Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Nice effects though.

From my favorite movies..

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

From the very beginning, this movie strains credulity. First, if Jack Dawn was keeping a record of certain transactions so that he could inform on the mob to the FBI, it is unbelievable that he would tell the mob he had stuff written down, but then say that he was kidding. But once the mob finds out, he should have called the police and then the FBI to get in the witness protection program. Instead, he gives the book to his son, Phil, as if he is doing him a favor.All right, Jack is stupid, and we will let it go at that. But then we do not understand why Gloria does not just hand over the book to the mob right away. She is not even willing to go to the police for help, so what does she think she and Phil will do with the book? She says she cannot go to the police for protection because the mobsters are her friends, but then she shoots five of them in their car. I guess it is all right to kill your friends, but not to get the police to protect you from them.When the mob gets the book, they say they still need to kill the kid, to make an example. The problem with that is that it is a cliché that the Mafia leaves the women and children alone, primarily because killing family members invites retribution. So, this determination to kill a young child is not believable.Then Gloria decides to go to Pittsburg. Eventually, it occurs to her that the Mafia is probably in Pittsburg too. No kidding. The thing to do is go to some small town no one has ever heard of in another part of the country, like Kerrville, Texas, population just over 20,000.Finally, the dialogue between Gloria and Phil is unnatural. I could feel the heavy hand of John Cassavetes making it up with little regard for realism.

"Gloria" is probably the only Cassavetes' film that relies on a formulaic plot: the improbable pairing that turns into a friendship and I suspect it's the most likely to disorient the hardcore fans of Cassavetes' unique directorial style, in other words, to be the least appreciated of his films. Still, it's the one that earned Gena Rowlands, the most defining face of the director's filmography, her second nomination for an Oscar.It's hard to believe that Gena Rowlands only had two nominations in her career, and that she didn't even win for "A Woman Under the Influence" which belongs to the list of the greatest female performances ever. Never mind. Here, Gena portrays Gloria, the neighbor of a doomed Puerto-Rican family. She enters as casually as ever to ask for some coffee and finds herself in the middle of a panic-stricken family scene. And what seems to be more inexplicable that the casting of Buck Henry as the geeky waspish connected-to-the-mob father (I loved Roger Ebert's comment on that one) is the way he jeopardized his family's life by threatening to give some names to the FBI, names that were all conveniently collected in a little book. After a quick second thought, the casting of Buck Henry is top notch, he looks like the kind of men to commit such incredible mistakes, and as we see him argue with his wife, remarkably played by the beautiful Julie Carmen, the feeling of urgency is efficiently conveyed. Indeed, we know it's only a matter of minutes before the gangsters start shooting and Gloria's entrance is like providence knocking on the door.Gloria is a blonde woman in her late forties or early fifties (Gena Rowlands was 50), she's single but she probably seen a lot in her bed, she doesn't like kids and especially Carmen's kids, a touch of irony that makes her the perfect candidate to take care of little Phil, the eight-year old son who'd keep his father's book. Gloria has the perfect mix of sophistication and street-wise attitude, and I guess one of the reasons that earned her an Oscar nomination is that she literally created something new on screen. Gloria has some mimics that remind of Gena's earliest roles, and her accent is just a delight for ears, but then when she suddenly pulled a gun off her purse, it's a total metamorphosis, and a landmark in Cassavetes's canon. For the first time, an actor transfigures a character to make the role appealing on a true cinematic level, regardless of any realistic approach. Gloria becomes a true heroine in all the meanings of the word without the sexiness of usual exploitations' female protagonists."You're so tough" will repeat little Phil, with eyes that are either impressed or full of love. Is it realistic that a child would fall in love with a woman like Gloria? I don't think any child would but then not any child would have been casted for that role. Here, Cassavetes did one incredible choice, because either John Adames' performance is one of the best or the worst when it comes to child acting. I still haven't made up my mind yet but I do believe it was absolutely distasteful for the Razzies to give the award of Worst Supporting Actor to a child. Now, was he good or bad? I felt the way he was dressed very weird, sometimes the way he delivered his lines was whiny and irritating, and when he was playing adult and tough, I was like "gee, what's wrong with this kid?" but then you understand that as much as the film would have been different without Gena Rowlands, it would have been maybe worse with a 'normal' kid. I mean 'normal' by cinematic standards. Could have you dealt with the same story told by Spielberg?Kids have a strange ability to outsmart adults in movies or to act in the most insolent, eccentric and annoying way as if they were comforted by the tacit rule that 'kids don't die in films'. Think of all the ones you saw in Disaster films, little boys who were braver than their whiny sisters (another stereotype), who displayed an insolent courage in front of the villains when any normal child would have wept or cried for his mommy. In the name of dramatization, the portrayal of little boys and little girls has suffered from a severe distance from reality. Cassavetes never cared for clichés and you could see in his earlier films how children kind of behaved naturally, where adults were the most childish persons actually. In "Gloria", he creates here a kid so cinematically abnormal that we can believe a boy would act that way, the way he delivers his lines, the content of these lines can be debated but I'd rather take his attitude than one that would obey to a standard. At the end, he fitted the role, didn't ruin the film and the best measure of that aspect is his chemistry with Gloria.While the friendship is the emotional core, the film strikes by its abundances of cat-and- mouse scenes, the gangster looking for Gloria, Gloria herself looking for Phil. Thanks to the directing and the score from Bill Conti, sometimes a bit overdone, the dosage between thrills and sentiments is perfectly handled and allow us to grow some feelings toward these two characters. In a way, the film carries so much comedy beyond the drama that we couldn't have dealt with a sad ending. And Cassavetes, aware that he's not probably making the highlight of his career, let the events flow naturally until a climactic confrontation and a finale that concludes the film in a very satisfying way. "Gloria" could have been better, but it also could have been worse. Just ask yourself what if another director made "Gloria"

Under the superb direction of husband John Cassavetes, Gena Rowlands a worthy Oscar nominated 1980 performance for "Gloria." A gritty tale of a neighbor, who happens to be mob-connected, shields a young boy whose family has been wiped out by the mob since the father, an accountant for them, squealed to the FBI about their work.As Gloria, Rowlands turns in a gritty, mean performance as one lady-killing machine. She is as tough as they come but comes to have a heart for the young boy under her care.In some respects, when there is no shooting, the film often takes comic turns. I just loved the 6 year old compared Gloria to a dame and he as her man. The kid certainly has the street-smarts and that in itself makes this film engaging.

I dig this out once a year to watch it and it always gets me. I've been watching this film ever since it came out! The production, including the opening credits, has a foreign feel to it. The opening has watercolor artwork that appears to have been made by a child. The camera sweeps over this while displaying opening credits as jazz music plays.The film takes place in New York City and not the glamorous areas of New York. No, here we see the seedier, gritty, grimy side of New York where children run unsupervised and people are struggling to survive.The acting here is excellent by everyone. Some people say it seems unrealistic and there might be times when that becomes apparent but you can't deny the raw, nervous energy of the film. It's hard to escape the atmosphere here. Gene Rowlands plays her role perfectly and despite her tough as nails attitude you can't help but love her character.Give this a chance. It could become one of your favorite films as it is hard to forget.