I will clarify that a lot of the issues I have with the film deal with it being a tired genre/concept: Depressed woman's (or man) life spirals out of control and they start destroying everything that they hold close along with manipulating men close to them to feel a sense of control. However, I think part of my bias against this genre is that I've seen a good number of films released AFTER 1993 that have this premise and I find it quite dull UNLESS it has something meaningful to say or poignant (however, this genre was also explored by many people beforehand, Bergman, Scorsese, Welles, and Tarkovsky being no exception)
Things I like: The cinematography is pretty good, especially for a 90s movie as there was a slump in cinematography expertise during this time period, so I will say that it is a great looking film for the time. I think there are also a lot of little clever techniques used here and there, but nothing super out of the ordinary.
Things I don't like or irritated me:
1) That darn soundtrack blaring in randomly to make some sort of point behind the character's motivation: The movie frequently uses this motif where a character will ask Julie a personal question, melodramatic music will blare, scene cuts to black, wait 3-6 seconds, and then fade back into the scene and she responds to the question with a response that is generally "no". This isn't clever nor is it interesting. It's a bizarre gimmick that I don't think really works and only draws attention to itself as if to impress the audience with "wow, did you see what we did there? We used an audio visual queue every time she evades the pains of her past".
To make matters worse, the soundtrack is finally completed by the end of the film and the lyrics are finally completed to visuals of: Julie having super uncomfortable sex with her friend, a stripper/prostitute (what is European cinema's obsession with the "misunderstood" prostitute trope) who looks like she is nervous to go on stage, and an ultrasound of Julie's husband's mistress' baby... with lyrics taken straight from 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 that have NOTHING to do with what is happening on screen unless you intentionally misinterpret the text itself to make it match what the movie wants them to mean. The implication is supposed to be the different kinds of love shown in the movie, but having that over scenes of a woman having super uncomfortable looking sex with her friend whom she manipulated and mentally abused is pretty dumb way to make any logical connection between the two. It comes across as rather immature and ignorant.
2) It has the dumb trope of "I'm going to befriend my husband's mistress because I feel responsible for her" trope: I've seen this in multiple movies over the years, particularly in Europe, where there is this consistent lens of mistresses not being responsible for tearing apart relationships or causing issues. The movie immediately states that our main character shouldn't be mad at the mistress and one of the first lines from the mistress is "You don't hate me, do you?". Julie then immediately befriends the mistress, gives her all of her property (a giant mansion) and the mistress responds, "I knew you would do this because your husband (who I slept with for years) told me you were a good person. You did the right thing giving me this mansion because you're a good person." Excuse me, what? You BARELY even know this woman, she grants you a mansion FOR FREE and then you tell her that YOU KNEW she would do this? I think most people at that point would probably rescind the offer.
3) As mentioned before hand, the "Hooker with a heart of Gold" trope: This is more of a personal bias, but I genuinely don't understand the disconnect a lot of directors have for this trope where they tend to intentionally ignore how bad the industry is for most women in it and that a lot of women are addicted to drugs or blackmailed to not leave said industry (as well the human-trafficking issues). There's a big difference between humanizing people that are victims of prostitution and simply painting it as "it's a fun job that people choose that should be respected like any other job". The prostitute in question (who apparently is making advances on other men in the apartment complex so much so that people are trying to kick her out) has a scene where she has a nervous breakdown because she sees her dad in the audience of one of her shows, but he is bored by what he sees. This ALMOST could've been the beginning of a really good and engaging scene, but it is then flatlined by it not being developed to a degree that truly makes it meaningful. I understand that the intent of the scene is to contrast Julie with Lucille (the two characters are lit in completely different lighting), where Julie is witnessing what a life without any restraints is like and questions why Lucille lives this lifestyle, but I wish we could've seen some sort of change in Lucille, even if only a little. The scene ends with Lucille being thankful that Julie showed up, saying she enjoys her lifestyle, and that she wishes her dad would've been kicked out of the club, yet hasn't gained any self-awareness of her dichotomy. I just don't understand the purpose of her character in the film if it doesn't really add to the meaning of the film itself. It just feels like a trope thrown in for the sake of it being there.
All in all, not a terrible film, definitely well-made, but I find its themes, conclusion, and certain creative choices to be rather obnoxious and annoying.
Things I like: The cinematography is pretty good, especially for a 90s movie as there was a slump in cinematography expertise during this time period, so I will say that it is a great looking film for the time. I think there are also a lot of little clever techniques used here and there, but nothing super out of the ordinary.
Things I don't like or irritated me:
1) That darn soundtrack blaring in randomly to make some sort of point behind the character's motivation: The movie frequently uses this motif where a character will ask Julie a personal question, melodramatic music will blare, scene cuts to black, wait 3-6 seconds, and then fade back into the scene and she responds to the question with a response that is generally "no". This isn't clever nor is it interesting. It's a bizarre gimmick that I don't think really works and only draws attention to itself as if to impress the audience with "wow, did you see what we did there? We used an audio visual queue every time she evades the pains of her past".
To make matters worse, the soundtrack is finally completed by the end of the film and the lyrics are finally completed to visuals of: Julie having super uncomfortable sex with her friend, a stripper/prostitute (what is European cinema's obsession with the "misunderstood" prostitute trope) who looks like she is nervous to go on stage, and an ultrasound of Julie's husband's mistress' baby... with lyrics taken straight from 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 that have NOTHING to do with what is happening on screen unless you intentionally misinterpret the text itself to make it match what the movie wants them to mean. The implication is supposed to be the different kinds of love shown in the movie, but having that over scenes of a woman having super uncomfortable looking sex with her friend whom she manipulated and mentally abused is pretty dumb way to make any logical connection between the two. It comes across as rather immature and ignorant.
2) It has the dumb trope of "I'm going to befriend my husband's mistress because I feel responsible for her" trope: I've seen this in multiple movies over the years, particularly in Europe, where there is this consistent lens of mistresses not being responsible for tearing apart relationships or causing issues. The movie immediately states that our main character shouldn't be mad at the mistress and one of the first lines from the mistress is "You don't hate me, do you?". Julie then immediately befriends the mistress, gives her all of her property (a giant mansion) and the mistress responds, "I knew you would do this because your husband (who I slept with for years) told me you were a good person. You did the right thing giving me this mansion because you're a good person." Excuse me, what? You BARELY even know this woman, she grants you a mansion FOR FREE and then you tell her that YOU KNEW she would do this? I think most people at that point would probably rescind the offer.
3) As mentioned before hand, the "Hooker with a heart of Gold" trope: This is more of a personal bias, but I genuinely don't understand the disconnect a lot of directors have for this trope where they tend to intentionally ignore how bad the industry is for most women in it and that a lot of women are addicted to drugs or blackmailed to not leave said industry (as well the human-trafficking issues). There's a big difference between humanizing people that are victims of prostitution and simply painting it as "it's a fun job that people choose that should be respected like any other job". The prostitute in question (who apparently is making advances on other men in the apartment complex so much so that people are trying to kick her out) has a scene where she has a nervous breakdown because she sees her dad in the audience of one of her shows, but he is bored by what he sees. This ALMOST could've been the beginning of a really good and engaging scene, but it is then flatlined by it not being developed to a degree that truly makes it meaningful. I understand that the intent of the scene is to contrast Julie with Lucille (the two characters are lit in completely different lighting), where Julie is witnessing what a life without any restraints is like and questions why Lucille lives this lifestyle, but I wish we could've seen some sort of change in Lucille, even if only a little. The scene ends with Lucille being thankful that Julie showed up, saying she enjoys her lifestyle, and that she wishes her dad would've been kicked out of the club, yet hasn't gained any self-awareness of her dichotomy. I just don't understand the purpose of her character in the film if it doesn't really add to the meaning of the film itself. It just feels like a trope thrown in for the sake of it being there.
All in all, not a terrible film, definitely well-made, but I find its themes, conclusion, and certain creative choices to be rather obnoxious and annoying.