moonspinner55 New Wave comedy barely released to theaters--mostly due to the fact New Wave comedies had not been in fashion since 1986. Rosanna Arquette is charming (as usual) playing eccentric New York waitress-and would-be escape artist!-who plots a major heist with help from British bartender David Bowie, who's in need of a green-card bride. Sassy script, excellent cast which includes Eszter Balint (very funny), Marlee Matlin and Andre Gregory, but it tends to have more energy than successful gags. A smoother direction and tighter editing might've helped, yet this is still rather fun, complimented by a wonderful background score by Thomas Newman. **1/2 from ****

sliptz This movie was witty, clever and fun. It was even better the second time. Every time I see it, I notice something new.It is a true social commentary on the "trend-sucking leeches" of New York City in the 1990's.

IrisNo11 I knew that I wasn't going to be disappointed in this movie! I liked it, but it's not the best. The characters have great humour and a bit of strange taste to them. One is obsessed by Houdini, the other designs self-defense bras, and then there is the mystery man from England, Monte. I loved the strange characteristics to Lucy, Vivian, and Monte, and if Dali's were a real restaurant, I would LOVE to go there for dinner! I loved the setting of Dali's and the wardrobe the waiters, waitresses, and bartenders are required to wear. There is a lot of strange high fashion in this film! Rosanna Arquette's look is totally early 90's with the bright Irish red hair and the fire engine red lipstick shade!This movie's very colorful and very cheery! I enjoyed watching this film, and wouldn't it be a wonder just to star in this film? It was a great movie, but I will admitt, I thought the plot a bit silly. Yet that's what makes this movie good! :o)

chantal-3 This is a movie that doesn't do us the disservice of taking itself seriously. We're able to suspend disbelief and have fun with the wacky characters without wondering how they could possibly exist. I agree with other viewers that the pacing could have used work. But the viewer who complained that one shot of a bridge doesn't prove a movie is set in New York obviously thought movies benefit from being set in New York, a point with which I don't agree.I enjoyed Lucy's character and thought Arquette was the right person to play her. Viv, on the other hand, bothered me; Eszter Balint's slight Hungarian accent got on my nerves from the beginning. (I'm of the camp that feels an actor should either have an accent or not; if you have one, don't spend thousands of dollars training to cover up 99.5% of it, because the other .5% will still give you away.)Much as I like David Bowie, and much as he probably sold this movie for most people browsing in the video store, he really phoned in his performance here. Much was made on the cassette box, and in the reviews, of the fact that Monte is a 'mystery man'; we don't know whether he's a liar or a gambler or any of several things he claims to be early on. Problem is, at no time is it made clear to us why we should care what he is. He's boring, morose, mumbles far too many of his lines, and only turns on that famed Bowie sexiness about twice in the whole movie (once during a makeout scene that is charming until it is cut off abruptly). I was quite happy to see his character bound into the fish tank to rescue Lucy--it was the only time I saw any kind of light in his eyes, though I suppose it might have just been sparkles from the water.Yeah, I know, I complain...but I liked the fact that this plot was clean as a whistle, no big holes to mull over at the end, and the happy ending was sweet (if not entirely articulated, but then, by that time we could tell how things ended up and didn't need it spelled out for us). The dialogue is mostly quite clever, the costumes are fabulous (Lucy in her bejeweled Houdini-era flapper gowns is adorable), and I love what happened to the ring! So I do recommend this movie for rental.