Someone to Watch Over Me (1987)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Very Cool!!!

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

I'm not sure why SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME has never risen above mediocre, for me. It's certainly not because of casting. Rogers inhabits the role of the traumatized wealthy socialite, and she shares a taboo chemistry with Berenger. You don't have to sympathize with Berenger so much as see that the writing was on the wall and he's got "in too deep" stamped on his forehead. But it's Bracco who's easily got the sympathetic role in this movie; she suffers needlessly, and it's easy to root for her character. You want things in the end to turn out right for all involved - and even though they sorta do, there's little fulfillment. This is a pretty good mid-'80s thriller, stylishly produced, but it's an uneven Ridley Scott movie to be sure. It did turn me on to Winwood's "Freedom Overspill", which was cool. And I did like Kamen's score. But "hollow" seems the best word to describe this.5/10

This film couldn't have been more 80's if it was wearing leg-warmers. Shot with all the depth and meaning of an MTV video, it's ludicrously plotted, poorly acted and surprisingly, considering it's a Ridley Scott feature, rather boringly directed if truth be told.Let's take the plot first and take your pick from the most far-fetched scenario, from the unlikely relationship between ever so rich, ever so posh Mimi Rogers and ever so working-class, ever so gauche Tom Berenger, to the mad murderer running about New York, coming back for lone witness, even after he's improbably let out on bail after a murder attempt, to the finale when Berenger's estranged wife comes to his aid in the most dramatic way and of course takes him back.As for the acting, I didn't detect any heat between the leads at all, a situation not helped by Scott deciding not to give us a big sex-scene involving them, which while I'm no advocate for X-rated scenes, felt something more could have been done to explain the unlikely liaison between the two of them. They make a good-looking couple, but their characterisations are too one-dimensional, Rogers as the poor little rich girl and particularly Berenger with his sub-Rocky like enunciation and dumb-lunk portrayal.I also felt there was too little action in the film and the intended suspense-ful bits were lacking in tension and th soundtrack an uneasy mix of jazz and pop, with the title song played far too often, no matter if it is in different guises.It's certainly a beautifully shot film but the colours are too ripe as if the cameras are in permanent soft-focus mode, over-prettifying the cinematography.I've struggled all through this review trying to avoid saying style over content, but there you go, I've said it...and I mean it.

I just saw this on Netflix the other night and I can't find anything good to say about it. It was slow starting, full of stereotypes, utterly predictable, and just boring. I kept watching thinking it'd have to get better. It never did.My husband, who is a big fan of police dramas, left the room several times while it was on. In fact, when he went to let the dog out, he didn't bother asking me to pause it. And in his absence, he didn't miss anything.Frankly, apart from seeing a very young and good-looking Tom Berenger, this movie was a total waste of my time. It wasn't even worthy of MST3K-ing - it was just bad.

A working class, married cop is assigned to protect a rich socialite from a psychopath in Ridley Scott's 1988 film: what follows is a completely predictable thriller, with indifferent acting, forced local accents and a conclusion that advocates keeping guns at home. Just about the only interest comes from the fact that some of the characters, and by extension, the film itself, are supposed to be cool, so we get a reminder of what cool meant twenty years ago. Most obvious are the haircuts: bouffant for the men, perms for the ladies, although when a sequence is scored by a homeless man playing saxophone on the street, I couldn't help but smile. It's a bit scary to think that already two decades have passed since this film was made; but most movies of its time have not dated quite so badly.