Bright Lights, Big City (1988) User Reviews

Time Capsule Theater

[Ralphus2 · 6/10 · 7 April 2012]

I won't bother with recounting the plot--plenty of others here have done that--but I will give some thoughts from the perspective of a 40-something who remembers fondly the movie and the times from whence it came.

I remember hating this movie when I first saw it back in the day. I'd read half the novel and hated that too. My main memory of both of them, oddly enough, was the Coma Baby. It features heavily in the book but somewhat less so in the movie.

Watching it again so many years later and so many years out from the 80s, I was surprised to find myself enjoying it. Perhaps it was a nostalgia thing. My mind was certainly flooding with associated memories. 1988 was the year I finished high school. I was soon to leave my little red-neck country town and move to the big smoke where a whole new life would begin (and there have been at least three more since then!).

Some positives: I'm a huge Donald Fagen/Steely Dan fan, so Fagen's soundtrack was appreciated. It doesn't really sound like his regular stuff (until the very end), and was, frankly, often quite cheesy and even out of place at times. But I convinced myself I liked it. Other Fagen fans may also. The movie really grabs the 80s very effectively. Nightclubs, hair, blow, the whole bit. There is a surprising appearance from the wonderful Jason Robards which, shamefully, is uncredited according to IMDb. Considering the size of his role this is kind of odd.

Negatives: Phoebe Cates seemed completely unconvincing as a model and Michael J. Fox was completely unconvincing as a...sorry, but, hey...as a grown-up. He's never really any different from how he was in Back to the Future or even Family Ties. He's still all got up in jeans and a suit jacket, skipping all over the place, and gulping, "Shucks" (at least seemingly). No disrespect to the guy. Just that this movie reminds that he was never so well suited to anything with pretensions to being serious. And that last point sums up the problems with this film: it eventually becomes apparent that the movie is trying to be taken seriously. It just doesn't work though. A pretentious novel as starting place doesn't help. Ham acting and cheese dialog don't help none neither.

Still, an enjoyable time capsule. Kiefer does OK as wise-a** friend. The wonderful Frances Sternhagen, an appearance from the then-soon-to-be-late John Houseman, and even the magnificent William Hickey. Tracy Pollan is gorgeous and Swoosie Kurtz is her usual charming self. The ending is quite poignant, featuring Dianne Wiest, but isn't enough to really justify getting there.

If you're 40-something, watch this with ice cream and snacks on a lazy weekday evening. If you're younger or older than that...probably don't bother, coz it ain't really that great.

Fox was miscast

[highwaytourist · 5/10 · 17 February 2007]

There are two things that went wrong with this film. First and foremost is that Michael J. Fox is totally miscast for his role. I can understand him wanting to break away from the Alex Keaton character on "Family Ties." But, although he tries, he simply isn't right as a coke-addled, anguished writer. And it knocks the whole film off-kilter. Another problem is that the story doesn't translate easily onto film. There are some compensations- great supporting cast, catchy theme song ("Kiss & Tell" by Bryan Ferry), and excellent use of New York City locations. But they weren't enough to make the film a success, and the disappointing returns at the box office bear this out.

The Secret Of My Succe$s's evil twin

[Karl Self · 5/10 · 1 November 2009]

You have to leave it to Michael J.: no-one looks better harried in a casual suit than he. That artfully ruffled hair is just the shizzle. Even when he's been boozing and snorting lines all night, he looks like the picture of life. Here he's teamed up with Kiefer Sutherland, the second best-looking guy in a ruffled suit, and all seems to be set for a zany, New-York-in-the-Eighties comedy along the lines of Fox's previous The Secret Of My Succe$s. Only that they decided to make a dire "serious" movie instead, probably to allow Fox to work beyond the comedy genre for a change.

So Fox plays the young would-be writer of the Great American Novel who struggles with:

*the death of his mother a year ago

*being left by his model wife (meaning they're married and she works as a model -- everyone did in the Eighties) for a swanky French fashion photographer

*having to work as a fact checker for a The New Yorker-type magazine instead of being recognised as a literary maven

*New York City

*partying too hard, taking too much coke and hanging around models with earrings the size of dinner plates too much

Here's how the story went down with me: the main character and his entourage live the affluent life of New Yorker young urban professionals that everybody dreamed about in the Eighties. Our hero Jamie Conway has a well-paying job in the media, but he whines because he'd rather be an author. It's sad that his wife left him, but he handles it so immaturely that you begin to feel that she made the right choice. The dead mother in Kansas seems to be thrown in gratuitously to add ballast. The other women in this movie are so stereotypical (the motherly type, lots of club-going fashion skanks and finally the homely girl who goes to bed at ten under a large frilly duvet) that I garnered even more sympathies for the cheating wife. I couldn't buy into the whole coke fiend schtick because Michael J. Fox just looks so damn perky and apple-cheeked all the time.

Finally the ending: Jamie meets his estranged wife at a party, starts laughing hysterically, then his nose starts to bleed from doing all those lines. He then decides to call that homely girl, whines to her about his mother, and sorta decides that he's through with all those modern women and that she's what he needs. He then goes out into the New York morning and trades a loaf of bread for his sunglasses. Credits.

The story reminded me in many ways of The Catcher In The Rye -- only that TCITR a good, captivating book, while BRBC is a boring film. Maybe the book it was based on was much better, but it just didn't translate well to film, or maybe it was crap too.

Under-rated

[culwin · 7/10 · 11 October 2000]

This is a good, although not great, movie that often gets a lower rating than it deserves. All the actors fill their roles perfectly, especially Keifer Sutherland. The problem is it occasionally tries to be funny (or something?), which doesn't mesh with the rest of the film. Two guys getting attacked by a ferret is not very funny anyhow, unless they are Bill Murray and Jim Carrey. Ignore the parts that try to be funny and you will find this movie much more enjoyable.

Not a bad movie at all

[tex-42 · 10 January 2003]

Michael J. Fox does an admirable job in the lead role of this movie adaptation of Jay McInerey's book. The plot concerns one man's downfall over the period of a week, and how it all stems from his mother dying and his wife leaving him. The movie follows the basic plot of the book with few changes. Overall a very decent movie, with a solid cast.

very sad movie.

[triple8 · 7/10 · 24 November 2003]

I saw this a long time ago and still remmeber how good it was. Who hasn't had a "jaime" in their life at some point? Michael J. Fox did an excellent job with tihs role and it's a movie that anybody who appreciates movies about the pitfalls of addictions and the destruction that living on the darkside can wreak would enjoy. It's not a happy movie and it is very 80's(it came out in the late 80's as I recall) but is still very well done and should be seen by anyone who appreciates movies of this genre.

Dim lights, fuzzy details.

[moonspinner55 · 3/10 · 19 January 2009]

It must have struck cinematographer Gordon Willis as highly ironic that he would shoot a film with the title "Bright Lights, Big City". Willis, known for his fabulous work with dark, muted colors and characters in shadows or silhouettes, seems absolutely lost within this night-life milieu, which isn't bright and hardly seems big. Jay McInerney adapted his own 1984 novel about a would-be writer in New York City whose job in the research department of a prominent magazine (Gotham!) is constantly threatened by his drug use, which may stem from a broken marriage and memories of his deceased mother. It's not difficult to pinpoint what went wrong here: although Michael J. Fox may seem well-cast from the outset, it clearly becomes apparent he's in over his head. Fox (whose plastic voice-over narration was probably supposed to sound hard-boiled) is too well-scrubbed and corn-fed to be convincing as a party maniac; acting disoriented by blinking his eyes heavily and tightening his thin mouth, Fox is strictly a morose good-time guy, mourning the separation from fashion model spouse Phoebe Cates. But there's nothing at stake for this kid when he stays up all night (except for his job at the magazine, which hardly matters to us since the sequences set there are wholly unconvincing). Director James Bridges takes an episodic approach to the narrative, but his continuity (or perhaps the editing) is sloppy and gummy, and the people in Fox's small circle aren't terribly interesting. And did the movie go through a budgetary crisis? The weak nightclubbing scenes look barren and cheap (aside from some city vistas and subway rides, the picture could easily take place in Passaic, New Jersey for all we know). When Fox goes out on a blind date with Tracy Pollan, we know instantly these two clean-cut kids will click on their appearance alone: they look like an upscale young couple coming home from a Republican fundraiser. There's nothing dangerous about Michael J. Fox or his approach to this part. He drinks, he snorts, he swears, but he doesn't live the highs and lows of an addict on the edge. Or, is this guy an addict? There's no visual punch in Bridges' staging to suggest he's anything more than a spoiled kid looking for a girl to adore him. *1/2 from ****

Not a bad 80's Michael J. Fox film

[a-p-bcvgmrssv · 7/10 · 23 December 2013]

I recently D.V.R.'d "Bright Lights, Big City," to once-and-for-all give it a real chance. Over the years, I've caught clips of it, but never really saw and/or appreciated it. So, since it's been on T.V. a bit more these days, I decided to D.V.R. it while I still had the chance.

I wasn't disappointed, I am a life-long Michael J. Fox fan, and I was glad to have the chance to see one of his more serious post-"Family Ties," "Back to the Future," roles of the '80's. He was real good in his poignant, compelling and touching role as a talented, successful, but troubled and misguided young man dealing with two recent major blows in his life: The death of his beloved mother (A situation I can personally relate to), and his break-up with his beautiful, talented, aspiring model wife. There were parts that were of course depressing and sad, but there were witty, funny, and introspective parts that made this film well worth a try.

OH, MAJOR SPOILER ALERT HERE, READ OVER TO END:

One main point of this film that deserves true credit is that it didn't go with a truly depressing and downbeat ending; Fox's character really faced reality and decided to go on the right, better-guided path for a change.

"Bright Lights, Big City," in my humble opinion, is NO "Back to the Future," by any means, but it did it's job well with story-telling and acting. Kudos to the movie and Michael J.

Michael J. Fox doesn't fit

[SnoopyStyle · 5/10 · 22 January 2016]

In NYC, Jamie Conway (Michael J. Fox) is drinking and doing drugs until the clubs close. He had lied about being fluent in French and has a fact-checking job on Gotham Magazine. His boss Clara (Frances Sternhagen) has a rush French job expecting him to fail. His co-worker Megan (Swoosie Kurtz) tries to help him. His best friend Tad Allagash (Kiefer Sutherland) is even worst. His model wife Amanda (Phoebe Cates) had left him behind for Paris and he's still struggling with his mother (Dianne Wiest)'s death. He becomes obsessed with a New York Post story about a coma baby. He gets set up on a date with Vicky (Tracy Pollan) by Tad.

It's the last directing effort for James Bridges. It's not nearly as cheesy as Perfect but he's been on a downward slide for awhile. The biggest problem is that Michael J. Fox doesn't fit this role. He doesn't have the required darkness. He has a beautiful lightness that can't be extinguished no matter how hard he tries. Otherwise, the movie has the overall sense of a time and a place. With Kiefer Sutherland in the lead, this could have been something special.

Killing the pain with Colombian marching powder

[Mr-Fusion · 7/10 · 23 August 2017]

"Bright Lights, Big City" bears a simple premise - Michael J. Fox spends his nights in drug-fueled debauchery while his day-to-day slowly implodes - and I have to admit, I was expecting something a bit closer to "Less Than Zero". But this is less about his abuse and more about the consequences: the dismal job performance, the marriage in ruins. There's real sadness here (like seeing him pour out his heart to his secretary (Swoosie Kurtz) - but it's never harrowing. And it's a pretty good vehicle for Fox to play completely against type. More often than not, he's surviving the damage from the night before and he does it well. He makes it easy to root for sobriety.

7/10

It frankly didn't age well

[labng · 5/10 · 7 November 2018]

I didn't like it originally and it's still a no. I didn't read the book, but I'm sure it was better or the movie wouldn't have been made. The biggest problem for me is Michael J. Fox. Not his acting chops. I just can't accept him as a seedy guy. Not then and most certainly not now. The more appropriate person was cast as his co-star. No problem seeing Kieffer Sutherland struggling with some demons. Plus this film just reminds me that even as a teenager of the eighties, I really don't have much fond nostalgia for them. And, this film makes a point of calling out many of its shortcomings.

Better than you might think

[prezike · 8/10 · 16 July 2002]

I remember the ads for this film on TV when it came out, and it seemed appealing to me then, even though I did not see it until recently on video. I must say this is not a bad film by any means, and has quite a bit to say about the struggles of young adults trying to "find their place" in the world. It seems to me to be sort of the father of "Trainspotting" in several ways (drugs, youth struggling with identity in society, narration, etc.), although not nearly as elaborately produced, there are some pretty decent elements of style incorporated some of which work well, some not so well.

Frankly I was surprised this was a Hollywood picture. The subject matter is not something that one would think people would flock to see, but maybe the producers thought it might be a new kind of "Breakfast Club" type film. Who knows, but it was an interesting risk that didn't pan out, as I do not recall this being a very successful film at the box office, but I admire the attempt at bringing it to a wide audience.

Some of the scenes seem a bit awkward, like the opening of the film at the former, great, NYC club, The Paladium, and the ferrit scene towards the end, and the confrontations with Pheobe Kates. However one has to wonder if this was intentional, because of the film makers' apparent desire to show that in "reality" things are not always so comfortable.

Overall a film worth one's time, if you keep your mind open a little bit. This is not Hollywood fluff, but it isn't a Lions Gate release either. I think Michael J Fox also deserves a lot of credit for doing "Bright Lights, Bit City" because this was the height of his career and to take on such a risk and a challenging as an actor should be commended. The movie is a pretty good attempt at handling a subject that is a reality for many youth. I think this audience is the one who would have most use out of such a film so if you fit in that category, it's worth your time.

Some great scenes plus a good soundtrack, good acting, however there's not much else

[gangstahippie · 7/10 · 30 March 2009]

Bright Lights, Big City is a 1988 film starring Michael J Fox as a cocaine addicted newspaper editor.The movie shows him and his friend played by Keifer Sutherland, the partying & the coke that they do together, plus some parts of the past.Apparently he does cocaine to forget about how his wife left him and how his mother died.It has been a year since this has happened.There is also some messed up part with a coma baby, which he has a dream sequence about.The acting is fairly good from Fox and Sutherland.There are some fairly powerful dramatic scenes, also one funny scene involving a ferret, also the 1980's soundtrack was fairly good as well, especially "Century's End" by Donald Fagen.But other than that, the film was fairly boring.It was realistic as a lot of business-types were doing cocaine.Movies/Video Games such as "Carlito's Way", "Grand Theft Auto Vice City" & "American Psycho" will show this.I have never read the book and only heard of the author when he was mentioned in Ellis's semi-autobiographical novel "Lunar Park".I personally thought "American Psycho"(another movie which is partly about business types in the 1980's) to be a better movie.This is a decent film, it was just sort of boring.

Not good

[hcoursen · 4/10 · 17 January 2010]

I was fooled by comments here into watching this one. It is, in a sense, all flashback without an establishing context. We don't learn until the end that much of Fox's problem results from his mother's death. The other reason -- the 'divorce' -- is made much of but no context for that is established. So -- he drinks, snorts, and fails in his job as a fact-checker for a Vanity Fair type of magazine. And -- so what? The motivation seems just to be self-destruction, and that is not particularly interesting. I suppose the Robards character (like the coma baby) is a 'reflector' of the main character. But the Robards character seems actually to have had a life at some point in the distant past. What is he doing now? Is he still holding down a job? Why was Fox's character broke at some points yet affluent at others? Can anyone drink vodka all day, snort, and still function? His treatment of his brother was not only nasty, but unmotivated. What was the point of the ferret episode? The main character's equation of his friend and ex-wife at the end was incomprehensible. This is an incoherent ramble. No story. Tedious and radically un-involving.

Don't bother. Really. Don't even bother.

[JKazoo · 8 April 2003]

I read the original book for a Freshman English class, and was enthralled by a unique character study from a Second Person perspective. Then, the teacher showed us this, and now I understand why "film snobs" always complain "The book was better." In this case, it most certainly IS. There's a major plot point toward the end of the book (which I won't mention here, not so I won't spoil the movie, but the book), that puts all that you read into perspective and makes it all worthwhile. Here, the point is revealed in the first 5 minutes, and it ruins any reason to sit through this motion picture. Instead of reading and wondering "Why is he like this?," which was one of the main reasons the book was such a page-turner, the movie tells you why he does it, and you just sit there and watch him do it, knowing why. Remember how people say they hate people who reveal the endings to things? Well, this movie just up and DOES IT ITSELF! If you still want to see the movie, first read the book, then have some fun with friends picking apart this mish-mosh of a noble failure.

Could Have and Should Have Been Better!

[g-bodyl · 7/10 · 14 June 2014]

Bright Lights, Big City is by all means not an awful film and in fact, it's actually quite interesting. But with the subject material given, the movie should have been better. Despite my holding interest, boring would be a word to accurately describe the movie. Seriously, it seems like the only thing the guy does in the film is snort coke and that grows old fast. But it was interesting to watch a Kansas guy barely holding his own in a big city while struggling mightily with his inner demons.

James Bridges film is about a guy named Jamie Conway who is a fact-checker for a huge New York magazine, but at nights he is a convulsive partier with a bad cocaine addiction. He is also struggling with his past as he moved to New York to get away from anything and he is also having problems with his estranged wife who left him as her career exploded.

The acting is actually pretty good. This is a good attempt for Michael J. Fox to get rid of his "good-guy" image and I think he mostly succeeds. But by the end, I still sympathized for the guy. There are some good supporting turns by Kiefer Sutherland and Jason Robards here.

Overall, I dearly wanted to love this film, but I wasn't able to. I liked the film enough, but I was kind of disappointed at the end result. The movie looks good, makes some good points, and tries to be your typical 80's movie. I should also mention it has a killer soundtrack. But, I guess it wasn't meant to be. It was still interesting and a rather good watch and so I rate this film 7/10.

Once again, the book was better.

[Jakeroo · 7/10 · 22 January 1999]

But this isn't a bad effort. Fox tries hard and Sutherland is good as the hardy partier. Fox's youthful looks and diminutive size are obstacles to a good portrayal of Jamie. Sutherland would have been a better choice for that role and Fox the party guy.

takes place in all the cleanest bathrooms in NY

[fateslieutenant · 5/10 · 22 April 2011]

A lot of the scenes take place in nightclub restrooms and other bathrooms. This is where the characters snort their coke, and stare at their own disappointed faces. What's remarkable for NYC in the 80s (in any decade, really) is that every single toilet stall and urinal is fantastically clean. I take this as a symbol for the movie as a whole - all rather sanitized.

It's not bad, but the plot falls off rather suddenly at the end. Some viewers might not notice, of course, since nothing was ever that worrying, in any case: it's all too well-scrubbed. All the main character ever has to do to fix things is tell his friends he's going to go home and get a good night's sleep. It's hard on a movie when the big question is "will he nap, or won't he?"

Better than I'd expected

[emdoub · 7/10 · 28 January 2006]

Personally, I was a bit horrified to hear that Michael J. Fox was trying to perform in a dramatic role, without pratfalls.

My bad. He did a darn fine job with it.

Keifer Sutherland was almost perfect as the hard-partying friend. The rest of the cast, on-screen for much less time, was also fine. Jason Robards in an uncredited stint as the drunken editor from down the hall did his usual excellent job.

Some of the other reviewers seem to have missed the point - this is a story about a man hitting the bottom and beginning his bounce back.

One of the best movies I've seen that portrays the reality facing young adults in the 80's in the USA. It's probably got a lot to say about the 20-something young professional experience from about 1975 to the present.

I'd not have cast Michael J. Fox - but I'd have been wrong. The rest of the amazingly talented cast did remarkably well - the casting director should get an Oscar for this one. When this happens, one can usually lay at least some of the blame on the director as well - I'll start looking for more of Mr. Bridges' work.

The book may have been better - most books are. Deal. Watching the movie without having read the book, I catch many of the nuances, and get at least the gist of the story being told. I've never seen a good novel that'd make a decent 2-hour movie, anyway - it'd have to be reworked to come in under 6 hours.

Awful

[gbill-74877 · 3/10 · 1 May 2022]

First of all, I want the stitchery that quotes the band Talking Heads: "Facts all come with points of view, facts don't do what I want them to." Phoebe Cates with short hair, so counter to the usual 1980's style, wouldn't be bad either, but there is not nearly enough of her here. There is really not enough of anything here. If I had to pick one word to describe this film, it would be 'uninspired.' All of the back stories for this guy struggling with a coke habit (Michael J. Fox) - his failed marriage, his mother who passed away a year before, and his attempts to write - are told so weakly. I never believed Fox in this role, and the script has silly elements like the ferret attack and his mother asking him about his sex life on her deathbed ("do you like it?" she asks). The best things this film has going for it are occasional shots in New York from cinematographer Gordon Willis and just seeing Fox here with Tracy Pollan, who he would wed just months later. Otherwise, it's an unappealing story, told in an unappealing way.

Refreshing

[martharwebster · 7/10 · 6 May 2023]

To be honest, I'm not sure why everyone said that Michael J. Fox was the wrong person for this role. I thought he did an amazing job, and he portrayed the character quite well. The story was really good and mysterious. I like the fact that his real wife played in this movie as well. He gave me a couple laughs, made me sad. The songs featured in this movie were well chosen. I thought I would definitely recommend this movie. I also found the aspect of working for a paper quite interesting and I was glad they showed you, what that's like working there maybe I'm biased. I do love Michael J Fox, and he did a great job in this movie.

Me Me Me

[fingertyps · 1/10 · 9 June 2005]

You guys have got to be kidding---this is one of the worst movies ever made, for one simple reason: not only does Michael J. Fox's character not give a crap about anyone but himself, but he is aided along by the fact that every other character in the movie cares ONLY about him! None of them have lives; all of their lives revolve around HIM, and for no reason, since there's nothing interesting about him. A typical example of how outrageous this can be is when he calls the character played by his real-life wife Tracy Pollan on the phone at 3am on a weeknight, and she's not even annoyed that he woke her up. She's all bright & bubbly & "Oh Hi Jamie, what's up? What can I do for you?" Everyone feels overwhelming sympathy for him just because he was (justifiably) fired from his job as a magazine fact checker, for heaven's sake. WHO CARES?? BTW there is another film w/William Hurt called "Accidental Tourist" that has the exact same problem: no one cares about anything except the self-absorbed character, who is boring beyond belief. Avoid these films like the plague!

No pain, no gain.

[lost-in-limbo · 9/10 · 6 May 2010]

I had only watched this film a couple months back, and I just had the urge to watch it again. You know what… if I want to, I could watch it tonight with no hesitation. I don't know why, but "Bright Lights, Big City" simply impressed me. Watching it the second time around, I picked up on a lot symbolic parallels running through the effectively told story on substance abuse / addiction. Not that they weren't noticeable the first time, but on this occasion they simply clicked. Another thing was the staying power of Michael J. Fox's outstanding central performance. He sells it, a multi-facet turn as a character truly lost under the alluring yuppie Manhattan nightlife scene of neon lights, drugs, alcohol and women. One day wasted after another, where it's hard to distinguish the morphing days and what becomes a downward spiral into descent. And why this option to escape personal damage, because he can't handle what's in front of him. Double vodka and lines of coke. Yeah the character forgets his hurt for the time being, but the effect of this culture deadens him from reality and inspirations. This means the problems only boil over. He risks his job (although he doesn't love it), family (who he has pushed away after his mother's death of cancer) and importantly his own well-being. So I guess its not particularly a happy-shinny outing and it isn't suppose to be, despite some periods played for laughs (namely the scenes with David Warrilow and a payback prank that gets out of hand involving a ferret), it remains powerfully confronting in its depiction.

Jamie Conway finds himself wasting his days in a banally demanding job, because as an aspiring fiction writer he's completely stuck with writer's block and to make matters worse his model wife (Phoebe Cates) left him to advance her career. No explanation why, just gone. And his mum had died of leukaemia, which still seems to haunt him. So in the dumps, he ends up going out every night with his pal Tad (Kiefer Sutherland) getting hammered to only wake-up to go through the same routine again, but the lifestyle begins to catch-up on him. Where he slowly begins to open up his eyes to what's happening to his life, and its coming up to the one-year anniversary of his mother's death.

There's a sub-plot running through the narrative, where it has newspapers and TV news shows reporting on a coma baby, that the mother is having trouble giving birth to. This symbolic insert (where it does have one oddly surreal dream sequence) perceives the manner of how Fox's character lives in a bubble (or coma), not wanting to face or hear about reality at first despite his troubled and bitter mindset and best efforts from those who "really" care for him (especially his scenes involving his brother --- admirably performed by Charlie Schlatter). Also the charming Swoosie Kurtz, plays the character Megan which is Jamie's co-worker who can be seen somewhat a surrogate mother figure for Jamie, especially the way she's always picking up after him and calling him to make sure his awake so he's not late at work. Because he's skating on thin ice with the constant attention of the bosses (exemplary performances by Frances Sternhagen and John Houseman) --- coming in late too often and numerous errors finding its way into his work due to a lack of commitment and drive. Eventually after the frustrating build up (losing job, ex-girlfriend back in town), she is the one that he spills his guts out too. Throughout we get peering flashbacks (namely in the mid-to-latter end) of Jamie talking to his bed-ridden mother (an engagingly vibrant Dianne Wiest), where we learn what's happening to her and then she questions him about his life topics. These moments are movingly done, and when he starts thinking of them it becomes a shock to the system in simply facing the facts. Other than Kurtz's character, the other genuine character to help him was Tad's sister Vicky (warmly performed by Tracy Pollan). What Jamie saw in Vicky was someone who was down-to-earth, where he could naturally be around without the use of drugs to liven the occasion. Around her he felt normal, and there was sincerity to their interactions that he could trust and confide. He's reborn (think of coma baby) after his coming to terms telephone conversation with Vicky and utters a memorable line to Tad. While around his yuppie friends (or bad companions); led by Tad (an excellently suave Keifer Sutherland). They didn't really know each other or really took time out to do so. Whenever together it was a shallow illustration of senseless partying throughout long, lost nights. A fitting Phoebe Cates in what small scenes she does have looks great and creates an interestingly vain character that has you totally hook to why she left Jamie. His jealousy of her success really soars in some sequences. Throughout the whole experience you feel like you're in his shoes or better in his head riding the lows.

Director James Bridges moodily stylish and slick handling neatly combines the hustle and bustle of the nightlife NY scene. Directionless at times, but efficient. Surrounding the air is an oozing, bluesy music score, which is perfect at expressing the running emotions. Tightly edited and it's well written by Jay McKiernan (adapting his own novel) making good sense of the witty dilogues and character complexities, despite not entirely being clear with the motivations. Edgy location details were superbly brought across.

"Bright Lights, Big City" is a contemplative character drama with excellent performances grounding it.

I read the book, I still like this movie

[moviebuff72-223-265524 · 7/10 · 28 June 2023]

Bright lights, big city is a drama nothing more. Michael J. Fox did a fine job with his role. Kiefer Sutherland was just as good. Really They all were fine. Phoebe cates wasn't given much here. She comes off a bit dry. The movie isn't about her though. Her character leaves her husband to make it on her own. She is brought back at the end for some closure but it wasn't necessary. Michael was on his way to finding a better relationship with Kiefers cousin. What I liked was his happy go lucky attitude. He's like anyone when hurt. He gets angry but not overly violent. I don't think banging on a door is too violent when confronted about memories he tries to hide. Anyway, I recommend it for the serious critic. Many didn't like it but I enjoyed this movie.

Worst Movie Ever

[donchappelear · 1/10 · 28 May 2008]

I like most of Fox's movies with the exception of this waste of time and Casualties of War, but that had more to do with my disdain of Sean Penn than Fox. This movie is one of the most depressing pieces of film I ever saw.

This movie was made along the same lines as Less than Zero which is about what I would rate this movie.

Lets just say when I left the theater my thought was "There is 2 hours of my life I will never get back".

Don't waste your time rent Back to the Future and enjoy a movie where Fox is entertaining not a depressed coke head.