MBunge This film is surprisingly not horrible. A product of the mid-1990s Rebecca De Mornay boomlet, it takes the woman-in-peril formula and jiggers with it just enough to come up with something worth watching…and not just for De Mornay's bosom.Sarah Taylor (Rebecca De Mornay) is a psychologist who starts receiving threatening letters and packages, like someone is stalking her. But is her stalker Tony Ramirez (Antonio Banderas), the Puerto Rican charmer she's just fallen in love with? I s it Cliff Raddison (Dennis Miller), her upstairs neighbor who had a one-night stand with Sarah long ago and seems desperate for another encounter? Is it Max Chelski (Harry Dean Stanton), the serial killer she's analyzing in prison for his upcoming trial? Could it be her father Henry (Len Cariou), who's just re-entered her life and with whom Sarah has an obviously disturbing relationship? Or does her stalker have something to do with the fiancée who abandoned Sarah almost a year ago? The story keeps you wondering until revealing the truth, which turns out to be pretty decent for a twist ending.Clocking in at under 90 minutes, Never Talk to Strangers is like a well made wading pool. There's no depth to it but it works as it's intended to. There's some sex, some mystery, a little humor from Dennis Miller and just a touch of violence. There's not a lot of chemistry between De Mornay and Antonio Banderas. However, they're both very pretty and the movie moves quickly enough that it never asks you to take their relationship too seriously. De Mornay, Banderas and the rest of the cast do reasonably good acting jobs and the film is adequately written and directed. Despite the ambition of the twist ending, there's not a lot here that will stick with you. For less than 90 minutes, though, it's a pleasant diversion.The only thing that separates Never Talk To Strangers from the typical woman-in-peril movie you'd see on the Lifetime channel are a few F-words, Banderas' bare butt and De Mornay's naked breasts. So, if you're looking for a good, racier version of that sort of thing…you'll find it here.The only truly interesting things about this film are the fact that De Mornay was one of the producers, demonstrating again the principle of Producer Self-Nudity, and that it's a product of the aforementioned De Mornay boomlet. It's one of the more intriguing Hollywood phenomena, where an actress who may have had some success as a starlet but never became a star, suddenly experiences a career resurgence in her 30s. These women usually get one attention-grabbing role and it's like the movie industry notices them again and decides to see if they can squeeze any more juice out of them. Sometimes these boomlets reinvigorate a career, like they did with Sharon Stone. Sometimes it just peters out, like it did with De Mornay. But whatever the reason for them, the 30something boomlet is probably the one thing that keeps a lot of actresses plugging away in movies long after they should have found other employment. I'm pretty sure the beautiful and talented Winona Ryder is wondering when her boomlet is going to come along.

med_1978 This Thriller was received poorly on it's release, this is unfortunate as I found much to like here.Firstly I liked the main musical score running throughout the film and the Director was quite clearly going for a Hitchcockian feel, which only partially succeeds though. The chemistry between the leads is excellent and the scenes containing both DeMornay and Banderas are the strongest and most watchable. I have to say I did not think Harry Dean Stanton put too much effort into his part as he was not all that convincing and Dennis Miller was just plain irritating. Len Cariou was okay as DeMornay's father, but really the two leads are the main focus and the main reason to watch this. The love scenes although a bit lengthy were stylishly made and did not detract from the film, the ending although a bit of a stretch was at least surprising and acted fairly convincingly (although I am no shrink).So although being far from a classic I certainly thought it was far from being the worst thriller. I would rate it above the Meg Ryan effort "In The Cut" & Ashley Judd's "Twisted" along with Sandra Bullock's "Murder by Numbers" to name a few. My rating 6.6 out of 10

Robert J. Maxwell Man, is this lousy. It doesn't deserve much in the way of comment so, keeping it brief, Rebecca DeMornay is a highly disciplined police psychiatrist who falls for Latin Lover Antonio Banderas in a wine store, he of the ponytail and jail-house tats. When she cuts loose, she really cuts loose. Other than this torrid affair she's having (and we must admit the affair has its speed bumps) she's a pretty cold fish. Her broke, ailing father shows up for the first time in years and she boots him out. She's also adept at keeping her horny upstairs neighbor (Dennis Miller) at bay. And there's prisoner Harry Dean Stanton who's trying to maneuver her into giving him a diagnosis of multiple personality disorder so he won't have his privates nailed to the wall for the serial murders he's committed.All these people, and perhaps more, are immediately suspect when strange things begin happening to her. Somebody sends her dead flowers. Somebody does unspeakable things to her pet cat. (The next time I see a household pet turn up in a parcel or strung up in the closet or boiled in a pot, I'm going to puke.) So who's doing it? Guess. No power on earth could force me to reveal the ending, but maybe a hint will help: childhood abuse.The abuse excuse is an interesting business in itself, far more interesting than the movie. What does "childhood abuse" mean? Do we mean sexual abuse? Physical? Both? How about whacking a kid over the back with a wooden cooking spoon, hard enough to break it? That's what happened to me and my brother when we were kids, just as similar things happened to all the other errant boys in the neighborhood. Sexual abuse? That never happened to any of us, as far as I know, although I'm not sure it would have been rejected with any degree of animation. In the Samoan village I studied for two years, there was one case of an adolescent boy found playing sexually with a much younger girl. The girl's family beat hell out of him. The boy's own family sent him to live with another branch of the family in another village, an exile that lasted two years. By the time he returned the incident was forgotten by everyone, including the child. (By the way, the little girl we see here is under five so it's unlikely that she'd remember Dad's night-time visits in any case since long-term memory isn't really established until about that time.) DeMornay's experience leading to her mental disorder can be called "the social construction of trauma." It's not there unless we put it there. Enough of the psychiatric lecture. That will be fifteen cents.You want trauma? I'll give you trauma. The film absolutely forces us to identify with Rebecca DeMornay's character, right from the beginning. Then, when she has her first tryst with Antonio Banderas, and Pio Donnagio's score is pounding the eroticism into our heads, the camera gives us a shot from over her shoulder of the bare-torsoed Antonio crawling over us with his hairy chest. Now THAT'S traumatic. It makes any male viewer feel as if he's on the floor of the laundry room at the California Men's Colony in San Luis Obispo. Don't get me wrong. I don't dislike Antonio Banderas. It's just that I'm not in love with him. There aren't enough nude shots of Rebecca DeMornay's elfin body in the entire universe to compensate for that kind of anxiety.Here's an engaging way of surviving this movie. Instead of just sitting there puling, try picking out the scenes that were filmed in Toronto and separating them from the ones shot in Budapest. It's a challenge, really, and may, for all we know, preserve your sanity.

dbdumonteil Rebecca De Mornay can be a fascinating beautiful actress but as for the parts she's given to play,if you cannot say something nice...De Mornay portrays a woman who had terrible traumas as a child with a father she can hardly stand now that she's a grown up and has become a -of course brilliant- shrink.She has an affair with Banderas ,whom we suspect of being (ouch!how original!) a serial killer.Sometimes she recalls Banderas's mother-in-law Tippi Hedren's character in "Marnie" .But I wouldn't count on it:Hitchcock died twenty-four years ago ,and a lot of regents desperately try to replace him .Here the director pulls out all the stops to make a thriller with an unexpected end,but that ending is so far-fetched it is absolutely impossible to buy it.The movie includes the obligatory "conversations with a serial killer" in the "silence of the lamb" tradition,murders (human beings and cats),split personality,and open ending in case the crowds should call for more.Apparently they did not,and they were right.