Alicia I love this movie so much

GazerRise Fantastic!

Clarissa Mora The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Derrick Gibbons An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

piano-one *** WARNING - CONTAINS SPOILERS *** Like many other reviewers, I have a tough time seeing how people can rate this film poorly. It's well written, well acted, and well filmed. Some jaded, adrenaline-addicted viewers might find it slow and uneventful. But in reality, the film is emotionally complex, and it reveals itself gradually, in multiple layers, requiring patience on the part of the viewer to appreciate it fully.Much has been made of how this film is about the main character Vincent's choices. The first time I watched it, that's what I thought too - and yes, I did feel a little ripped off discovering that in the end, it doesn't really matter what his choice is.That's when I realized that this film is about much more than "just" the main character. EVERYONE in the film has choices - difficult choices - to make. There's a reason for the film's name. Vincent is the intersection point of everyone around him, and this story is about how everyone else is affected by the situation just as much as it is about Vincent himself.On the first viewing, I enjoyed the film primarily for Richard Gere's haunting, understated portrayal of an emotionally tormented, burned out man struggling to navigate his way through life so that he gets what he wants and needs without hurting the people closest to him - and becoming emotionally paralyzed when he realizes that it's impossible, leading to tragic consequences.It isn't until the last scene that the film reveals its true focus. Only then does the viewer realize that the story's preoccupation with Vincent - even the accident itself, playing out in slow-motion over the course of the film - is nothing but a clever distraction, designed to divert the viewer's attention so that the final scene is even more unexpected and powerful. Stone and Davidovich both turn in brilliant performances, and their confrontation absolutely crackles with emotional tension. It took a second viewing for me to fully appreciate the depth of their performances, and see everything that leads up to that final moment. Because in the end, that's what really made this film work for me. It's not about Vincent, because his choice is rendered tragically pointless. He is merely the catalyst. The film's true focus is on the choices of Vincent's wife and mistress, and what they decide to take away from their relationships with him. The film's suspense doesn't come from Vincent's fate; it comes from knowing that Sally and Olivia both have the power to hurt each other deeply, and wondering whether or not they will choose to use that power.

MBunge This listless and confused tale of love gone lame is useful only as a crystal clear demonstration of the difference between movie stars and everybody else.Vincent Eastman (Richard Gere) is a man with more hair than he can handle, speeding down a road through the Pacific Northwest when he swerves to avoid a stalled hippie van in the road and heads straight on into a semi. In the midst of the accident, the movie becomes a flashback of the last few days of Vincent's life. We see that Vincent is recently divorced from his coldly beautiful wife Sally (Sharon Stone), working to be a good dad to their daughter Meaghan (Jennifer Morrison) and banging his wild, redheaded girlfriend Olivia (Lolita Davidovich). Though Vincent doesn't want to be with Sally anymore, he doesn't want to leave behind his family and the architectural business he and Sally own together. So we get a bunch of blase' crap about him being torn between his old and new life and resenting the fact that Sally is moving on with a new man, even though Vincent hooked up with Olivia when he was still married. Then we get flashbacks during the flashback, showing us how Vincent was never really happy with the controlled and separate Sally and how he was swept away by the lively and engrossing Olivia. Then we catch back up to the time of the accident and, after subjecting us to flashbacks within flashbacks, the movie chucks a few fantasy sequences at the audience and closes with an ending that's supposed to be all touching and stuff, but which actually proves these filmmakers never understood exactly what they were doing with the rest of the film.The most painfully obvious thing about watching Intersection is that Richard Gere and Sharon Stone are movie stars but Lolita Davidovich…not so much. Whatever quality it is that movie stars have on screen, you can see it in Stone and Gere but you couldn't see it in Davidovich with an electron microscope. There's no sin in that. Most actors and actresses lack that quality. But if you're doing a story with three main characters and two of them are played by movie stars and the third isn't, that dog won't hunt. It also doesn't help that Davidovich, while pretty enough by any reasonable standard, is not in Stone's league when it comes to beauty. Olivia is supposed to be this amazing woman who reignites Vincent's passion after years of being unfulfilled with Sally, so Davidovich being less impressive than Stone on just about every level fatally undermines that whole idea.Davidovich can certainly act, though Olivia is such a compromised character she's not really a person as much as she is a puppy dog who'll do anything to make her master happy. Vincent isn't much better. Outside of a scene where he acts like the uncompromising architect out of an Ayn Rand wet dream, he doesn't really do anything but mope around. He's got this lovely, smart, capable woman who gave him a child and is largely responsible for his professional success, but he's not satisfied with her. Then he's got this new woman who's funny and fresh and fiery and only wants to please him, but he's not satisfied with her. I'm supposed to sympathize with this putz?Sally's the only decent character in the whole story and Stone is up to the job. She got a lot of praise for her work in Casino, but I think this film is where Stone really demonstrated her chops as an actress. Sally honestly loves Vincent and there's nothing wrong with her. She simply doesn't have it in her to give Vincent what he needs.So, Intersection is a movie almost exclusively about three characters. Only one of them is well drawn and only two of them are portrayed by movie stars. That cinematic math doesn't add up.There is a ridiculously gratuitous topless scene with Davidovich's perky rack on display. There's also some laboriously ham handed direction that tries to emphasize how deep and meaningful this story is supposed to be. Then there's than ending where these filmmakers forgot that you can't make a story completely about one thing and then make it about something else at the very end.Intersection is another one of those bad films that isn't aggressively bad. It's just so flawed in so many fundamental ways that it can't amount to anything.

albertoveronese I saw the film last night on TV. This movie was directed wonderfully, the performances by the actors were magnificent; I enjoyed to watch... but personally, there's something not enough to make it a great movie. One of Stone's best roles for sure, she was brilliant, her character was developed very slowly throughout the film; I thought this was great... but then, as the movie ended, suddenly Sharon Stone's character is cut out, wasted in her role. Let's go back to the last scene in front of the Hospital: Suddenly Sally (Sharon Stone) asks Olivia (Lolita Davidovich): "How did you happen do be up here?" Olivia (after thinking what to respond): "I was just on my way to see the museum again... and I saw the car been pulled up on the road" Sally looks at her first: "Well...", then turns away and rips up the letter down a drain. Why does Sally tears the letter? To protect Olivia? Maybe, but this is not the reason (she would have simply kept the letter if she thought this was her husband last testament!). She is doing this because she is hurt, very hurt; because Sally Stone understood her husband (Richard Gere) choice! She's to smart for that. Well, I thought the camera shouldn't have cut so promptly from the pieces of the teared letter in the drain to the final credit scene, but this final scene (so the movie) should have been handled a bit different and stayed longer on the magnificent Sharon Stone's character.

Faye-9 I'm not sure what it takes to be critical of a movie like this. Maybe it's inexperience in life. SPOILERS: Maybe if you've never lost a dear love and don't know what it feels like to have your knees buckle when told they are dead, you wouldn't appreciate the emotion and acting that is conveyed in this script. Also, I never considered this to be a boring movie at all. It's a love story. It had a three tissue ending, but I don't consider that to be a downfall. Richard Gere and Sharon Stone are great. I've seen this film three times now and still think it's a strong 9 out of 10! Don't avoid it because of the negative reviews here. Give it your own scrutiny.