IMDb user comments for
Dangerous Game (1993) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Index

19 comments in total

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Infidelity, Sex, Drugs and Booze, 19 April 2008

Author: Claudio Carvalho from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

While shooting a movie in Los Angeles about the abused wife Sarah Jennings (Madonna) that has converted to Christian and her husband Francis Burns (James Russo) that misses their orgies, the New Yorker director Eddie Israel (Harvey Keitel) pushes his lead actor and actress to the edge affecting their real lives. Eddie has one brief affair with Sarah but he feels also affected by his work and confesses the truth about his many infidelities to his wife Mad Israel (Nancy Ferrara), blurring fiction and reality and destroying his marriage.

"Dangerous Game" is a sort of experimental "movie within a movie" showing a parallel journey to hell of the character, lead actor and director blended with sex, drugs and booze. The result is a strange and unpleasant movie but very well acted, especially by Madonna that has a magnificent and very convincing performance. It is not entertaining and certainly not the best film of Abel Ferrara, but for fans like me it is worthwhile watching it. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Olhos de Serpente" ("Eyes of Snake")

---

8 out of 12 people found the following comment useful :-
Harvey Keitel-Bad Filmmaker, 14 December 2003
Author: saicalum

If you have a dark world view and a great deal of patience,

Dangerous Game might be the flick for you. It made me think

about the individual scenes that make a film, and the performances therein that elicit a particular response in the viewer. The whole movie is difficult to watch-at times I had to look away.

On the surface one might dismiss it as Crackhead Cassavetes.

But Keitel's character Eddie Israel and real-life director Abel

Ferrara's intentions run parallel-both men lead their actors on a

descent into a personalized hell. The script on occasion seems

ponderous and repetitive-at some points it seems as though

director Eddie Israel's film-within-a-film consists of only one

scene. James Russo (always creepy to watch) is a tightly-wound

sickening knot as Burns, and Madonna's portrayal of Sarah as

victim is an equally punishing one, both for the actress and the

viewer. And when Keitel hits you with the signature half-whine,

half-howl we hate to love him for, the fat lady has sung. There isn't

one weak performance in this film, but it's not fun at all. You

wonder why this is called entertainment. It's entertaining in the

same way watching two strangers nearly come to blows is

entertaining-you end up feeling good because it's not happening

to you.

---

9 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
Gotta Give It Credit, 5 January 2002

Author: GigoloJoe1814 from USA

Madonna is known for not being the best actress, and she agrees, as seen in her documentary "Truth or Dare." However, the fact is, in this movie, Madonna gives the best performance I have seen. I believe it is even better than Evita. The way the movie is set up is also interesting, crossing between a the story, scenes from the film in the story, and a documentary about the film within the story. Yet, the set up isn't confusing at all. I would consider it one of my favourite movies along with Madonna's best.

---

9 out of 14 people found the following comment useful :-
the pleasure of playing dangerously, 3 December 2000

Author: chrom from Montreal, Quebec

Why has this movie not benefited of a good release? I discovered it one night, as it was screened on the tv, and I was simply astonished. This a total perverse movie, playing on the edge of reality & fiction. Simply troubling,and dangerous. If you like getting close to the edge of things...

---

5 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Madonna Hated This Movie, 22 March 2006

Author: sjeannep from Detroit, Michigan

This is a strange and disturbing experimental movie. A rare and great performance by Madonna. She actually can act under the control of the right director. Although, I hear she hated. It seems ironic that she finally makes a good movie and doesn't even realize it. I guess she made some complaints that she thought her character was going to be stronger. (Funny, if she wants to be a Feminist Avenger, or some kind of role model of strength, maybe she shouldn't have made a career out of exploiting herself for fame and the all mighty dollar. Okay, now I'm ranting, but isn't funny how men are especially really down with the NeoFeminist Bull about how it's actually empowering for women to exploit themselves.) Ferrara plays with the autobiographical nature of the subject matter. The plot centers on a film director who compartmentalizes his personal and professional life, until the secrets of his professional life overwhelm him.

---

7 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
A Strange Movie..., 10 January 2004
Author: Steven (spyin78@aol.com) from New York

Being a HUGE Madonna fan I had to have this film. Dangerous Game is good and bad for many reasons. First.. It's confusing...but mainly because you don't know where the characters who are playing characters start and end. But that also may be what the director intended.

Second.. the editing.. it was rushed or done on equipment that was of little quality. There are times when the dubs are not with the video.. some parts are a mess.. but again.. intended or not?

Thirdly the acting. Keitel is ... well... Keitel... not too much of a stretch.. Keitel, Russo, and Madonna often times seem to improvise... few lines seem scripted.

Sidebar on Madonna and acting...

Madonna usually has a shining moment or two in most of her films, but more often than not Madonna and acting don't mix. I can say that because I am a Madonna fan. Madonna is the "Queen Of Deadpan," she says a line and... NOTHING. She seems to be thinking about her next line while the other person is speaking, which hinders delivery and expression... plus she blinks WAY too much. Those are her biggest acting flaws... DIRECTORS TAKE NOTE... I summed it up... VOILA!

But I digress...

In Dangerous Game, Madonna shows us some of her BEST ACTING TO DATE! There are countless scenes where she is not left to carry the film. She lets her hair down and is actually believable. The scene near the end.. with Keitel actually egging her on to get a REAL reaction. "You think you're so smart"... is BRILLIANT!

Finally... Often times there are scenes where the director seems to use genuine behind-the-scenes footage of Madonna, Keitel and Russo. Sadly the only reason I say this is because Madonna's acting is too good and her performance too genuine. This again confuses the audience. Intended or not?

This film is extremely choppy... very gritty... very dirty... very raw... very sick... very violent..

but very boring in some sections...

I didn't enjoy this film the first time I saw it, and often times I fast forward through scenes when I watch it today. But, the film does have some quality to it that makes you ask... Was that supposed to happen? Is that Madonna or Sarah or what? Did they? Did She? Oh My!

If you like a movie where the ending is not black and white you'll enjoy Dangerous Game.

---

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
An interesting film, with many a hidden secrets, 7 April 2008

Author: winsumlosesum from United Kingdom

Not a particularly entertaining movie this one, but definitely an interesting watch when you take into consideration not only the movie, but the similarities which surrounded its release. And of course Madonna, who (unwittingly?) gives the best performance of her much ridiculed celluloid career.

The film revolves around director Eddie Israel (Keitel) and his supporting cast members in their journey to film the uber-dark relationship drama 'Mother of Mirrors'. Starring alcoholic drug dependent Francis Burns (James Russo) and recent Christian convert Sarah Jennings (Madonna) the film within a film blurs over into real life, leaving the viewer confused about whether the actors are acting their character in 'Mother', their character in 'Dangerous Game' or even their character in real life. The confusion even seems apparent on set, with one directors clapper-board shots with the movies real director A. Ferrara noted on it.

In reality, Ferrara had to resort to accepting finance for the film by Madonna's Maverick Films and thus also accepting its MD as his leading actress. Madonna once said that when she attended the premiere she left the theatre crying as it was in her eyes a completely different movie, and all her best scenes were cut. Dig a little deeper with this one and you might be able to see the underlying story which is far more interesting than what's bubbling on the surface.

---

2 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
it's a difficult and flawed film, but it has some very strong merits in the Ferrara vein, 3 January 2007

Author: MisterWhiplash from United States

As a follow-up to Bad Lieutenant, which could be a possibility for director Abel Ferrara's best work to date (or at least most thought provoking), Dangerous Game aims for lower targets while trying for a similar approach to the dregs of a character's soul. Once again Harvey Keitel is the doomed figure, a man with such a self-destructive impulse that it'll lead him to nowhere decent. But this time he's not a cop on completely the edge of society and self, but a movie director who is making a film with such high-intensity, raw emotional drama that it would make John Cassavetes wince. The main actors in Eddie's movie (Keitel) are Sara (Madonna) and Francis (James Russo) become victim to that old tune of art imitating life, or vice versa (as the chicken came from the egg and back again sort of thing) that starts to make the film within Dangerous Game a very volatile situation. All the while Eddie's demands on his actors involve spiritual death via drugs and alcohol and mutual decay towards one another, an abusive relationship where the sexual games have gone sour and all that's left is remorse and contempt depending on the beat. Soon this seeps out for real, as Francis can't distinguish from acting or reality, and a rape scene within the movie becomes all too real on the set. And, of course, this leads further for Eddie's own path of horror.

Unlike Ferrara's previous film, this time Keitel's character doesn't have that possibility for redemption- in Hollywood, in search of the most brutally honest picture, Eddie Israel won't stop until he practically gets what he's got bottled up inside right onto screen, no matter what it does to his actors whom he professes to enjoy and be friendly with (and with Sara more-so). He indulges in drink and more importantly women via the movie business, while still keeping up appearances with his wife (Nancy Ferrara) and little boy. So with this lack of Eddie meeting towards any kind of possible sign of hope- and keep in mind the Herzog clip from Burden of Dreams- it's almost despair for despair's sake. And watching the scenes being filmed by the actors(The Mother of the Mirrors), though not totally awful, I'm reminded of the old Gene Siskel line about the actors eating lunch being more interesting than the movie itself. Still with these flaws noticed, not to mention a very strange ending that leaves off the character's in some kind of demise either real or filmic (maybe it's the point), it's still a good film, or rather a film that defies its own experimental boundaries to be always fascinating, if only to a film buff like myself.

I liked individual scenes very much, like one where Keitel's character directs Madonna's Sara into delivering lines to the camera believably by insulting her as a 'commercial whore', to which she finally gives him what he wants (it's something that is sometimes mentioned among directors or other actors trying to get believable turns by the other actor), or in seeing the a very understated scene where Keitel and Madonna do a slow dance out by a pool and he sings a soft tune. I also loved the scene involving Keitel and Ferrara (how she's related to the director I don't know) when he reveals to her his major transgressions as she has returned home for her father's funeral (just casting her, too, is wise in showing someone very believable as a person in Hollywood's good & normal side). What helps too is the willingness of the principle actors to just give it their all, as if they'd kill to get what they're doing right for the director, murky script and all. Truth be told, I found this to be a real high point for Madonna as an actress, not playing some easier part to play like in Desperately Seeking Susan or League of Their Own, but having to actually tap into her more decadent side that she loved (at the time) to make as a part of her media image. Russo, too, is good here, if maybe almost dangerously one-note as a man so intense and "method" that he threatens the whole production.

Finally, there's Keitel, who never ceases to amaze me with what he can do even in moments when the material gives him little to do but to look off in a scene with a stare or expression of inner-hell. Actually, that's one of the things he's probably perfected since the 1970s. He has moments where he bends his demanding exterior, and there's tenderness to be found within the self-destructiveness in Eddie. The only problem then lies with Keitel lacking a means to really channel this into something leading somewhere- by the end his character doesn't know what he'll do with the film, or how to finish it, and this sort of abrupt ending leaves the actors as well as the film in the cold. But as a film about film-making, I've seen worse, and I might even like it more if I catch it late one night on cable (definitely *that* kind of movie).

---

6 out of 11 people found the following comment useful :-
Good acting, bad movie, 10 March 2001

Author: smatysia (feldene@comcast.net) from Houston

A number of good performances in this film. Harvey Keitel, as always, plays an unflattering character in a thoroughly professional manner, never succumbing to the temptation to overact. James Russo was way over the top, although that's not a criticism of him, that's the way the role is written. Madonna was quite good here, too, a lot of quiet, soulful eyes. I even liked Nancy Ferrara, who appears to be the director's wife, in a fairly substantial role. However, the movie overall bored me. A lot. Maybe I missed something, but this film did not hold my interest at all. Grade: F

---

4 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
The joke's on Madonna..., 13 May 2002
Author: al666940 from Auckland, New Zealand

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

(SPOILERS)

Well, well, well, finally someone got the better of her. If you compare the similarities between real the movie and the story (Madonna's label Maverick produced this, and she's considered a non talented bimbo actress in the independent movie circuit. In the story her character get to be in the movie only because that way the director can finance it, and he despises her for being a commercial piece of sh#$) you'll see that Madonna mocked herself in the movie, but she didn't realize this until it was too late. It's even captured on film the exact moment she understands this. When the director Israel is rehearsing with her (him reading the lines from the other actor), when she can't get in the right attitude, he starts ad-libbing insulting her big time. He taunts her saying she's a commercial piece of sh$%, and reminds her that he doesn't need her, she needs him (she WANTS to be in this movie) and as he angers her immediately encourages her to say her lines, and at first Madonna looks REALLY puzzled and, as Israel says "do the lines, you commercial piece of sh$%, do the lines...", suddenly she looks as she realized something, and gets really pi#"$% off, and after hesitating for a second, says her lines real good. Well, I think that was Madonna not acting, but realizing that all those insults were directed not at her character, but at herself personally (the director Israel played by Keitel obviously represents the actual film director and writer Ferrara) because that's what most likely Ferrara and Keitel think of her as and actress.

I know, sounds too elaborated, but think of this: she's not a good actress, so that reaction (looked way to real) must have being real, not acted out. And all the similarities between her character and herself are too many and too obvious to be coincidence, and all the insults were dead on. So Ferrara and Keitel gave a piece of their mind (also Russo for that matter) and got away with it. If she wants to be in an artsy film, she has to take it up the @$$, again as her character takes it from Russo and many others according to their home movies.

---

---

Page 1 of 2:

[1] [2]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Ratings	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history