The veteran Sidney Lumet wastes his talent here by presenting us with a well told but banal story of a woman involved with the leader of a criminal gang who accidentally becomes aware that the gang is willing to kill a little boy in order to eliminate a possible undesirable witness and decides then to save the boy at the risk of her own life, initiating a course of hide and run well shown in a sequence of scenes thrilling enough to rivet our attention. However neither Sharon Stone in the role of the woman who develops maternal love for the boy nor Jean-Luke Figueroa in the role of the little boy suddenly orphaned and becoming sentimentally attached to her, are very convincing indeed and that's the weakest part of the movie. The best part of the movie is the acting of George C. Scott another veteran, here in a minor role but showing his great talent every time he appears on screen. A fair movie after all.

I never really believed a second of this movie -- it feels like contrived Hollywood schlock. But I enjoyed it anyway. Sharon Stone's performance is fun, and her wardrobe alone is worth the price of admission. There's also one of the best car chases I've seen in recent years.

Even though I was a kid when I saw the original, I can remember it being much more endearing and convincing than this Sharon Stone remake. It's not great, it's not bad, but Sharon does not ever convince me that she is a "mother-figure" to the orphaned boy she wants to help. She's always just a little too abrasive, too tough, and trying too hard to be sexy in this role.

The boy who plays one of the lead characters comes off better than Sharon. I'm wondering what kind of recruiting they needed to get George C. Scott and Jeremy Northam in this movie. My advice is to stick to watching Sharon Stone in her usual glamorous, sex-pot type roles. They are much more suited to her style.

Gloria is released from prison having done her time the right way and never mentioning anything about her mobster boyfriend Kevin or his boss Ruby. She returns to find that he has not kept his end of the bargain. Also in Kevin's custody is Nicky Nuñez, a 6 year old boy whose family was killed for a disk of incriminating information. Gloria feels that the murder of a child is a step further than she can deal with and takes him and the disk. As the mob hunt them down Gloria realises her chances of survival are slim and tries to work out how to save Nicky.

I expected nothing from this when I sat to watch it – in fact I was genuinely surprised when I saw that Sidney Lumet had directed it, as I had expected a trashy thriller-come-comedy of some sort. However the mood of the piece is set out early on when Nicky's family is murdered by Sean. This is a powerful and unpleasant scene in the film – not overly gory but moving. The main thread of the film is the old `hooker with a heart of gold' type of thing and I must admit that this element is often it's weakest part. It's here that I felt old ground was being treaded and that the sentimentality was allowed to get a little out of hand. This is particularly evident in the final 10 minutes (awful ending by the way) but it raises it's head several times during the film where `Gloria learns valuable life lessons about herself' etc.

Happily for the most part this is offset by a some good thrills – such as some good car chases, moments of violence and a good sense of menace from the mobsters. Stone has a difficult role. It is one that could be swimming in it's sentimentality. She doesn't totally succeed (her accent is a little forced at times) but she carries it reasonably well. Figueroa has an even harder role in being the cute kid. Sadly for the most part he is the `cute kid' and is a little irritating but he does have a few strong scenes that show there is more to him and he is good considering his age. Northam is OK, Starr brings real menace, Scott and Moriarty have clearly both been cast to add some class to the film but only have small roles.

Overall this is a reasonable film. To some extent we've seen it before and the sentimentality really threatens to sink it at times. However a real sense of menace and some strong scenes make this a better film and the thriller scenes, although not great, are solid enough when combined with these to make the film watchable – just don't expect this to be without big areas of weakness though.

Any film that bills itself a remake of John Cassavetes's 1980 'Gloria' is obviously putting itself up to an incredibly high standard, and without the benefit of the doubt of originality. This 1999 version thus not surprisingly fails to live up to its namesake, but if you go in resigned to this inevitability, you can still enjoy it albeit reservedly.

The real problem with this take is the writing. The concept is familiar enough to keep the essential plot elements together while still trying to do something different enough to hold our interest. To this end, the inciting incident near the start is done chillingly enough to give us hope that this might be good on its own merits. Unfortunately, as the film progresses, the original parts - save some nice one-liners - are executed progressively less gracefully. The pretext behind Gloria's pairing with the kid isn't 100% convincing (though could be worse) and the conclusion is decidedly sloppy. The plot feels by that time, as one writer said of a TV episode from many years ago, to hang together about as well as a soggy potato chip.

Fortunately, director Sid Lumet salvages what he can, ramping up the heat and the action as much as is tolerably possible to keep us entertained. Sharon Stone as a noticeably-younger take on the title character adds more than enough sex appeal - physical and emotional - to her character to hold our interest even when the script goes awry, as it often does. She plays the character with a lighter and somewhat less intense demeanor than Gena Rawlings did, but with just as much energy, and her airier way is arguably justified by the age differential. She definitely didn't deserve a Golden Razzie nomination for the role, but Jean-Luke Figueroa as Nicky, the kid, arguably did. On the other hand, he didn't have much to go on, either, the script withholding from him the kind of rough edge and from his relationship with Gloria the intense, almost romantic bittersweet tension that was there in the original.

"Less intense" is becoming something of a refrain in this review. It's an assessment that doesn't apply to *most* of the action but certainly to the interstices. But perhaps this too could not have been helped no matter what the script, performers or director: as other reviewers have pointed out, the original 'Gloria' was above all set in the gritty, dangerous New York that in hindsight existed only briefly from the 1960s through the 1980s. A 1999 version would have had to be a period piece to capture the same spirit as the original and even then would have been both a tougher task and a tougher sell.

Overall I'd give it a solid B-: worthwhile to see Sharon Stone as much as or moreso than to see her as the eponymous character, and good for a light, laid-back evening in to chill down after a stressful day, but don't go in looking for anything deep, analytical or thought-provoking.

The 1999 remake of "Gloria", is an insult to the great John Cassavettes, who wrote and directed the original in 1980. Sidney Lumet proves that he is not even in the same league as Cassavettes. This new version completely lacks the energy and the intensity of the original. Ridiculous melodrama and overblown sentimentality is the only thing Sidney Lumet has to offer. And Sharon Stone's acting ability seems laughable when compared to Gena Rowlands, who originated the role in 1980. Rent the original and skip the remake. Make Cassavettes proud.

Sharon Stone with a Bronx accent? British actor, Jeremy Northam, copping same accent to sound like a mafioso? Ridiculous. Sharon must have agreed to do this movie to make a statement about her maternal side, wanting a baby, who knows! She plays a gangster moll who rescues a 7 yr old from being rubbed out (truly!), after which the entire movie shows the pair bonding in coffee shops an running from armed henchman. Will she leave the kid in an upstate Catholic school where he will get good care, education and A LIFE? Or will she be forced by the tug of her heartstrings to raise him herself in spite of having nothing but a criminal record to offer? What do you think? Ugh.

Might be a good rental for those playing Spot-A-Movie-Cliche-Take-A-Drink game.

I personally felt that Gloria was a good movie. Sure, it had a crummy start but the movie got better and better as time went along. As a viewer, I began to develop a sympathetic passion for Gloria and her relationship with the little boy. It was clearly obvious that she knew nothing about the principals of child rearing. But, there are a lot of people in the world who are not aware of them nor do they want to be. Yet at the same time, these people have a good enough heart that if put in the situation they can at least try. You can only teach with the knowledge that you have. Gloria was only trying to do the right thing, and I commend the character for that very reason. To whomever reads this, you should watch the movie on your own and come up with your own conclusion. In the end, that is all that matters anyway. Peace out!

This film is an absolute insult to John cassivettes and a slap in the face to Gena Rowlands! Actually an insult to myself and all viewers. This is the Sharon Stones most pathetic performance. We are supposed to believe that she is from Brooklyn or anywhere else in New York? I almost started laughing the first time she opened her mouth. This movie is one big fail, for the studio, for the public and for the supporting cast unless you're looking for a comedy.

"Gloria" Having not seen the original Gena Rowlands version, I was very surprised to feel entertained and satisfied with this remake. Not much happens in this film, so therefore no marketing angles to work. It all depends on your tolerance for Sharon Stone. I have no problem with her. She has had some very fine performances in the past, and she is more capable then most actresses. Yet, her sheer ego and the "glamour" she sweats daily gets in the way of her natural charisma. In "Gloria" she is given full opportunity to own the frame with a detailed and rich performance. Her interaction with the child of the film is funny, and at one point - achingly heartbreaking. She works overtime to make the film connect. Working in the same old NY/LA vortex that has absorbed modern movies, the film is not really ground-breaking in any way, just simply enjoyable. Lately, that's all I ask from a movie. The Brooklyn mob hitmen that are the nemesis of Gloria are boring and cliched, but director Sidney Lumet does a fine job making the violence in the film pleasingly bloody and memorable. This version - I would bet - does not compare favorably to the 1980 Cassavetes's film, but for now I'm amazed how well it works.--------------- 7

Gloria (Sharon Stone) is released from prison in her party dress. Her parole is in Florida but she immediately travels to New York City anyways. She wants her money from mobster boyfriend Kevin (Jeremy Northam) after taking the rap and spending three years in prison. Nicky is a young boy being hunted by Kevin's gang. His father had stolen a computer disk and given it to him as he goes on the run. The boy is alone after his family is massacred. When Kevin refuses to pay Gloria, she decides to take the boy.

Sharon Stone is doing some overacting. It's the heart of the problem and her greatest sin is that she's not Gena Rowlands. Gena shows glimpses of her heart but Sharon is doing an acting bit. There is some reworking of the premise but that is not solving anything. In the end, it all falls upon the chemistry between Sharon and the kid. If she calms down and has more time with the boy, the relationship would actually have the room to breathe. If taken as its own movie, this is marginally fine. As a remake, it is a step below.

Gloria was originally a film by John Cassavetes. I could understand any serious filmmaker wanting to take a stab at material that came out of one of the kings of independent American film. But with Gloria it's a story that could have been told by a lessor filmmaker, a story that might've been told anyway had Cassavetes not jumped on it first. With Sidney Lumet's version, there's not too much of a difference except having in Sharon Stone in the Gena Rowlands part. That's not the main issue to have with the film though, as she is a fine actress. It's the fact that it's just not entertaining, that the connection between Stone and the little boy she saves is not strong or believable ("smoke when you're 10" is a line that stuck with me, sarcastic but not all that funny), and the whole gang story surrounding them also just sits like a lump. There's nothing that Lumet, with all of his skills in his own right, can do to uplift the material or present it in a manner that's fresh or absorbing. I'd say if you had to pick one go for the original. Then check out the rest of the films by Cassavetes, and with Lumet as well. It's a New York story for the birds.

One of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't know why such a movies must be made. May be studios don't know how to spend their money. Sharon Stone's character as a mother is very, very ridiculous. It doesn't worth watching even for one time. Don't waste your time.

This movie has no business connecting itself with the great movie made in 1980 called "Gloria" and starring Gena Rowlands and directed by her husband John Cassevettes. That movie's opening credits sequence is better than the entire thing here - the paintings and the beautiful music set the mood for the movie.

Why is this woman taking that little Puerto Rican boy with her? She never even liked children! I guess she had to. It's just like the story says. Everyone died, and she had to keep the kid. This is a strange story. Here's a woman that, even though she's on parole, is evidently in full control of her destiny. ...And now, with a little Puerto Rican, that says she's her mother, father, sister, girlfriend, everything. I guess is good if the boy does not swell the statistics of the child protection offices in the tri-state area. The kid could very well have wound up in Paterson, and part of the famous "corridor". She did nothing to cause the child's predicament. I guess she felt a kinship, also victimized. There are two things I liked a lot about this movie. The story is not one of them. I can think of other Stone films where the story was one I understood and liked better, for instance, Sliver. But this film is quite an achievement, I think. I often felt as if I was watching a very current film, directed by Hitchcock. A lot of sequences look quite a bit more artistic, than one would expect to go with the story, while simultaneously remaining perfectly current. I think Sharon was, as always, real good. Her fans will recognize her best as the great piece she is, during the first scenes, when she leaves the pen in NJ. But after that, everything takes a back seat to the problem with the Puerto Rican bundle of joy. I recognized Lyndhurst Castle, one of the oldest buildings in NJ, where the school scene was filmed. And although I have never been to any of those localities in the city, the film makes them look familiar but not so threatening. I wonder what happened next, did she become the little boy's mother? Did they live together in blissful domesticity? Well, in any case she did a great job with the boys I thought. I won't see this one seven times, like Sliver, but I'll see it again.

GLORIA / (1999) *

Starring: Sharon Stone, Jeremy Northam, Jean-Luke Figueroa, George C. Scott, and Bonnie Bedelia Directed by Sidney Lumet. Written by Steven Antin. Running time: 108 minutes. Rated R (for strong language, violence, and brief nudity).

"Gloria" is a movie of such horrible proportions it is tough explaining in words the incredible ineffectiveness it presents on screen. The movie is robbed of almost all good qualities. There is no substance, style, or creativity here. It's all flat, contrived, and boring. The scenes consist of nothing but talking heads. "Gloria" is easily one of the year's worst movies and undoubtedly will place on many critics list of least liked productions.

The film's opening is extremely week. We meet the title character, who is supposedly our hero, as she is being released from a hardened prison on parole. As she cusses at security guards walking out dressed as a cheap prostitute, this woman's attitude and condition of living make us sick.

The second part of the first act has a family killed at gunshot by a gang led by a man named Kevin (Jeremy Northam), who murders these people because they withhold a computer disk containing information that could put every member in prison. Before the family's demise, however, the man of the house gives the valuable disk to his son, Nicky.

A good movie usually begins with the introduction of its main character after the development. After the first act setup, the characters' morals and intentions should be clear. "Gloria" takes none of these preparations. The audience never becomes accustomed to any of the characters--thus we could not care less about what happens to them. This is especially true for the Nicky character, who is only a plot device. He has no interest, intelligence, important lines, or memorable scenes.

The story's conflict revolves around Gloria adopting Nicky after Kevin threatens to kill both of them in order to recover the secret disk. Throughout the plot, the characters chase each other like a cat and mouse, with several key events leading the film's direction in the wrong way. The conflict's introduction with some proper material is good--although begins a little straight forward and seems jump started. The movie contains good structure throughout. The film features dialogue that is so straight forward and non descriptive, and the subtext is so blandly dumb, it is literally unbelievable. The conversations have no impact or meaning. They are just there, contributing nothing to the story. When Gloria exchanges consultation with Nicky, she talks to him like an object. This is exactly why the two characters share no charisma.

The performances are wooden and uninspiring. What is Sharon Stone doing in this picture? Movies like these are way under her league. None of the characters are believable or interesting. Compare the young actor Jean-Luke Figueroa with the much more talented Haley Joel Osment from "The Sixth Sense."

There is no emotional context here, nor is there any depth, energy, or involvement. The picture does not take any of the characters, situations, or actions seriously. I never once believed a character's life was at stake. Not much happens in the film, creating struggle for the advertisers and producers. Anyone like well-known Sharon Stone may draw some audiences in, but before long word of mouth should sink good old "Gloria" faster than the Titanic.

Brought to you by Columbia Pictures.

Yeah, I realize what it says under the director's credit. But there is no way in hell that I'm gonna believe that the man that gave us "Network", "Dog Day Afternoon", "Running On Empty", and his own quartet of NYPD dramas ("Serpico", "Prince of the City", "Q&A", and "Night Falls on Manhattan") is even associated with this. This is quite possibly the worst mainstream film of '99, in the cozy company of "Bats", "Virus", "She's All That", and (gasp!) "The Haunting", just to name a few.

Where to begin? The script for starters. How the writer managed to completely foul up the original source material is beyond me. Much of everything that comes out of Sharon Stone's mouth is unintentionally funny, especially in one scene where she tells her young companion, "I'm trying to teach you a philosophy of life here!" after telling him opportunities in his future (these include going to a race track, lovemaking, and "chasing a skinny blonde girl with big boobs.")

And while on the subject of Stone, it's roles like this that manage to solidify the claim that maybe, just maybe, her brilliant turn in "Casino" was a fluke. Please Sharon, say it ain't so!

Like other users have mentioned, the film's only saving grace is the car chase. But there's a lot of tedium to get through until the chase scene comes. Then again, why bother?

Avoid. I can't stress this enough.

I rated this film a "2" because Sharon Stone wants soooo bad to give a "great", "oscar-winning" type performance.

So many gaffes in this production and I am surprised what with Sidney Lumet's track record that he allowed it.

See the first "gloria" with Gena Rowlands - it is much, much better. However, if you like Sharon Stone, she is okay in this movie.

CONTAINS SPOILERS

On the whole a really disappointing offering from Sidney Lumet which I would rate at 3/4 out of 10. I just felt that there was little to no chemistry between Gloria and Nicky throughout the whole film as she seemed intent on calling him "kid" all of the time - and I mean ALL the time. It's even more annoying that the makers of this film felt it necessary to use this ploy to show how Stone was trying to keep her distance from "the kid". Plain annoying and unnecessary.

I found the ending of the film to be a sequence of very unbelievable occurrences. It's very odd that a bunch of "gangsters" would let Nicky go free when he knew that they had murdered his family. To think in realistic terms, it would be a conceivable possibility that when he grows he may just be a bit angry at these supposed gangsters for killing every member of his family and would be after them. Instead he goes free as Lumet presents us with a set of blundering, gun-waving idiots who are summed up by their pursuit of a bright yellow(!) floppy disk. I didn't see 'comedy' on the genre listing but the ending - and for the most part the whole thing - had me laughing for all the wrong reasons.

If anyone hasn't seen this one already, I would say don't bother you haven't missed anything. Even for Stone and Lumet fans(like me before this), I would definitely steer clear. Even if the reason is no more than Stone's accent - I agree with some of the other users, it is ridiculous and does seem plenty overdone at times.

"Gloria" is a great looking movie. Sharon Stone's legs and the location photography are both terrific. The rest of the movie isn't so hot. The cast is hit and miss (Stone makes the hit side in a squeaker). The movie is uninvolving. Director Sidney Lumet seems to be going through the motions. This movie also has one of the most boring car chases you'll ever see. "Gloria" is a curiosity piece for fans of the original movie (like me). Dishonorable mention: the music.

You decide. Actually no decision required. Gena a real actress that you get her just by her facial expressions (Sharon Stone only has one), her voice, her whole demeanour let's you know what's going on in her mind. Sharon Stone not so much. Bad remake of one of my favourite films.

Gloria is a very good film that has a good cast which includes Sharon Stone, Jean-Luke Figueroa, Jeremy Northam, Cathy Moriarty, George C. Scott, Mike Starr, Bonnie Bedelia, Barry McEvoy, Don Billett, Jerry Dean, Tony DiBenedetto,Teddy Atlas, Bobby Cannavale, and Sarita Choudhury. The acting by all of these actors is very good. Stone is really excellent in this film. I thought that she performed good. The action and thrills is really good and some of it is surprising. The movie is filmed very good. The music is good. The film is quite interesting and the movie really keeps you going until the end. This is a very good and thrilling film. If you like Sharon Stone, Jean-Luke Figueroa, Jeremy Northam, Cathy Moriarty, George C. Scott, Mike Starr, Bonnie Bedelia, Barry McEvoy, Teddy Atlas, the rest of the cast in the film, Action, Thrillers, Dramas, Crime, and interesting films then I strongly recommend you to see this film today!