I read with interest the only posted comments on this movie. The author of that comment set herself up as judge, jury, and executioner. She even suggested the movie be watched by film students so as to learn how not to make a movie. Don't you just love it? This is her OPINION. What about my opinion? I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Paul Sorvino does his usual excellent job of character acting and for Anne Ditchburn's first time out, she did a credible job. Who cares about what exactly her affliction is? The point is she continues on and fulfills her dream. Hey it's only a movie! Oh! maybe because there was not one 'F' word in the movie it didn't measure up to her standards of 'real life drama'. My suggestion, see the movie yourself, make up your own mind.
11 Reviews
Living life as a mayfly.
mark.waltz25 April 2021
Warning: Spoilers
That's an interesting analogy that comes from New York Post columnist Paul Sorvino to dancer Anne Ditchburn who is struggling to stay afloat after discovering that her dancing has basically threatened her health. She is very driven, but fragile, and this is how Sorvino compares her to the very busy insect that only lives for one day. Sorvino's character is a 70s version of Ernest Borgnine's Marty, certainly an odd leading character for an art house film that got hardly any attention. It's more interesting as a character study than as a film, showing Sorvino's impact on everybody around him as his awkward but gregarious character falls in love with Ditchburn pretty much upon meeting her when she moves into his apartment building.
In small doses, characters like Sorvino are amusing and certainly good for a laugh or to create anecdotes about, but he becomes a little grating with his excessive cheeriness and interference in her life. She is obviously grateful for his caring (you'd have to be pretty cold-hearted not to be), but his daily intrusion into her life has her frustrated at one point, but that changes slowly as he is there for her as her health crisis arises. Still, it becomes clear that his actions could be considered stalking, and you're never sure if all the marbles rattling around in his brain match.
Good performances by Hector Mercado (as a fellow dancer who is her sincere confidant), Nicolas Coster as her old lover, Anita Dangler as a bar maid obviously in love with Sorvino, and Thaoo Penghliss as the very strict ballet director aide in this being interesting if a bit contrived and sometimes depressing. Sorvino's character is far too well-meaning, but his good intentions are the type that get victims of it into trouble. His devotion to a street kid never is fully developed, especially in a scene where he encounters the kid and a group of youngsters spray painting subway cars in the docking station.
So in watching this, I enjoyed it for the occasional sweetness, vintage New York location footage in areas that were not often explored and a moody photography that helped give it some style. It seems that some key scenes may have been either edited out or possibly never even written because this jumps from situation to another scene without resolving what we've just seen. Under the direction of John G. Avieldsen (fresh off of "Rocky"), it's an interesting failure, but two hours of a leading character who is a constant pain in the neck is difficult, even if there is a bit of reality to him.
In small doses, characters like Sorvino are amusing and certainly good for a laugh or to create anecdotes about, but he becomes a little grating with his excessive cheeriness and interference in her life. She is obviously grateful for his caring (you'd have to be pretty cold-hearted not to be), but his daily intrusion into her life has her frustrated at one point, but that changes slowly as he is there for her as her health crisis arises. Still, it becomes clear that his actions could be considered stalking, and you're never sure if all the marbles rattling around in his brain match.
Good performances by Hector Mercado (as a fellow dancer who is her sincere confidant), Nicolas Coster as her old lover, Anita Dangler as a bar maid obviously in love with Sorvino, and Thaoo Penghliss as the very strict ballet director aide in this being interesting if a bit contrived and sometimes depressing. Sorvino's character is far too well-meaning, but his good intentions are the type that get victims of it into trouble. His devotion to a street kid never is fully developed, especially in a scene where he encounters the kid and a group of youngsters spray painting subway cars in the docking station.
So in watching this, I enjoyed it for the occasional sweetness, vintage New York location footage in areas that were not often explored and a moody photography that helped give it some style. It seems that some key scenes may have been either edited out or possibly never even written because this jumps from situation to another scene without resolving what we've just seen. Under the direction of John G. Avieldsen (fresh off of "Rocky"), it's an interesting failure, but two hours of a leading character who is a constant pain in the neck is difficult, even if there is a bit of reality to him.
SLOW DANCING--where is it?
michael-lynch-0116 March 2004
I saw this film years ago and it was John G. Avilsden's first film after ROCKY. I for one was blown away at the time and there is some great dancing in it and a good love story. Also, the soundtrack is awesome (I have the original on vinyl 33) and should be re-released on cd. Would also like to see the film released on dvd--alomg with Avilsden's other neglected work: THE FORMULA Brando/Scott. This was Paul Sorvino's finest hour on screen and I remember coming out of the cinema extremely moved--true, you may love this film or hate it-depends what kind of a soul you have. Slow Dancing never even turns up on Tv --What happened to this movie and are there any other fans of it out there?
A sadly forgotten, mostly underrated film
filmkr8 June 2001
This one gets better with each new look. Certainly one of Paul Sorvino's best roles. Outstanding music score which was also outstanding on sound track LP (so why no CD?). One the very early dolby stereo sound film releases. By the way, the original 35mm theatrical trailer for this is really GREAT!
A Guilty pleasure
Dr. Cumin20 October 2002
When you read about this film you wanna cringe. I have seen it countless times and yet I cringe myself! So what is the attraction here? I think that for me, it's the offbeatness of the romance. I find it super refreshing to have an oddball coupling between this NYC Jimmy-Breslin-like columnist and a down-on-her-luck (health-wise) ballerina. You feel embarrassed for Paul Sorvino at his unsubtle approach to wooing this woman. Like the guy in the bar who can't take a hint. He's a bit overweight (at least as a would-be suitor for a ballerina. Hope that doesn't sound unkind) and possibly a tad too old for her. Nice change of pace from Greek God wooing Super-model. The Bill Conti score has stuck in my head all these years later, which is a pretty good sign. However some of the acting is just dreadful. A subplot involving a young Puerto-Rican boy befriended by Sorvino's character is just hilariously bad. But the opening scene where Ditchburn is warming up to Carole King draws you right into this story. Good luck finding it. You'd think that Lifetime would be re-airing this or even WE, but I haven't seen it on in quite a few years.
Nice Little Romantic Film
michyh8 September 2001
I only saw this movie once as a teenager when we had "ON" pay television (before SelectTV, and then inevitably, cable). It was the last showing and I stayed up until 2 am to watch it.
Needless to say, after all these years it has stuck in my mind. I loved Paul Sorvino as the lonely, heart of gold newspaper guy and Anne Ditchburn as the vulnerable ballerina. In my minds eye I remember it as a quietly executed romantic film. This is one to watch on a rainy day curled up in a blanket with a cup of tea.
After my first and only viewing I had hoped to see it again, and waited patiently, looking for a listing in the TV guide week after week.
Unfortunately, after approximately 20 years I am still waiting. I sincerely wish that they would re-release this film again. Perfect for die hard romantics.
Needless to say, after all these years it has stuck in my mind. I loved Paul Sorvino as the lonely, heart of gold newspaper guy and Anne Ditchburn as the vulnerable ballerina. In my minds eye I remember it as a quietly executed romantic film. This is one to watch on a rainy day curled up in a blanket with a cup of tea.
After my first and only viewing I had hoped to see it again, and waited patiently, looking for a listing in the TV guide week after week.
Unfortunately, after approximately 20 years I am still waiting. I sincerely wish that they would re-release this film again. Perfect for die hard romantics.
Man Falls in Love with Dancer
lovewine18 March 2001
This is a wonderful movie. I've only seen it twice, and I've been looking for it again for ever. I'd buy it if I could find it. While it's sad, it shows three things -- how much a man can love a woman, how hard some people want something and how hard people work to overcome their limitations.
Slow Dancing in the Big City,a very good movie
SMOKEYLO29 May 1999
It has been a long time since i have seen this movie. I thought the story line was very good and the dancing was also. It was a sad love story, story of illness and dancers strength and courage to follow their dreams. Paul Sorvino is a great actor and is good in everything i have seen him in, he has come a long way in his career since then.Hector Jaime Mercado who played Roger Lucas the dancer and I grew up together and I remember the dreams of a dancer first hand.To me this was a very good movie and cast. I would love to see it on T.V. again after all these years, I think people will enjoy to see it again also. Thank You for letting me put in my input on "Slow Dancing in the Big City"
Not a classic, but Paul Sorvino is incapable of a bad performance
stuhh200123 September 2002
It's gratifying that this movie has so many fans. As I remember it, it was a critical and financial disaster, but is still worth seeing. It has one of the greatest sets ever constructed for a movie......New York City. There's something about NY.that always adds to my enjoyment of a film shot there. It would make a good trivia party game to name all the films shot there. I'll start, "Prince of the City," "Raging Bull," "Malcolm X," "Mean Streets." Your turn. Paul Sorvino is always on the verge of super stardom but can't come up with the right vehicle, like Brando in "Streetcar", or Al Pacino in "Dog Day Afternoon, but he's incapable of giving a bad performance. Several things about the film annoy me. Sorvino's character with his non stop manic babbling and joking can be a real turn off. But he did the role as written or directed, and I'm surprised this wasn't noticed during filming. Anita Dangler as the cloying Franny, is a bit too cloying, but she gives a good performance as the waitress who shares Sorvino's bed only when he needs a body there, and knows there is no hope for a future relationship. She also has a steady stream of meaningless babble that she knows will further alieanate him, but she can't help herself. He's probably the first man she's had that didn't use her for a punching bag, and spoken with a semblance of kindness to her. Anita Ditchburn who I'm told is a ballet star in Canada is a strange young lady. She plays the role with almost one expression...a constant pout. The plot is as phony as Hollywood can get. A reporter who wouldn't be caught dead at the ballet, falls in love with a dying ballerina. Are you kidding me!? An adorable little Puerto Rican kid is also in there somewhere. But guess what. I've seen it a few times and I still love the movie. Give it a viewing. You'll enjoy.
Embarrassing failure
LilyDaleLady27 June 2004
I saw this movie when it first came out (1978). It was a catastrophe -- critically and commercially -- at that time and time has not been kind to it. It's a mark of how badly it failed that it never was even released for VIDEO, let alone DVD, despite the director (John Avildson of "Rocky" fame), Paul Sorvino and some
other good character actors.
Sorvino plays a NYC journalist who seems roughly modeled on TV's Columbo --
he's scruffy, middle-aged and babbles on and on in a way that I think is meant to be eccentric and charming, but actually comes off as purely annoying. He's an "everyman" figure who falls in love with a seriously ill ballerina. I wonder where the concept of the ballerina as the supreme symbol of femininity comes from -- real life ballet dancers are ATHELETES, not simpering fashion models and
injury and disability go hand-in-hand with their art form -- but here it is handled in the lamest and most embarrassing way imaginable.
Anne Ditchburn (Sarah), a real life Canadian dancer who never acted before (or again and you can understand why) has the world's strangest medical condition -- it's something vaguely inexplicable that has to do with her...uh...groin. Or maybe more accurately her thigh muscles, I don't know. We aren't told much, but she's clearly in a lot of pain when she dances, and her dancing bizarrely
includes a lot of splits and arabesques and stuff where she wraps her thighs
around other dancers. So it hurts. She needs some kind of operation but then
she probably won't be able to dance -- not this thigh wrapping stuff anyways -- so she is soldering on through the pain.
That's about it for the plot. She insists on dancing in the "big performance" she is scheduled for, despite the pain, and along the way falls in love (very
improbably) with big, beefy, talkative Paul Sorvino. Now, I want to say that I generally LOVE off-beat romances with oddball characters ("Harold and Maude"
is about my favorite movie of all time) and that's probably why I went to see "Slow Dancing" originally.
But the concept just curls up and suffers a slow death in this badly written, badly directed and badly acted film. There is no chemistry at all between Sorvino and Ditchburn. He really does seem to old for her and the contrast between her tiny, fit body and his big paunchy one is just awkward and even grotesque. There are no actual sex scenes, but you can't help thinking in your mind what they would look like together and...it would be pretty gross.
The worst of it is that Sarah's medical condition (the...uh...groin problem) can't help but have sexual connotations, although none are mentioned, because the
exact part of her body affected would be directly involved in sexual intercourse. You keep thinking "hmmm...he's really a big guy, and she's a tiny little thing who can't open her legs..." and any hope that the movie will be seen as touching or moving or whatever without making you break into helpless laughter is totally lost.
Surely this can't have been the effect the director or screenwriters were going for -- the movie plays as if it's meant to be a quirky but deeply moving romance. Why oh why didn't they make her injury something less awkward, like arthritic knees or a foot injury (far more common amongst dancers and very believable)? Almost any other medical problem would have worked better here.
Like the video companies who had no interest in putting this film on tape, I am puzzled as to who the heck would ever want to view this. Maybe a die hard Paul Sorvino fan? I can't honestly recommend this to anybody else, unless you are a film student wanting a case study example of WHAT NOT TO DO when making
a movie....
other good character actors.
Sorvino plays a NYC journalist who seems roughly modeled on TV's Columbo --
he's scruffy, middle-aged and babbles on and on in a way that I think is meant to be eccentric and charming, but actually comes off as purely annoying. He's an "everyman" figure who falls in love with a seriously ill ballerina. I wonder where the concept of the ballerina as the supreme symbol of femininity comes from -- real life ballet dancers are ATHELETES, not simpering fashion models and
injury and disability go hand-in-hand with their art form -- but here it is handled in the lamest and most embarrassing way imaginable.
Anne Ditchburn (Sarah), a real life Canadian dancer who never acted before (or again and you can understand why) has the world's strangest medical condition -- it's something vaguely inexplicable that has to do with her...uh...groin. Or maybe more accurately her thigh muscles, I don't know. We aren't told much, but she's clearly in a lot of pain when she dances, and her dancing bizarrely
includes a lot of splits and arabesques and stuff where she wraps her thighs
around other dancers. So it hurts. She needs some kind of operation but then
she probably won't be able to dance -- not this thigh wrapping stuff anyways -- so she is soldering on through the pain.
That's about it for the plot. She insists on dancing in the "big performance" she is scheduled for, despite the pain, and along the way falls in love (very
improbably) with big, beefy, talkative Paul Sorvino. Now, I want to say that I generally LOVE off-beat romances with oddball characters ("Harold and Maude"
is about my favorite movie of all time) and that's probably why I went to see "Slow Dancing" originally.
But the concept just curls up and suffers a slow death in this badly written, badly directed and badly acted film. There is no chemistry at all between Sorvino and Ditchburn. He really does seem to old for her and the contrast between her tiny, fit body and his big paunchy one is just awkward and even grotesque. There are no actual sex scenes, but you can't help thinking in your mind what they would look like together and...it would be pretty gross.
The worst of it is that Sarah's medical condition (the...uh...groin problem) can't help but have sexual connotations, although none are mentioned, because the
exact part of her body affected would be directly involved in sexual intercourse. You keep thinking "hmmm...he's really a big guy, and she's a tiny little thing who can't open her legs..." and any hope that the movie will be seen as touching or moving or whatever without making you break into helpless laughter is totally lost.
Surely this can't have been the effect the director or screenwriters were going for -- the movie plays as if it's meant to be a quirky but deeply moving romance. Why oh why didn't they make her injury something less awkward, like arthritic knees or a foot injury (far more common amongst dancers and very believable)? Almost any other medical problem would have worked better here.
Like the video companies who had no interest in putting this film on tape, I am puzzled as to who the heck would ever want to view this. Maybe a die hard Paul Sorvino fan? I can't honestly recommend this to anybody else, unless you are a film student wanting a case study example of WHAT NOT TO DO when making
a movie....
That's two hours of my life I will never get back...
nobby170120 July 2004
I recognized the title, it stars Paul Sorvino, so it sounded intriguing when I saw it was on "Flix". I just finished watching it so I came here to see if other folks thought the movie was as bad as I thought it was.
Why is Paul Sorvino's character in love with this ballerina? He sees her and is instantly smitten--no matter how annoying she is, he can't help but love her all the more. Yeah, they were going for Jimmy Breslin--that was pretty obvious. I kept waiting for the story to make sense--to see a reason behind all the dreck--but I was sadly disappointed. I thought Paul Sorvino was attractive in a "husky" kind of way (that's the description given for Flix) and all the "I've seen the X-Rays" nonsense was over the top--"You could bleed to death", etc...."I....can't....walk".. "No--I want HIM to carry me out for my bow". I really don't understand why the film makers didn't see how bad it is/was. I think "The Turning Point" was out the year before so they saw an audience for "Ballet dancer as protagonist" type movies, but forgot that you really need a plausible storyline or, if you're doing a "character study", you need to make your characters three dimensional and believable. They failed miserably on both accounts. And I couldn't tell what type of accent the ballet dancer was trying to affect. At times it seemed slightly Russian, at times, slightly British--nothing consistent. I guess they figured that after Turning Point, all you had to do was get a pretty ballerina...women LOVE to watch pretty ballerina's in pain for their art, dying (maybe) and falling in love.
Why is Paul Sorvino's character in love with this ballerina? He sees her and is instantly smitten--no matter how annoying she is, he can't help but love her all the more. Yeah, they were going for Jimmy Breslin--that was pretty obvious. I kept waiting for the story to make sense--to see a reason behind all the dreck--but I was sadly disappointed. I thought Paul Sorvino was attractive in a "husky" kind of way (that's the description given for Flix) and all the "I've seen the X-Rays" nonsense was over the top--"You could bleed to death", etc...."I....can't....walk".. "No--I want HIM to carry me out for my bow". I really don't understand why the film makers didn't see how bad it is/was. I think "The Turning Point" was out the year before so they saw an audience for "Ballet dancer as protagonist" type movies, but forgot that you really need a plausible storyline or, if you're doing a "character study", you need to make your characters three dimensional and believable. They failed miserably on both accounts. And I couldn't tell what type of accent the ballet dancer was trying to affect. At times it seemed slightly Russian, at times, slightly British--nothing consistent. I guess they figured that after Turning Point, all you had to do was get a pretty ballerina...women LOVE to watch pretty ballerina's in pain for their art, dying (maybe) and falling in love.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
