Bright Lights, Big City (1988)

Absolutely amazing

There is just so much movie here. For some it may be too much. But in the same secretly sarcastic way most telemarketers say the phrase, the title of this one is particularly apt.

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

"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

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.

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.

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.