Max/W.Snipes has a one night stand with Karen/N.Kinski in NYC. He returns to his wife, 2 kids and career in LA but is affected. A year later, Max and Karen meet again by chance, but this time they're with their spouses.
Los Angeles advertisement director Max visits his friend, artist Charlie, who was diagnosed with A.I.D.S. in New York City. There he meets Karen, they are attracted to each other and after they meet later that day at the concert, they have a passionate night. Then he returns home to Los Angeles to his family, and wife Mimi. A year later, Max returns to New York City again to visit Charlie, who is now dying, and there he meets Karen again, who is married to Charlie's brother Vernon.
According to the book "Robert Downey, Jr. - The fall and rise of the comeback kid", Mike Figgis and Robert Downey Jr. met at Kate Mantilini's, a restaurant on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills, to discuss this movie. Downey arrived two hours late, barefoot, high, and carrying a purse with a gun sticking out of it. Figgis was shocked at first, but started a conversation anyway. Downey, who had lost a lot of weight because of his addiction, still expected to be offered the lead role of Max. Figgis offered him the part of Charlie, a man dying of A.I.D.S. instead. This in turn, gave Downey a shock, but after taking a good look in the mirror (and doing a line of coke) he decided to accept the part. See more »
The photo that Max takes of Charlie has both Max and Charlie in it See more »
I don't know what it is with films but some capture the mood for me and some don't. 'Leaving Las Vegas' didn't but this did. So why? The latter didn't receive half the aclaim of the first, but somehow despite 'Las Vegas' being the more technically perfect film 'One Night Stand' was more a more interesting study of Human relationships and how real life is.
I don't think I have seen a better performance from Snipes and Robert Downey Jnr leaves me stunned at why he hasn't been given more leading roles. Downey Jnr is up there with the best of them when it comes to ability and 'Chaplin' should have led to a continuous stream of top dramatic billing, A small but again thoughtful performance from him, never totally stealing the limelight but always there as the part demanded. There are only a few actors that leave me wanting more because of the insight they brought to the character, Pacino, De Niro, Duvall, Hopkins, to name some, but also, strange as it may be, based on the few decent roles he has had, Downey Jnr.
Figgis brings to this film a mood that captivates. The dialogue levels are appalling in places (sound recordists when are you going to learn its no good spending millions on a movie and people working their guts out if we cant hear the bloody thing!) and the story a little rushed at times. It could be compared, for those of you who are musicians, to recording a piece of Jazz or R & B Live in a studio and then quantizing the track so that all the notes and rhythms are absolutely in time, they then sound too mechanical. A little rough round the edges can often make the difference and ironically make the film perfect.
I had a problem with the ending and couldn't figure out why. Then it struck me, when you look at the two dinner scenes it was plain that the foursome only worked with the second arrangement and the end was inevitable thus the attempt by Figgis to make a twist was lost on an audience who were already half expecting that to happen at the first dinner scene, me included.
So flaws aside I still enjoyed this film immensely and certainly give it an above average rating.
On a a final note has anyone seen so many lowly parts played by such reputable British actors, namely Julian Sands, Amanda Donohue, and Ione Skye!
7 of 9 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this