ShangLuda Admirable film.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Verity Robins Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Scarlet The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Svenstadt Truly, this is the quintessential '90's film. The erotic thriller genre was very popular then. To be honest, the nudity is the biggest let-down of the film. I think that if you're gonna make a boner film, make a lustful film. The shots of the sex are not even erotic at all. Sure, people will say, "There's tons of sex and nudity". It seems too overdone and / or artsy. Jane March is one sexy lady, but it seemed at times that Willis was the one driving the relationship. There wasn't really a romantic chemistry between them (of course given that Bill Capa is troubled at the time due to a patient's suicide, this would be a healing type of casual sex). What makes it worse is that the uncut version, which I own, only makes the silly nudity discount much of the movie. I see now why the director only wanted to release the conventional version b/c it adds nothing to the movie!The grittiness of the story is what holds this work up on itself. This is a very dark movie. At times, the acting other than the leads (I'm talking about Bruce Willis and Scott Bakula who I also like) is a bit much. As usual, the 3rd tier actors try to outdo each other and especially during the therapy sessions, their immaturity shows.Not for kids! If you're like me, if you like boundary pushing, this is your film. All frat boys around the country should be forced to watch this movie! Me and my buddy from High School watched this movie together, and that became a gag between us during senior year! Good times!

gridoon2018 "Basic Instinct" was all the rage in the early 1990s, and many erotic thrillers tried to follow its path, upping the ante in violence and sex. "Color of Night" is one of those, and it cannot hold a candle to the 1992 film: there is little erotic heat between Bruce Willis and Jane March (who is cute, but no Sharon Stone in her prime), and the story is mostly predictable, with one major twist poorly disguised (no pun intended). It is also extremely long (140 minutes in its "uncut" form) for its genre. Nevertheless, it stays compulsively watchable for the duration. There are some great car stunts, some well-drawn supporting characters (Brad Dourif, Lans Henriksen), and a strong sense of humor (Ruben Blades, in particular, is frequently hilarious). The film is not nearly as bad as it is reputed to be in some circles. **1/2 out of 4.

netizenk-252-163866 This movie is most certainly not a masterpiece deserving of a perfect rating, but when I see a solid movie with ratings lower than some total trash I have no option but to overrate in order to contribute at least a little bit to what I think is a proper rating for a movie...That being said, this movie is actually a solid 7 in my book because it delivers a good plot without too many holes and without over-stretching my suspension of disbelief. It also delivers solid acting and well developed characters, including the support cast which is a rarity in modern Hollywood movies. In short, my feeling was that all the characters were played well, were believable and easy to connect with.Special kudos go to Jane March who is not only very beautiful and graceful in this role but pulls of a multiple personality role quite well in my opinion and is overall a pleasure to watch and this has nothing to do with the nude scenes which are just an added bonus for some of the audience...Finally, I suspect this movie is so poorly rated in part because of the aforementioned nudity as I noticed a trend in this regard with all the puritans racing to give a rating of 1/10 to any movie containing nudity.

tedg Folks don't like this movie. I didn't either, but there is at least one interesting thing about it, its provenance.Its an old fashioned locked house mystery, patterned after the Agatha Christie model. You have some sort of artificial constraint that sets the rules: there is a murderer and you know it is one among a small group. As the story goes, you discover that each person has some hidden side that may lead to the explanation that they are the murderer. The detective, in this case a psychologist, is hampered in that he has a condition similar to the broken souls he is counseling. It makes it difficult for him to "see" on our behalf. In true Agatha tradition, the real murderer is revealed to be someone, and to rely on some causes, that are so unexpected we smile when they are revealed. The red in the red herring here is sex. The diversions that pull us away all have to do with sexual fantasy. This is, needless to say, not a device that Agatha would have used, but it is most welcome here because it isn't just sex that is used to distract us: its that special kind that comes from cinematically- generated romantic target stories.In fact, if you know films, you may know one of the most successful and lovely of the projects that simply and directly takes you one of these romantic, bodily encounters that actually ends but remains sweet. Its "The Lover," and stars as the target of attention a young Jane March. Its a different twist than here, where she takes on several characters in one body, but the overall shape is the same, emotionally as well as the skinform.There's incompetence in how it is delivered to us, but the way it is structured is very, very sweet, and continues the narrative tradition of the detective story into more modern terms. It probably is important in that respect and though it doesn't directly reward us, I'll bet that its a big step in the evolution of the form that has given us stuff we really do like.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.