movielover1030 Chances and Lucky are great reads, but to say that the miniseries doesn't do it justice is a HUGE understatement. It's not the worst thing ever made. I just wish that the powers that were had been a little more faithful to the book, at least in the casting part. I mean, blonde, blue-eyed Nicolette Sheridan as Lucky, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! That also goes for Sandra Bullock being cast as Maria and Shawnee Smith being cast as Olimpia. The casting director was either drunk or in a hurry. The closest that the casting people got was with Gino, played by Vincent Irizarry. There were also a lot of plots that were skipped, like Dario's homosexuality, Carrie's abuse and rape as well as how and why she came to be a prostitute, the stories of Gino's abusive father, and the list goes on and on. I would pay anything to see a "CORRECTLY CASTED AND NON-POLITICALLY CORRECT" remake of this movie, whether it be on the small screen or on the big screen, preferably on the small screen, or otherwise many subplots may have to be sacrificed due to time. Let me know if it ever happens.

corief I too saw this movie at a young age of 14, but I had read the book first. I agree that mostly of the characters were casted wrong. For instance in the book Maria is described as a fair skinned woman with white blond hair yet Sandra Bullock played her. Being the early 1990's no network would have been prepared to handle the open gayness of Dario (no-doubtly it wasn't "PC" yet) I think they could have added a bit more violence when trying to explore Mobster actions. It would be interesting if they remade the movie now would it resemble The Sopranos in some way would it be violent and hoping they would make better casting choices?? The book was better than the movie you were able to get more involved with the character's and their story.

southrenbelle73 Lucky/Chances is a good movie based on a good book. I read the books first prior to watching the movie and it does follow the book closely with a few minor chnages. Vincent Irizarry could not have made a better Gino and Nicollette Sheridan was perfect to play Lucky. The acting may have been a tad bit over-the-top, but many of Jackie Collins' books are and that's probably why the movie was done that way. I'd personally love to see a silver screen version of this book so that more details of the story could be shown (there was a lot that couldn't be shown on t.v.).

Victor Field Funny how things turn out; while going through the site and checking up on "I Saw What You Did" with Shawnee Smith (whose on-screen appearances on "Becker," curiously enough, coincide with the times during that amusing but inessential sitcom when yours truly pays most attention to the screen. There, comments on two TV productions for the price of one), I found out that she was in this interpretation of two of Jackie Collins's novels... like one wouldn't have been enough. Joan's more attractive sister also wrote, executive produced and even got her name in the title of "Jackie Collins' Lucky/Chances," clearly eager to remind us just who exactly we have to blame for this. Consider yourself blamed, Jackie.Six hours of dire pap (Sandra Bullock was also in this, and must have counted herself as the real lucky one since her character died at the end of part one), and with a cast seemingly intent on seeing who can give the worst performance, it's ultimately only endurable as a laugh riot. In amongst this Olympiad of appalling acting, Nicollette Sheridan romps home with the gold as Lucky Santangelo (as one American critic wrote at the time, she's as adept at playing the daughter of a mobster as Roseanne is at singing) and only Michael Nader matches her in the thespian-as-plank stakes; we don't even get to appreciate Nikki's sublime bubble butt. At least "Hollywood Wives" had Laura Branigan doing the title song (though how Aaron Spelling persuaded her to waste her talent on his behest we can only speculate).Wait for "I Saw What You Did" instead. (That's three comments now.)