chaos-rampant I like films dreamlike, fluid appearances, floating that wanders outside of the confines of self and story. At the same time I like them to draw fresh water from the well of mysterious non- self that underpins really anything that is exuberantly receptive to the world (passionate sex, dreaming, youth all a part of it), wipes anxiety and restores perception to the far-flung horizons teeming with possibility that youth and early lovers know.Lynch is a natural master of this deep swimming. Ferrara tried briefly at around the same time. Further back it was Rivette, a lot of film noir works in a similar way for me.Here we have all these things; dreamlike in the way that Lynch is, about passion that dives in and perturbs reality, and a cinematic mind-bending swim in the waters. It's nominally a thriller, but written in waters, fluid about anxiety and self.It has the noir engine where someone sets out to investigate and finds himself embroiled in mysterious goings-on. In noir that's usually a PI, but it doesn't have to be. Here it's simply a son whose mother has been hospitalized and he arrives to the small town to care for her.He an architectural writer, she a photographer, both coming to explore an old building that is set to be demolished, but she has a husband. They unearth a story that took place in that building long ago, illicit lovers discovered one night. We have some obvious symbolism in the building as obliquely shared past and as wandering through his own mind that is buffeted by anxieties.And it has the notion of persisting memory where something that happened in the past is rising up again in the present. The noir drive is that the more he succumbs to passion, the more he is pulled as a narrator into a past story about it.So they fall for each other while he's unearthing a narrative of how that shattered lives one day. By investigating further, he comes to understand that he's tied to that story via his parents, his mother has been unwell ever since. There's also another son whose life is intimately woven to events of that night, an eerie figure like out of Lynch who by driving past the building one day causes someone to die.It's all eventually made to align during a hospital visit late at night. Another invalid mother is wheeled out, central in events of that story. A metaphysical wiring between bodies takes place, bodies entered it seems by our knowledge of the story. The fateful coupling that upset reality takes place once more inside the building; once more a vengeful spouse is waiting in the shadows with a gun. But they say that they love each other. He's eavesdropping and stays his hand.This is worthwhile stuff.Noir Meter: 2/4 | Neo-noir or post noir? Post

preppy-3 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.

usaslim I'm waiting to see this movie, I never knew such big stars were in Binghamton (Catherine Hicks and Bill Pullman) I wish I was older so I might have got a part in the film. I know a person who drives in front of the camera in an old Chevy pick-up. SPIEDES RULE !!!

lisarull We came in about 15 minutes after this started on TV. Hmmm. Interesting cast, Mike Figgis directing, liked the cast iron building set-up. Within 20 minutes we knew why we hadn't heard before about this movie. it was pretty dreadful. Clearly only about half a normal screenplay had been completed because there was no other plausible reason for those -- tedious -- pseudo-meaningful (meaningless) -- pauses. In my partner's inimtable phrasing Harold Pinter seems a laugh a minute screwball comedy writer of speedy proportions alongside this. Elephants have gestated quicker than this progressed! Everything was invested with 'meaning' to the point where, oh heavens, not ANOTHER drawn-out sex scene, one just longed for some EXPLICATION about what was going on. Yes there was some nice cinematography, and many of the cast deserved better than this. The hapless lead has disappeared almost without trace. poor boy. For a story so laden with pseudo-pyschobabble subplots and personal histories repeating I have just one question; exactly WHY is Bill Pullman's character so defiantly intent on destroying the building? MOTIVATION, MOTIVATION, MOTIVATION.