User Reviews

There is a substantial list of reasons why this is not a particularly good movie, but not much point in going into them. That being said, there are some very good reasons to watch it, and it's not a bad movie either. Be prepared to tolerate some annoying lighting (which, though, is sometimes quite good) and plot twists, and some slow spots, and you might just enjoy much about it.

For one, the performances are just about all good to very good, usually, and I think in this case, a sign of good directing. Michelle Pfeiffer is huge fun to watch in one of her relatively early roles, several orders of magnitude better than in Scarface, made about the same time. That wonderful quality of hers of showing us her thoughts moment to moment through subtle shifts of expression is on full display here. Her character here is talented and complex, and that and the situations that arise give her plenty of opportunity to show it. Hector Elizondo and Darren McGaven (not listed above, but definitely a major character) also give good, nicely nuanced performances, and so do several minor characters.

Another appealing plus is that there's real chemistry between and among the performers. Pfeiffer's love scenes with a chemist she meets due to a fender bender (I've forgotten his name, sorry) are staged and charged with a subtle energy that most movie love scenes, for all their frenetic movement and heavy breathing, don't even hint at. Her interactions with her director on the set and with Elizondo also seem quietly real, the depth (or lack thereof) of their friendships evident in the mundane daily interactions all of us know. I can think of ten or twelve very nice moments, some among minor characters, that are wonderfully realized, and a reminder that any movie can be made with insight and humane intelligence: yes, these are insignificant and often misguided individuals, but they are human beings, too, and aren't they, the movie asks, interesting to watch? The script is problematic mostly because it's in service to the uneven plot, but much of the dialogue is realistic, with people having real conversations, rather than spouting epigrams and staring meaningfully at each other. And it's often clever, as well.

So, yes, this is indeed a small and very minor movie, and yes, everybody involved had to know it. And yes, the plot has some serious deficiencies, particularly a completely unexpected and unsatisfying ending, and the principles knew that, too. But they went about their business as professionals, and shrewd, talented, and intelligent professionals at that. I was annoyed at the ending, but enjoyed the movie considerably more than the average Hollywood dreck.

I picked this up for $1 while looking through dvds at a dollar store. The synopsis was what attracted me (love old-Hollywood "user" films with murder). The next thing that made me look was the actress, Michelle Pfeiffer. She is always good film material for looks as well as ability and she did not prove me wrong with this one. The others involved, also, were good in their roles - especially Darren McGavin, Hector Elizondo, and Lois Chiles.....you could feel the venom dripping from their lips at times. Would like to commend the work of Brian Kerwin as well....nice looking hunk with plenty of chemistry in the sex scenes. Certainly worth the $1 I paid for it and more. Too bad about the ending. A complete bummer. Did they run over budget and have to stop or was it just a bungled script accident? Almost killed what could have been a neat "Hollywood-noir" film.

While it has a a very good cast (Michelle Pfeiffer and Hector Elizondo, especially), it just doesn't seem to go anywhere. The center is the young actress who is jealous of her high school friends who are married. She never had that chance. She finds herself in a doomed relationship, but is at the beck and call of the studio. There is a lot of driving around in some pretty fancy classic cars. There is some interesting inside cinema from the period. The story is an old one and doesn't offer much that is new. There is a great deal of pain inflicted. The subplot is a group of vulturous has beens who are trying to recoup their careers through the big producer (Darren McGavin). A fly hits the ointment. Unfortunately, it's a big fly and it pretty much decimates this subplot. Without ruining anything, everything is heading for a tragedy. Pfeiffer's acting is very good. She was certainly heading for stardom. But low budget and empty script can only combine to detract from performance. Not a very substantial effort.

I bought this on DVD for my brother who is a big Michelle Pfeiffer fan. I decided to watch it myself earlier this week.

It is a reasonably entertaining piece containing two completely separate story lines. The section with Michelle Pfeiffer was by far the more interesting of the two. She plays a rising Hollywood actress who has had many short unfulfilling relationships. She literally bumps into Brian Kerwin (A regular married guy with Kids)after driving her car into the back of his. After being initially hostile to one another he offers to drive her home as she no longer feels comfortable to drive. Romance develops eventually leading to tragedy when his wife finds out. What happens at the end I was not prepared for but the slow pacing and routine TV direction takes any drama out of the plot.

The other section involves an old Studio boss played by Darren McGavin. This section actually has the better cast with Kenneth McMillan, Lois Chiles, Steven Bauer & Stella Stevens. They all want something from the studio boss but in the end when he is asked to resign, they all realize their careers will now be going nowhere.

It passes the time but is not all that interesting and I am glad this was not bought for me. I am not a Michelle Pffeifer fan but she was admittedly the only actor worth watching in this film and even in 1983 she was a decent actress. Overall though unless you are a fan of hers avoid this as it is very routine.

Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.

OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.

The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.

My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.

For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.

The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.

I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.

Here Kitty, Kitty...

Tom Willett

So the other night I decided to watch Tales from the Hollywood Hills: Natica Jackson. Or Power, Passion, Murder as it is called in Holland. When I bought the film I noticed that Michelle Pfeiffer was starring in it and I thought that had to say something about the quality. Unfortunately, it didn't.

1) The plot of the film is really confusing. There are two story lines running simultaneously during the film. Only they have nothing in common. Throughout the entire movie I was waiting for the moment these two story lines would come together so the plot would be clear to me. But it still hasn't.

2) The title of the film says the film will be about Natica Jackson. Well it is, sometimes. Like said the film covers two different stories and the part about Natica Jackson is the shortest. So another title for this movie would not be a wrong choice.

To conclude my story, I really recommend that you leave this movie where it belongs, on the shelf in the store on a place nobody can see it. By doing this you won't waste 90 minutes of your life, as I did.

I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.

Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good.

I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand.

The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief.

I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud.

Watched on Amazon. The sound was sooo bad and barely understandable. Yikes, the film stock was very blurry, top it off with a disjointed script and bad direction....wow you have something you MUST watch (if only to wonder who knew who to get this piece of "art" filmed). Apparently this was a TV movie....so, there you have it. Nevertheless, a must see "to see" big stars from 1987 who were not that big yet, a la Michelle Pheifer. And for film students around the world: study this film and learn what not to do. Worth watching.

The original version "Naticia Jackson" was part of the series "Tales from the Hollywood Hills" and runs 56 minutes. The home video edition called "Power, Passion and Murders" combined two episodes from the series (the other episode is "A Table at Ciro's"). The problem is, that they inter-cut both stories instead to show just one after the other, which is pretty confusing. Try to watch the original, which is an excellent piece about the classic days of Hollywood in the 30's. Michelle Pfeiffer is unbelievable good as the screen goddess Natica Jackson (reminescent of Veronica Lake, Jean Harlow, Rita Hayworth and all the others).

I thought there was an interesting intersection of themes in this short piece. I think the art direction and the pacing is quite nice. I think it's actually one of Michelle Pfeiffer's more interesting works as an actress. The piece was engaging enough that I went and tracked down the John O'Hara short story it was based on, which is quite lovely. The filmmakers managed to convey the same feeling of distance the story possessed, which is rare for an adaptation. I actually just read an old Paris Review that interviewed Budd Schulberg, who worked on this as well, he was quite a character. So I suppose I'm simply pleased this little piece exists. I would recommend it for many reasons and I'm quite surprised that it has garnered such negativity from other reviewers.

Missed this TV film and recently obtained the DVD for One Buck and thought it was a very well produced and directed film. The film portrays the 1930's and you will see all the antique cars, fashions and old furniture. There is an older film producer and his wife who have been around Hollywood for a long time and his wife Goes One Way in the marriage and he goes The Other Way. If the husband likes a young innocent gal looking for stardom, he eventually puts her on a casting couch and nature takes it's course. Michelle Pfeiffer,(Natica Jackson),"What Lies Beneath",2000, is a big Hollywood star who has had many men, but finds herself falling in love with a man who has a wife and several children. There is plenty of romance, drama and typical Hollywood problems in the 1930's.