some intensity and more suspense to certain interactions and moments, giving the cast moments to show their talent, instead of flowing like a ditch of vanities.
For one: The ratings seem to be wider spread, than for the vast majority, so, depending on ones expectations, it obviously did a bunch of things quite good and failed bad in others.
DePalma, without any doubt, is a director of exceptional craftsmanship, who knows about great timing, motion and complex camera work, using elements like rain, light and perspective, which all work out in this one.
Also, DePalma always had Hitchcock-level stories and above-average cast.
So there we are, what might be the point with this one: It is not clear, whether/why some performances just didn't develop well, or if the scenes and character development were meant to be rather flat.
Considering the trivia, a lot of roles seem to have been handled like a hot potato, leading to low chemistry, not feeling as smooth and intense like in e.g. Mission Impossible.
Bruce Willis - no, glasses, a bottle, (still) hair and wearing a hat funny doesn't make him a struggling journalist.
Morgan Freeman - does great by delivering two essential statements, while Willis/Fallows adds nothing to it. Though on the other hand, both violate the credo: show, don't tell. Anyway: This guy knows how to do speaking parts (compare Under Suspicion).
Melanie Griffith ... hard to tell, if she was meant to play the mistress in a hurting flat way. In "Working Girl" she demonstrated, she can get way deeper.
Tom Hanks delivers a solid, calm performance and 2 great moments, one maybe re-interpreting his hysterical outbreak from "Money Pit", while one gets no real impression, what Sherman does in his job, in contrast to Gordon Gecko/Wall Street.
F. Murray Abraham - noticeable, and in one scene, reminds of Pacino in Scarface, 7 years before.
Poor Saul Rubinek got a lifetime subscription for some barely likeable loser stereotype.
Honorable mention: Beth Broderick molesting the copy machine.
So what might be the central problem? Maybe the script, that fails to add some intensity and more suspense to certain interactions and moments, giving the cast moments to show their talent, instead of flowing like a ditch of vanities.