I love this movie so much

Powerful

As Good As It Gets

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

I have to admit, I enjoyed this movie tremendously when I watched it alone, and later when a group of friends watched it in my house I was embarrassed by how much they hated it. You have to be in the mood for it.Cher must be commended, to carry off a movie when you spend exactly half of your screen time tied to a chair is pretty remarkable. The interplay between Tony and Margaret is much better when it is just the two of them, Ryan O'Neal doesn't bring much of anything to his part and the film declines somewhat when he enters the home.The only real annoyance is the HORRIFIC injections of Mazurski as some kind of freak shrink that is supposed to be funny; it may well be the single unfunniest and most unnecessary character in the history of film. You could totally fast forward through every second Masurski is on the screen and it would only improve the film.I think women will like this a lot better than men, but it's a good film and very underrated. For most of 1996 it was my favorite film.

Adapting plays into cinema is often a bad idea because they're two different mediums . Do you think it's a great idea to make ZULU into a stage play ? Imagine it where two valiant redcoats sit in a tent gasping " Blimey there's thousands of them out there " Great movie and a bad stage play In order for a stage play to make great cinema there's two essentials needed 1) A fine cast that creates on screen chemistry 2 ) Great dialogue On paper Cher and Chazz Palminterri would be a good casting choice but not in these roles . The story revolves around a hit-man played by Palminterri breaking into a house to kill a wife played by Cher with most of the action taking place inside the house . I was unable to take these two characters seriously though perhaps it was the fault of the script which can't decide whether it was trying to be serious or funny . Since the story is very static it's of the utmost importance that the dialogue shines and once again because of the bizarre tone of the screenplay it embarrasses more than anything else with much of the conversation revolving around sex acts . if you want to see a great translation of a stage play transferred to the silver screen give FAITHFUL a miss and watch 12 ANGRY MEN instead

I agree with what Dianna Trent said below. Namely: "I also don't like the dangerous idea of 'loving' a man who comes into your home to murder you. That word "rape" needs to be replaced, too." Yes. And Yes. Both these "issues" made me uncomfortable.I think the biggest flaw in this film is its lack of logic. Like I know about the Stockholm syndrome but it just doesn't make sense that Margaret would really date Tony after the event. He's a HIT MAN!!!! He KILLS people for a living. Like she would really wanna cuddle up to that???? And the cutesie ending looks like it was tacked on because some preview audience weren't happy with the original. Schmaltzig. It doesn't work.The actors do their best. I think the casting could've been better but that doesn't mean those taking part didn't give 100%. No the problems lie with the script - despite some excellent dialogue. It's patchy and ill-conceived, that's what it is. 'A' for effort. 'C' for the finished product.

Ok, so it's not an action packed thriller, but if you're in the mood to laugh, it's a great movie. Cher's acting was wonderful when you consider the fact that it was mainly just her and Chazz Palminteri for the majority of the movie. I personally thought that Chazz's acting was excellent. I mean, he wrote the movie AND was the main character. To me that seems like it would take a lot of talent which he obviously has to accomplish such a thing. I've heard some people say that they were disappointed at the fact that Chazz played his normal mobster character. In my opinion, his best rolls are when he plays a hitman, mobster, etc, because you know he's Italian, and makes a great tuff guy, even though in reality I bet he's probably really sweet. Another comment I've heard is that it was boring. If you thought it was boring, see it again because you didn't understand it. Keep in mind that the strength of this movie is the witty dialogue BECAUSE it was based on a play and BECAUSE it was a play/movie that was from the perspective of a cheated housewife held captive. What did you expect?