Moonlight and Valentino (1995) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
28 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
You have to be in the right mood
TD-TAS16 August 2001
You have to be in the right mood for this movie. Fortunately the night I watched it I was in the right mood. I enjoyed this movie. It wasn't brilliant but it wasn't awful. The plot was believable. Husband dies tragically, wife bottles up feeling, friends help her through tough times, she helps friends through tough times, her feelings finally come out etc etc. Sounds like a bad soap but is actually quite good.

The best bit of the movie for me was Elizabeth Perkins. For years I have suspected she could act quite well but previous parts haven't given her the chance to show it. This movie did! Elizabeth Perkins did a superb job of pulling off the part of the wife struggling to come to terms with her husbands death. The scene near the end of the movie where she finally broke down was a piece of brilliance on her behalf. Surrounded by three other popular actresses she shines through!

I'm glad I watched it! 7/10.
27 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Under-rated girl talk film about what makes women special.
=G=3 September 2001
"Moonlight..." is a slightly massaged and sanitized but insightful and warm look at a woman (Perkins) coping with grief with help from a distaff trio of family/friends. A beautifully crafted piece of work at all levels, this dialogue-intensive film spares us much of the usual mourning melodrama and gets right into the healing process with humor, charm, and sensitivity while exploring the principal's relationships and not lingering too long on the central grief issue. Overall, an entertaining piece which, IMHO, was scored too low by IMDB.com users because of the male side of the jury. Recommended for more mature audiences... and Ebert, wake up and smell the roses.
17 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Common People Vote Higher
Christian19674 June 2005
I'm not one to usually admit I was teared up during a movie but this movie got me at least three times. That alone should give it a 7 rating but I added one more. I guess I really understood Lucy in the movie since those are the type of women I would date. Once you get to know them all, all 4 that is, you can really understand this complex relationship. I will not go into too many details but this is a must watch movie and not a perfect 10 but pretty darn good. I cannot believe that this has under a 6 rating not true at all. So i have to add a few more lines. OK then vote for this movie with your heart not from a spectacularly sensational Hollywood standpoint.
26 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mid 90's Catch and Release....
michael_agalvan30 June 2007
A Young English professor (Elizabeth Perkins) loses her husband while an anxiety ridden best friend (Whoopi Goldberg), a quirky younger sister (Gwenyth Paltrow), and an attached ex-stepmother (Kathleen Turner) help her come to terms with life and love. First lead role I've seen Perkins take charge, Gwenyth in a new light a role that made me love her even more, Goldberg in the same light as Boys on The Side (1996), and Kathleen Turner pulls off a successful business mother vying for the affection of a daughter that doesn't belong to her, a beautiful thing. Joining the cast are a few of films sexiest men Jeremy Sisto and Jon Bon Jovi. Definitely worth the watch!
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
lovely
RavensAngst23 October 2000
I thought that Moonlight and Valentino was a good film. The cast was terrific and brought life to the "talkiness" of the movie.

A widowed woman relies on her friends and a hot painter to get her through the rough time. Jon Bon Jovi is exciting in his first Big Screen role as "the painter". Good climax but it leaves you feeling like it's missing something.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Quite good, but could have been better
ipekmine31 March 2007
I admit, the main reason that made me wanna watch this movie was Jon Bon Jovi's part in it. Being a huge fan of his, I try to see all of his movies thus I watched Moonlight & Valentino as well. And not just once but four times. The way I see it, the cast did a great job, but the script could have been turned into a better film, had a less flat ending been made, if you know what I mean. I think it's a soft, sweet movie but in a way it's rather dull, or at least ordinary. What I'm trying to say is, with this cast and story, a more effective and more impressive movie could have been made. But maybe that's just me. Other than that, the songs in the movie were real, good. And, on a side note, the part where the ladies think that the painter doesn't speak English but then he surprises them about it is hilarious in my opinion.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
It was alright....a bit boring though...
crystalc102019 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
I just got finished watching this movie last night. I had always wanted to see it and so when it unexpectedly came on tv last night, I decided to watch it. Well...I have mixed feelings about this movie.

****************NOTE!! SPOILERS!!!!*************************

I thought the acting overall was good...I was a bit dissapointed however in Perkin's character, and how emotionless she was after he husband died. I know that part of this was because she was partly shocked and in denial, but still....I expected a STRONGER outburst of emotion from her. This is your HUSBAND that has just died for goodness sakes! Not only that, but I felt like this movie tended to go on and on with not real point. IT felt very boring at times, and just plotless. I liked how the movie focuses on each of the women's lives and the problems they are facing in them, however if I were the director, I would have had the movie continue on with a slightly FASTER pace. The movie felt like 2 hours long when I had only watched an hour of it!

Bottom line: I didn't even finish this movie because it was just sooo slow and kind of boring. I was already tired to begin with...I didn't need this movie to put me even faster to sleep. However, if you want a good chick flick about women overcoming thier problems in life, then this movie is for you. The acting is great (except that little part I mentioned above) and the it's a touching story about enduring hardships, and moving on with your life after a tragic death.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Charming and moving
peterkowalski20 August 2023
"Moonlight and Valentino" might not be everyone's cup of tea: men have very little to say here, literally - which would make this primarily a "chick flick". Labelling it as such would not only be offensive, but downright incorrect - yes, it's a women's world here, but it's also so much more.

It's a story of a close-knit pack of women, all incredibly smart and talented in their own ways, getting together to comfort one of them in the time of need - the beloved one's death. It's only terribly sad on paper, because Moonlight's writers do not shy away from an occasional joke, all subtle and well-placed, something they deserve a lot of credit for. The chemistry between the characters is incredible - Perkins, who is now the "W" word, is the hub that holds everything together. She's the mothership everyone satellites around: her sister (Paltrow), their mother in law (Turner) and the artistic best friend (Goldberg). It's fascinating to watch them collaborate between one another, to exchange words and gestures as if it was the most natural thing in the world. All surrounding the idea of Perkins "getting better" - that is the arc of the movie, the premise of the story, and it's really enjoyable to see what happens next, what turn it will take.

And yet one wonders if it could be just a little bit better. If the characters were not so terribly attached to their roles, it they could bleed outside of their borders, just a little bit. Particularly Turner and Paltrow - both incredible in their own ways - stick to their assignments perhaps too faithfully. Perkins takes a while to unfold, and it takes a while for us to figure her out, to the point of her character seemingly not caring about her husband's passing: the jokes, the laughter, the smiles. Those little things here and there are those annoying little sticks in the road that stand in the way of us enjoying the ride. It's not a bad ride, but it could have been better. Easily.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Romantic Fantasy
dizzjay20 January 2007
I saw this film shortly before watching In Her Shoes with Toni Collette and Cameron Diaz. There are a lot of similarities between the two films. They both have great casts and good acting. They both have stock characters of sisters who are very different, an offensive stepmother, a woman friend/confidant, an emotionally unavailable father, a dead mother and a surprise lover. Both films have the characters experience life-changing realizations and both films suffer from a kind of 'love conquers all' sentimentality. They both add a little titillation with Cameron Diaz in black underwear and a partial back shot of Gwyneth Paltrow naked.

Both films seem contrived, as if the writers of the works the films are based on did market research and said, "Ok, there's a market for stories about relationships between women, so I'm going to write about two sisters with an offensive stepmother…" In other words, instead of the drama emerging from the truth of the relationship, the relationship is invented to fit the dramatic situation. It seems forced, the characters don't seem real, the relationships are unbelievable.

The resolution of the tensions between the characters is simplistic with simple apologies completely whisking away years of acrimony leaving everyone feeling warm and fuzzy ever after. It's just not real. Romantic fantasy.

The characters in In Her Shoes are a little more overblown than Moonlight & Valentino, especially the stepmother part. Sydelle Feller, in In Her Shoes is so evil that it is difficult to believe that the father would stay with her, or even marry her in the first place. Kathleen Turner at least shows some emotional vulnerability as the stepmother in Moonlight & Valentino.

If you liked Moonlight & Valentino you will probably like In Her Shoes as well. Enjoyable performances in both, in fact, the actors bring depth to their parts that goes way beyond the contrived sentimentality of the scripts.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Embarrassingly shallow
sstuart3-114 October 2005
It's hard to rate this movie because it had such a terrific cast. The script was dreadful, stupid, silly. You shouldn't actually have to lose a husband to see the absolute falseness of the script. But to cast these great actresses in that story and require that they say those lines was an appalling waste. It is a tribute to their skill that the movie was even possible to watch at all. They did the best they could, but I found it painful to watch, not because I found the story touching but because it was so embarrassingly shallow. You can be sad and funny without being trivial. There are plenty of movies out there to prove it.
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Funny yet moving
karier134 September 2001
This movie surprised me. I had gotten it ONLY for Jon Bon Jovi as I am a big fan and wanted to see one of his first movies. I thought he was very good as well as irresistable as The Painter. But then I got into the movie and enjoyed the interaction between the women played very well by Elizabeth Perkins, Whoopi Goldberg, Kathleen Turner and Gwyneth Paltrow. Altho a female I am not usually into chick flicks but this was worth seeing.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Very tasteful, very sensitive and incredibly boring
JamesHitchcock24 June 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Rebecca Lott, a thirtysomething. college lecturer, is widowed when her husband Ben is killed by a car while jogging. The rest of the film is taken up with Rebecca endlessly talking over her emotional problems with her younger sister Lucy, her best friend Sylvie and her former stepmother Alberta. There are subplots about Lucy's romance with Stephen, one of Rebecca's students, and Rebecca's brief romance with a handsome young man hired to paint her house. The film ends with the four women performing a bizarre quasi-pagan ritual designed to help Rebecca cope with her grief. And that's it.

The film is what used to be called a "woman's picture", but with one major difference. The traditional "woman's picture" had as its primary character a strong female figure, with the male characters as secondary ones, defined in terms of their relationship to her. Here the primary character is the rather passive figure of Rebecca, with Lucy, Sylvie and Alberta as the secondary ones and the male characters, insofar as we see them at all, vague tertiary ones. The film-makers are, essentially, trying to make a film about the romantic and emotional lives of a group of heterosexual women while airbrushing men out of the picture as far as possible. Ben never appears (his death is announced right at the beginning of the film), and Rebecca and Lucy's father Thomas only appears briefly. (Their mother Joanna died from cancer fourteen years earlier). Stephen is a minor character and Sylvie's husband Paul an even more minor one, although we learn that their marriage is an unhappy one. The nearest thing to a major male character is The Painter, and it is noteworthy that we never learn his name and that he is played not by a professional actor but by a rock star with virtually no previous acting experience.

The result is that the film ends up devoid of any dramatic conflict or tension. The nearest we get is the suggestion that the two sisters, especially Lucy, resent their stepmother for usurping their mother's role in their lives. Yet we do not sense from the film itself that Alberta, who is supposed to be a hard-bitten career woman, has done anything that might provoke resentment; indeed, she treats the sisters with great kindness, doing far more to console Rebecca, who was only briefly her stepdaughter, in her bereavement than does her father. Stephen Holden of the New York Times, called the film "a genteel, buttoned-up soap opera", which strikes me as being unfair to soap operas, much as I dislike that particular genre. "Moonlight and Valentino" is around four times the length of an episode of most British soaps, and any scriptwriter for "Coronation Street" or "East Enders" would soon find themselves out of a job if they wasted four entire episodes with as little drama or action as is included in the 105 minutes of this film.

I watched this film when it was recently shown on television largely because the cast included two actresses I had admired in other films, Gwyneth Paltrow in "Sylvia" and Kathleen Turner in films like "The Accidental Tourist" and "Serial Mom". Unfortunately, it turned out to be a big disappointment to me, which was not really the fault of Paltrow, Turner and the two other leading actresses, all of whom gave the impression that they could do much more with better material. (Although if Whoopi Goldberg wants to be taken seriously as a serious actress as opposed to a comedienne, she might consider getting rid of her childish stage name. Naming herself after a whoopee cushion was not perhaps her greatest career move).

Instead the fault lies with the script, based on a play by Ellen Simon, who unfortunately does not seem to have inherited the dramatic talents of her more famous father Neil, and with David Anspaugh's direction. Roger Ebert described it as "very sincere, very heartfelt and very bad", a judgement from which I would not dissent, although I would also add very tasteful, very sensitive and incredibly boring. The whole thing is done with the sort of excruciatingly ghastly good taste that makes you long for someone to say or do something tasteless just to relieve the monotony of four people sitting round being nice to one another. 4/10
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
loved it
kristin_headrick11 May 2007
I am only 21, but i watched this movie a LONG time ago with my mom & never really appreciated it...I thought it was awful, but now that I have lost someone (a boyfriend) and have had to learn to lean on other people I really appreciate it and know that it really is a great movie!!!

To me it seemed kind of surreal when i was younger that anyone could be like that... but the speech at the end when she tells Ben bye...now that i have watched it again makes me tear up now just thinking about it. Its hard to look back and have regrets and i get it now.

I loved this movie and i'm thinking about buying it...helps you deal a little bit
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
You know you're watching a bad Movie when the only critic quoted in the newspaper ads is LARRY KING
slightlymad229 April 2007
You know you're watching an awful Movie when After it's over you say to yourself, "Wow, and the best part of that was Jon Bon Jovi's performance!"

Even though i had snuck into the cinema(something me and my mates did a lot in the mid 90's), I still felt like demanding my money back afterwards!

i knew i wasn't enjoying the movie when i started to long for the thespian skills of Pauly Shore. I remember going to see this movie like it was yesterday and the bad taste still clings to the back of my throat like the memory of a romance that went sour.
1 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Languid
blissey_s3 March 2024
It's barely average. It is a solid effort and I could see the actresses were trying their best, but man, the performances were so lackadaisical that I was reminded of a bowl of oatmeal.

This movie is like eating a bowl of oatmeal. It's comforting but a little bland and you kind of want to add some flourishes of dried fruit or maple syrup to make it more exciting. The women in this movie are just average and mediocre in every possible way, and yet they are the focal point of the movie.

The problem is that when you spotlight four characters and not one of them is compelling or can channel any sort of emotional range, everything falls flat. Such was this movie.

The story is lovely in theory - four women's lives intersect after the passing of one's husband leaves her a widow. It's not a bad plot, and there is some levity thrown in, but it was not enough to make this engaging.

I also found the scenes were spliced together in such a disorganized way. I couldn't really tell where any of it was leading. It's basically a roulette of various moments in these women's lives that don't even quite intersect in an intelligible way. It's just a mish mash of random moments.

I'm at a loss as to what this movie really sought to achieve. It's mildly enjoyable in the way that every so often something interesting happens like when the cute painter arrives, or the dorky kid in class flirts with Lucy, but it didn't stir anything more in me than the desire to move on with my life.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Eh, seemed like it was a Steel Magnolia's knock off
garyvines-012903 April 2023
I had seen (and subsequently forgotten about) this movie back in the 90s. When you read the list of names in this movie, it seems like it would be great, but somehow it landed flat and flavorless. It was like someone took a chick-flick formula and forced the actors into generic roles that they all were way better than. Elizabeth Perkins is a great and underrated actress, but she's normally second fiddle in the movies she's in. She's not a movie star and although she could and did carry the lead, she's not quite built for that. Whoopie Goldberg was miscast in this, she seemed out of place as the quirky best-friend as that she and Elizabeth Perkins had no chemistry, or at least no chemistry translated on the screen. Kathleen Turner was a heavy hitter in Hollywood in the 80s and this movie seemed to be a huge step-down for her. I didn't understand her character at all as that she was the ex step-mother, it made no sense that the Character was there at all. And Gwyneth Paltrow....(shaking my head). She pouted, whined, had body-dysmorphic disorder, which is never fully explained and although was in college, acted like a bratty tween. I hated her character; it's underdeveloped and what should have been funny and quirky translated to bratty and irritating.

The movie is supposed to deal with grief a la Steel Magnolias, there is even a Sally Field-esque emotional rant by Elizabeth Perkins that didn't land right. She missed the mark on it somehow, or, the towering Mrs. Fields just did is so iconicly that anyone else would seem like a pale imitation, which it did.

The writing is off, not funny and the Whoopi Goldberg Character just seems odd and out of place and the whole movie could have done without her. A slight change in the cast may have made this movie slightly better and able to overcome the shallow writing. This movie had Pete Coyote in it, as Whoopi's character's husband and he isn't even really credited, maybe he clued in that that this was a formulaic, steel magnolia's' knock off and chose to have his participation muted. John Bon Jovi couldn't bring this up out of the depths of meh. And there was NO chemistry between him and Elizabeth Perkins.

I've pretty much given you the whole movie and if you've read this, which doesn't really have any spoilers in it, I've still managed to spoil it. Watch it if you're bored and have nothing else to do on a weeknight in PJs.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Emotionally Moved!
tytori4 August 2001
This movie had me laughing, crying and riding the emotional rollercoaster ride one deals with when faced with the death of a loved one. A "womans" movie as I would call it, with the strength to reach out to the inner emotions and bring them to a head. A movie which could allow me to relate to my own life experiences. I LOVED IT. Very much on a par with the likes of Steel Magnolia and How To Make An American Quilt. Just loved it.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
grinding first half
SnoopyStyle24 December 2023
Rebecca Lott (Elizabeth Perkins) is struggling after her husband's accidental death. Sylvie Morrow (Whoopi Goldberg) is her best friend. Lucy Trager (Gwyneth Paltrow) is her younger sister. Thomas Trager (Josef Sommer) is their father. Alberta Russell (Kathleen Turner) is her harden stepmother. Then there is the Painter (Jon Bon Jovi).

It's sincere. It's earnest. I think that it's trying to be funny. It's a lot of talking around the subject matter. It's a bit tiring. I feel like I'm working through a death in the family. This is a grind for an hour. I remember when it first came out and Jon Bon Jovi is the reason to see this. I kept waiting for whatever is going to happen. Bon Jovi comes in at around 40 minutes and walks through the door at about an hour. I guess that's interesting maybe. At least, it gives it a little bit of energy in the second half, but it's not enough to save the movie.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Truthful drama about mourning.
swotja2 July 1999
Moonlight and Valentino is a truthful drama about mourning. Elizabeth Perkin's character is well written and well acted. You really feel as if she has lost her husband. She goes through all of the natural emotions of sadness, denial, and guilt. Whoopi's character is annoyingly written, but she adds a human spark to Sylvia. Gwyneth's character is the epitome of an insecure college girl. She is written as if from experience. Kathleen Turner's character is easy to hate in a pitied sort of way. All in all the movie is well written and truthfully told. You are left feeling that even if you do lose the one you love, life will go on.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Genre-challenged and a hopeless waste of a top-level cast
joeconners23 August 2016
This movie just cannot decide what genre it wants to be....and is unsuccessful as any of them, particularly comedy or drama. The story begins with a sudden death and the efforts of the widow's friends to console her. Following this is a long line of inane, mostly pointless interactions with no clear plot, and a lot of what we would probably all consider as socially inappropriate dialogue and behavior. The scene in the cemetery put me over the top in thinking the script was totally to blame for creating a cinematic disaster. It is a total flop as an upmarket film, lacking depth, lacking believability about the roles the characters are in, and the cherry on top is a weird appearance/role by Bob Jovi. Did someone really spend millions on this thinking it was artful? OMG
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Let's all have a pity party
vincentlynch-moonoi27 August 2021
Warning: Spoilers
I'll state right up front that there was a time in my life that a loss not unlike the one portrayed in this film put me on Paxil for 2 years. But gee...I was never this depressed or this depressing! And mental illness seems to be the theme of this film.

We begin with Elizabeth Perkins as Rebecca Lott, the lead actress here. Depressed over her husbands death. She nailed it. Perfect depression and I would go so far as to say a depressing performance. I see that later in her career she played Wilma Flintstone. Enough said.

The we have Gwyneth Paltrow as her younger sister. It's a good thing that Paltrow's entire career didn't ride on just this film. The character is about an unlikeable as you'll find, and who likes a person who is more obnoxious than the person she is being obnoxious to? And by the way, I knew more about the birds and bees when I was twelve than Paltrow's college student character does.

Next we have Kathleen Turner as the stepmother. In most films you wouldn't really like this character, but among the four leads, she's the only one who maybe...just maybe...is somewhat normal (though unlikable).

Next up is Whoopi Goldberg. Whoopi is a decent actress, although I'm not sure this role was a good choice in terms of career. At least you don't hate her character. It's just that her character is too dumb to realize she is the problem in the relationship (mixed race) with her husband, and this theme is never really explored in this film.

The other character of interest here is a painter played by Jon Bon Jovi. His character isn't explored much, other than his hunkiness; he's merely a plot device. But I have to tell you that one of the dumbest scenes I've ever seen in any film is a house painter doing his job in the dark of night. If you've ever done any exterior painting, you know this is ridiculous.

This is one of those films (based on a play) where you wonder why someone didn't say to the writer/director, "Guys...there's something really wrong here". In fact, the very best thing about this film is the title. After that, it's all downhill.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Good but could've been better
Marie-6220 April 2002
Since the first time I saw "Big" (one of my favorite movies) with the beautiful red-headed Elizabeth Perkins, I knew that as an actress she had some real potential. She just needed a little push and the right part and she could have the audience in the palm of her hand, crying right along with her. This movie is getting her there. When Rebekah (Perkins) loses her husband in an accident, turns to her abnormal sister Lucy (Gwenyth Paltrow in an annoying role) her best friend Sylvia (Whoopi Goldburg is adorable!) and her ex-step-mother Alberta (Kathleen Turner has aged beautifully). The three try to help the vulnrable woman back on her feet. In a few scenes we see how vulnerable and sad Becky really is...And those scenes were the most touching. In other scenes we see how sisters interact and how one sister tries to hold off on Alberta for fear of losing another loved one. It's complicated but overall, it's good. I didn't quite understand if abortion was a topic here...It seemed like it during the last segment. Does anybody have a clue? That's the only thing I hate; When they don't make it all the way clear in the movie then you know they could've improved. If you want to see some good acting see this movie. Elizabeth Perkins is gorgeous!
11 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Just great
preppy-314 September 2001
A recently widowed woman (Elizabeth Perkins) tries to cope with the help of her baby sister (Gwyneth Paltrow), ex-stepmother (Kathleen Turner) and best friend (Whoppi Goldberg). Talky but fascinating. All the actresses give great performances with Perkins getting top honors--she's just fantastic in a difficult role. All the characters come across as believable and interesting. The script is great too--they talk and act like real people. Nice soundtrack too. Some may deride this as a "chick flick", but I'm a guy and I loved it! Two (minor) quibbles--Jon Bon Jovi is pretty bad as a painter. He's unattractive, not in shape and pretty wooden. It's no surprise his acting career has gone nowhere. And the ending at the cemetery seemed a little overdone but it still works. But, like I said, these are minor complaints. Well worth seeing.
10 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great performances
HotToastyRag29 October 2020
Don't bother inviting any guys for movie night when you rent Moonlight and Valentino; it's a major chic fest. If you liked Fried Green Tomatoes, Steel Magnolias, and Beaches, you'll love it. That being said, I didn't like either of those three, and I still loved it.

It focuses on two sisters, a stepmother, and a friend - an unusual bunch that's bound together, but with great chemistry and ties that are interesting and realistic. I could have easily watched two or three more movies featuring the same group of women and not grown bored. Elizabeth Perkins is the older sister and role model to Gwyneth Paltrow. She's married, a college poetry teacher, and stable. Gwyneth is an insecure college student with anorexia, who smokes to be cool, and has never seen herself nude. She's a very interesting character, and while much is explored and dealt with in two hours, I would have loved to see more. Whoopi Goldberg is Elizabeth's best friend, suffering through marital troubles with Peter Coyote. Kathleen Turner is the proverbial wicked stepmother, according to Gwyneth, but she desperately wants to be close to the two girls in her life. When Elizabeth's husband dies in an accident, the girls rally around her to help with grief and moving on.

Some parts of this movie have pure humor, like when Jon Bon Jovi comes to the house to appraise a paint job and Kathleen Turner compliments his derriere. Some scenes are extremely heavy, like when Elizabeth sobs and reveals a big fight she had with her husband before he died. In one scene, Elizabeth doesn't want anyone to touch her because she's in shock, and a few minutes later she's talking about a cute leather jacket rather than focus on her grief. In other words, it's a very realistic movie. With any group of friends, there's going to be a difference in temperaments that set patterns throughout the years. Gwyneth repeatedly insults Kathleen, but rather than get in a big blow-up fight like in a soap opera, Kathleen merely smiles her pain away and lets the young girl get away with it. Whoopi always puts her best friend first, so it makes sense that we see the resentment building up through the scenes.

Each actress (and to be fair, the few men in the movie as well) has her own moment of brilliance throughout the film. This movie isn't nearly as famous as other friendship flicks in the 1980s and 1990s, but it's one of my favorites. If you don't want to rent it for the acting, at least rent it for the eye candy. I'm sure every girl would break the 'don't date a guy with longer hair than you' rule for Bon Jovi.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Uneven
Jonathan-186 March 1999
The movie does not leave you with anything, and it seems as though it wanted to. Gwyneth is annoying as usual; her character is to blame too. Whoopi is vivid and charming. Kathleen's character is interesting and real. It sounds like a list, and the movie also does. As Elizabeth Perkins character, it is too neat and structured. The movie's name Moonlight and Valentino makes you expect Bon Jovi to come and effect something, but all he does -after much too long in the film- is steer Elizabeth to a scene that may have worked in the play the movie is based on, but I'm not so sure. All in all: uneven. Most of the time I wanted to see these characters in different situations, perhaps doing something or saying anything. The small storylines are interesting than Elizabeth dealing with the death of her husband: Whoopi and her husband (uncredited Peter Coyote), and Gwyneth and Kathleen. Liked hearing REM's Strange Currencies at the background, and Canda's beautiful.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed