Naked in New York
Naked in New York begins in the car of grown up Jake, he is talking to us about his girlfriend, Joanne, and to whom you can turn to for help while facing life. From there it flashes back to his memories of his parents, college, house across from a squirrel infested peanut factory, best friend, writing career and Joanne.
-
- Cast：
- Eric Stoltz , Mary-Louise Parker , Ralph Macchio , Jill Clayburgh , Tony Curtis , Timothy Dalton , Lynne Thigpen
Similar titles
Reviews
Such a frustrating disappointment
Sadly Over-hyped
Purely Joyful Movie!
Lack of good storyline.
Show biz. We all (film lovers) have the dream the lead actor had in the film. Even those who don't admit it watch "stories" and try and guess what's to come. Could I "save" this film? In this case the film needed no help from me. I write and even got to do a radio play once which was a 100% mess. Callers were asked to comment on my "vision" and I sat there and took it. The professor who wrote his part said "Mike we learn more from our misses than our hits." Humble pie was shared by all and one caller said I was in league with the devil. As I watched NAKED IN NEW YORK one idea came to me: "Jesus I wish I had half the talent it took to make a very sweet clever film like this. Reading other reviews I was happy to see those who didn't "get it" couldn't write a decent sentence. Highlight for me seeing the newbie get brushed off by the famous authors. I once had a three minute talk with Clint Eastwood about my "career" at a university. He was not impressed. peace mike Mason
Two good actors, Eric Stoltz and Mary-Louise Parker, are overshadowed by a poor script and poor direction. The excessive use of asides and narration, along with a poor script, make this in all a poor movie.The plot idea is good. Two people fall in love and must decide between careers going in geographically opposite directions and their mutual attraction for each other. That's a great idea for a plot, but it just didn't play out.
I remember when this came out it was pretty much savaged by the critics, in fact it made a few 'worst films of the year' lists for 1994. For the life of me I can't understand why. Its really a quite good protrayal of a just out of college couple trying to make it in the 'art' world. Him (Eric Stoltz) as a playwrite, her (Mary-Louise Parker) as a photographer, and how their ambitions in the real world changes their relationship. It has good dialogue, some quirky-arty surreal effects (like when the stone faces in the wall started talking) which worked for me, and a great cast of believable characters. Jill Clayburgh was especially good in this one.Kicking and Screaming, also underrated, is another film you'll like if you like this one.Rent this one so you can remind yourself why you should never listen to critics (except this one of course ;) ).
A great 'date' movie... about struggling to find the balance between love and work. Great performances and camera work, a Woody Allen-esquire film, but not as high-falutin. It's got a very warm heart.The cameos by Whoopi Goldberg and Tony Curtis, and Tim Dalton - as fun as he's ever been- are a hoot. Jill Clayburgh is great too. And New York City looks beautiful, it's shot with a certain pizazz and style, and also a sense of whimsy which is rare in films nowadays, there's not much cynicism. And Ralph Macchio will surprise you with an oddly sexy scene!What it says about trying to create something, about trying to find your place in the world during a transitional time (your young twenties) is heartfelt and fun, even as you feel the panic these people are going through.It's really Mary Louise Parker and Eric Stolz film though, and they carry it with grace and humor, making us really care for this attractive funny and insecure young couple. You really believe that these two are in love, and you root for them.