Gloria
Gloria
R | 22 January 1999 (USA)
Gloria Trailers

After serving a prison term for her boyfriend, a streetwise, middle-aged moll named Gloria stands up against the mobs, which is complicated by a six-year-old urchin with a will of his own, whom she reluctantly takes under her wing after his family has been gunned down.

Reviews
Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much
Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation
Myron Clemons A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.
Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?
robert-temple-1 'Broad' as an American slang word for a woman must be pretty out of date now. I wonder if anybody still talks about either 'broads' or 'dames', as perceptions of women have moved on a bit. I don't believe they are 'chicks' or 'birds' anymore either. They also aren't any longer 'skirts' because so many don't wear them. All of these terms were somehow derogatory. 'Birds' were to be 'pulled', 'broads' were to be 'laid', and so on. In retrospect it is clear that these were all slang terms for women used by men, as put-downs to reduce women to objects of lust. It was OK to 'pull' a 'bird', but you can't linguistically speaking properly 'pull' a woman. So by reducing women to linguistic categories designed to diminish their worth, they could then safely be exploited without troubling one's conscience. A 'woman' still has some dignity, so in order to be exploited for purposes of lust, she must first be reduced in status to that of 'broad' or 'bird'. The reductionist urge to diminish women linguistically is equivalent to the use of the word 'untermensch' ('sub-human') by the Nazis to diminish the Jews so that they could kill them. Killing, 'laying', 'pulling', are all different destructive modes applied to linguistically diminished categories of humans specially targeted but who first need to be placed into special categories where it is OK to do anything to them that one wants. I say all of this because there is one remarkable moment in this film where Sharon Stone says of herself: 'I've always been a broad'. She has spent her life as a mobsters' moll, and in her moment of self-realization, freely confines herself to the category of 'broad' in recognition of her lifelong willingness to allow herself to be a lust-object for hire, to sleazy men who go around killing people. Sharon Stone is eerily convincing at being a 'broad' and she has the New York accent of a 'broad', and such a 'broad's' attitudes and mannerisms to perfection. So hers is a stunning performance in the central role of Gloria. The mobster whose moll she has been most recently is played by Jeremy Northam. For an English actor he did amazingly well at speaking like a New York gangster. He must have studied hard with his voice coach to pull that off! His casting is a typically inspired example of lateral thinking, doubtless by Sidney Lumet, the director. Lumet was such a thorough pro that he pulls off this film (please note that 'pulling off' is not related to the 'pulling' above mentioned, nor does it have anything to do with pulling off a jumper; are these linguistic notes becoming tiresome?) with his usual aplomb. The previous mobster whose moll Stone had been is called Ruby, and is played with unrivalled brilliance by George C. Scott, who oozes the most charming form of evil out of his eyes like lizard gall bladders being squeezed in a juice bar. And it glistens! Stone has just come out of prison after serving three years for something Northam had done. She comes to claim her money which was their 'deal', but Northam reneges, and the broad realizes she has been a chump. (Do people still say 'chump'?) And that is when the story really begins. Northam has just 'bumped off' (that euphemism is still in use) a family of Puerto Ricans in Washington Heights because the man had stolen a computer disc listing all the criminal contacts of the mobsters, such as which police officers and judges 'and even a congressmen or two' are on the mobsters' payroll. But the six year-old son of the Puerto Rican has escaped with the disc. Northam captures him and he is sitting in Northam's apartment where Northam is in dispute with a subordinate who wants to bump him off but Northam says: 'I won't kill a kid.' And that is when Stone turns up. Through complex circumstances, Stone and the kid (brilliantly played by child actor Jean-Luke Figueroa, who was actually nine but looked six) go on the run together. It gets more and more complicated. Stone has never liked kids or had any maternal instincts, and the film is largely about the transformation of her character through the enforced proximity to the kid. She starts to go all gooey, and the kid adopts her as his new mother, and it thus becomes a psychological drama. Lumet keeps this on an even keel and the film works because he was such a pro, and the same goes for Stone. The film could easily not have worked in lesser hands. But because it was done so well, the film is worthwhile, surprising, and very engrossing to watch. I noted that John Cassavetes was credited as co-writer and then discovered that he first directed the film GLORIA in 1980 with Gena Rowlands playing Gloria. I was unaware of that Cassavetes film and will now try and see it for comparison. Some have said it was far superior to Lumet's remake of it, and I would not be surprised. Gena Rowlands is respected on all sides for her great talent, and must have been stunning as Gloria. Certainly Rowlands was so overwhelming in Cassavetes's OPENING NIGHT (1977, but my rave review of it mysteriously disappeared from the IMDb website long ago), that I have no hesitation in pronouncing her a genius. So we shall see, but meanwhile, this film is very good regardless and should not be denigrated even if its predecessor were superior to it. Good remakes are very rare, and this certainly is one of those. Let's be fair.
Pretty Face The firs time I fell in love with Sharon Stone was in 1990's Total Recall and the last time I like her was in 1999 Gloria. Of course, I like her in Basic Instinct (1992) as Catherine Tramell and Sangre y arena aka Blood and Sand (1989) as Doña Sol.There is something that I can't figure out. Sharon Stone looks her best in Total Recall. That was in 1990. Then, she failed to look good until 1999's Gloria. I think it must be the movie directors.This movie is about Sharon Stone. If you like Sharon Stone, this is a must watch. You get to watch her close up all the time. You will see the gorgeous Sharon Stone running in high heels. My favorite quote - Nicholas 'Nicky' Nuñez: I like sleeping with you. Gloria: You're not the first guy to tell me that.Jean-Luke Figueroa got to enjoy making this movie.
shahrad 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.
ALOE 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.