How sad is this?

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Mike Figgis wrote and directed this woefully pretentious claptrap about a young writer (Kevin Anderson, in a wholly uncompelling performance) who becomes obsessed with a landmark building about to be torn down. That impossible title refers to a piece of music which was playing in the building the night a mysterious crime took place (it was a crime of passion, yet there's no passion in the leading character, and nothing for the viewer to become involved in). Figgis gets amusingly flashy with this scenario, but it's certainly no threat to "Vertigo"--even with Kim Novak cast in a completely thankless role of a bed-ridden hospital patient. Empty all the way. * from ****

This movie was strange yet intriguing. I could not quite figure out who the woman in the wheel chair was. Who was the pregnant woman? Why did the movie continually move back and forth in time? Was the woman in the hospital really his mother? What was the significance of the building and its demolition? I was totally confused by its plot. Just when I thought I had the plot figured out , another twist would take hold. I was not sure why the woman in the wheelchair's eyes appeared as they did and the purpose of the main character's lover assisting her. Was there some relevance to this particular scene. Most confusing was the two shootings. First flashback the perpetrator was a man, the second was a pregnant woman. Who really shot the mother? Confused!

Nick (Kevin Anderson) goes back to his hometown to take care of his dying mother (Kim Novak). There he encounters an old college buddy (Bill Pullman) and his beautiful wife (Pamela Gidley). He also gets involved with a 40 year old sex murder that may have something to do with him...I caught this in a theatre back in 1991. It was part of the Boston Film Festival and I had heard it had some incredibly beautiful cinematography. Well--it does. It just doesn't have much of a story to go with it. Also the film moves so SLOWLY--I literally fell asleep! Seeing it again 14 years later, I fell asleep AGAIN! This film is dull and slow. It's one of those art films full of strange characters who act oddly and mutter obscure dialogue (especially the police chief). Gorgeous images don't make up for the leaden pace.Acting doesn't help. Anderson (a good actor) acts terrible here. He appears to be drugged out at all times. Gidley TRIES to give a good performance but she's given nothing to work with. Pullman is the only one who pulls off a good job. Novak is (sadly) wasted and reduced to being bed ridden and screaming for no good reason.Also watch the part where the police chief has the longest urination sequence in cinema history. Why it's there I have no idea but at least it's somewhat funny. Otherwise this is a dull, slow-moving bore. Avoid.

I was hooked from the first minute I saw this one! All my friends to whom I recommended this film, liked it too. And they said all the same. Good, you told us to watch this movie very carefully, and keep concentrated on it, constantly, cause it will keep you guessing long after you seen it! Seldom I've seen a film, so slow, but so good! It has such a strange feel about it, it's erotic and it has thriller effects, especially each time somebody enters the building. The leads are good, Pullman exellent! Mike Figgis is a great director, but he never made something good, as this, afterwards. Very nice photography, and good soundtrack.Peter Piessens.