English

العربية

Filipino

Français

हिन्दी

Indonesia

বাংলা

اردو

中文

123movies search icon

muted

Up Close & Personal

6.1

/10

16255 تقييم

1996•2 h 4 m•United States

An ambitious young woman, determined to build a career in television journalism, gets good advice from her first boss, and they fall in love.

Drama

Romance

ممثلون (18)

Michelle Pfeiffer

Stockard Channing

Bucky Terranova

Joanna Kennelly

Fernando Buttanda

Miguel Sandoval

Noble Willingham

Brian Markinson

Robert Keith Watson

مقترح

تقييمات

BEBITO

18/07/2024 15:42

Up Close & Personal-360P

Asma Sherif Moneer

16/07/2024 07:34

Up Close & Personal-720P

David👑

16/07/2024 07:34

Up Close & Personal-480P

noura_med

23/05/2023 05:42

In trying to find a half-decent romantic film to see, I came upon this one. Never heard of the director, but seeing that both Michelle Pfeiffer Robert Redford are in it, I thought it couldn't be too bad. Boy was I wrong. I don't even know where to start from because everything sucked, but will try anyway: - The script sucked in every way imaginable. Story that moves by force, where everything happens in a poorly constructed dialogue (nothing is shown, we are told what to think) and where occasional emotional outbursts happen on cue because it's an end of an act... People fall in love, not because they look like they are in love, but because they say so. If they didn't say it I would not know it to be honest. Even when they are kissing, I didn't believe it. It was not so much the acting, but simply the story that managed to leave me entirely disinterested. Dialogues were forced, with plenty of TV network jargon and pretentious coolness to it, but with zero substance, or motivation or even meaning. Such a horrible script cannot inspire even the best of actors to perform. Not a single scene has real motivation behind it. Just out of the blue, someone will get upset or angry, or they will say they are in love, or they will show hatred for someone. But it all stinks of "I don't know why, but all the books on screen writing say I should have a conflict by this page, so..." To Robert Redford's credit, he manages to be good, all things considered. I love Michelle Pfeiffer, but could hardly watch her in this train wreck. Her good looks did nothing to help the situation. Her performance was the worst ever of all her movies I've seen (and I've seen most of them). Then there is the terrible story which is moving by force. A trailer trash (Pfeiffer) who looks nothing like trailer trash, comes to Miami to become a TV anchor. She sucks, but they hire her. She sucks some more at her work, but they promote her. Just like that. She sucks even more, and she gets an even better offer. Then she gets stuck in a jail when a riot brakes out, and she gives an uninspired report from that chaos, and gets an even better job. Robert Redford is madly in love with her, for no good reason, except that maybe he has a thing for untalented trailer trash. And then there is the awful ending which I will not disclose here as it would be spoilers, but will just say that I almost threw things at the TV screen. I guess the writer/ director noticed that film was a flat-liner so they forced an emotional ending. Emotional it was, but in the "WTF?" way. All in all, this film is a good study in "how to not make a movie". Or better yet: how not to write a film, how not to direct it, and how not to act in a leading role. Garbage all around. Pure and simple.

SAMO ZAEN سامو زين

23/05/2023 05:42

I don't know what it is about this movie, it starred Redford and Pfeifer and had an interesting plot. I didn't enjoy this movie that much in spite of that. I think this was supposed to follow the life of Jessica Savage who I had an interest in knowing more. Yet this picture just had something missing. I think there were several things wrong with this movie number one being, watching it I felt the plot really seemed focused on Pfeifer's incredible wardrobe and numerous hairstyles. That seemed to be the focus of the story more then anything about a broadcaster-Jessica Savage or ANYONE. The movie's direction seemed to have as it's focal point, not the characters and their range of emotions but instead Pfeifer's numerous wardrobe changes and expensive hair, clothes and accessories. Myabe that wasn't the movie's intention but after awhile multiple outfit changes can get pretty played, especially if there's no hook to hang the outfits on. In this case there wasn't much of one. The story started out interesting but there was a spark, an edge missing ealy on and the movie never came into it's own or developed any kind of fire. The chemistry between Pfeifer and Redford which should have been intense was actually mild and the movie never picked up momentum-though Michelle's outfits continued to change... There was a TV movie which unfortunately I can't remember the title of at the current moment but it was the story of Jessica Savidge and was much better all around. But even if this had been a fictional story-Up Close and Personal just to me never went above a 5.5 maybe a 6 rating. To much focus on exteriers instead of interiers and the character development didn't go deep enough. Slightly above average(at the most).

نادر الرويعي

23/05/2023 05:42

My girlfriend told me I'd enjoy the movie and I WOULD have, had `Up Close and Personal' been a little piece of fluff, a romantic comedy in a `Broadcast News' setting. Alas, a few minutes into the film, I released, `Uh, oh, they are playing this SERIOUS,' and spent the rest of the movie enduring an utterly unconvincing piece of liberal propaganda. Michelle Pfeiffer may be a stunningly attractive lady, but she obviously lacks the skills necessary to be newscaster, much less a network superstar. The great song `Because You Loved Me' seems out of place in the narrative, an appropriate commentary for the problems with plague the entire movie. Possible Spoilers: Pfeiffer is totally unprepared in manners of dress or how she should expect to be treated when she arrives at her first job. Yet she was prepared enough to fake her demo tape and recognizes Redford as a former Washington Bureau reporter who embarrassed President Bush (Sr.) and the president's press secretary. Redford's initial condescending behavior of Pfeiffer bordered on sexual harrassment. Here it is treated as `charming.' Redford's character appears to be an unforgiving taskmaster, yet he `forgives' any number of Pfeiffer's mistakes. Certainly, he sees no ethical problem with Pfeiffer committing fraud to get her job. That Redford's career could have been "finished" by one bad story seems ridiculous considering the howlers delivered by Dan Rather et al. almost every week. Does anyone remember the faked Chevy truck film, "Tailwind," etc? Pfeiffer's `far left' takes on her stories might have been `fresh' and `trendy' in the 1960s. Today, they should be seen as either laughably naïve or discredited. Certainly, they are `politically correct' enough to discount Pfeiffer standing out from the competition, an absolute necessity if one expects to be the next `Katie Couric.' As usual in a Redford movie, all the political transgressions are made by Republicans. Since Pfeiffer works out of Philadelphia, one would think she might have found a story linking the Branch Davidian disaster in Waco to liberal Democrat former mayor Wilson Goode burning down an entire black neighborhood under the direction of the FBI Hostage Rescue Team during the 1980s. No, I guess that would be too honest for liberals, who seem to believe other liberals can do no wrong, because being a good liberal means `believing' in the "right things," not necessarily practicing them. Redford and Pfeiffer may have given us a pretty bouquet, but only being it is so well fertilized.

Omar_nino_brown

23/05/2023 05:42

This story, and the director who envisioned it have serious flaws and misconceptions about what an audience will accept. And none of this is the fault of the actors. Pfeiffer usually rises above content ("White Oleander" and "Frankie and Johnnie"). And we expect more from Redford.I am very curious why he accepted this role. This film was based on Joan Didion's career as a TV newscaster, and was written by John Gregory Dunne. Didion always delivers (her novel "Play it as it Lays" was unique realism). This movie however, has the worst screenplay I have seen in some time. Joe Mantegna as "Bucky Terranova" a TV bigwig-enough said. Mantegna is limited in scope, and his part in this movie serves as unintentional comedy. Pfeiffer is portrayed in a misogynistic ditzy form- she wears a bright pink suit to interview for a job at a major TV station- she looks more like the Mayflower Madam. The crux of the story is, she is simply trying to make it in the big bad world of TV journalism. I doubt this topic would work today, since most educated audiences realize "correspondents" are talking heads, bought and paid for by slanted political interest groups. As "Tally" (as she is so fondly called by Redford), is helped by him to move up the ladder of success, she is miraculously transferred from Miami to Philadelphia, where people like Stockard Channing reign supreme (i.e. the audience likes to see a woman who can read and speak properly!). An amusing scene is when Tally reports Fernando Buttanda (Ray Cruz) has won a prize for the first New Year baby in Miami. Anyone who has ever lived in South Florida will be laughing at this banality. "Deco Drive" is the most popular TV show in South Florida right now, so a newsgirl reporting fluff would NEVER get a northeastern market unless; ah yes, she is involved with veteran Redford, who has connections. That being said, this movie proves you can have excellent actors, who cannot resurrect bad material. I have liked most of the actors in other projects, (Redford, Nelligan, Pfeiffer and Channing). They should have passed on this one.

user51 towie

23/05/2023 05:42

Michelle Pfeiffer is a wonderful actress who brings her characters alive. The movie was heartwarming because of her performance. The plot was realistic and well done. Robert Redford did a far better job in this flick than he has in most of his other movies. Pfeiffer and Redford seem to have great chemistry. This combination works well. I highly recommend this movie since a lot of information about what goes on behind the scenes in the news industry are highlighted. I am writing this review in 2005 and the issues we are dealing with in this era were addressed in Up Close and Personal which was made in 1996. Pfeiffer's character remarked that the news was based on what the sponsors wanted; the one major complaint about the news media today is that it is corporate-owned and corporate controlled. So, we don't get the real deal when watching the news. We need PBS and Link TV to get the real news, but mainstream media is exactly as Up Close and Personal portrayed it. Great job! Thank you, Michelle

Marie ines Duranton

23/05/2023 05:42

Even though I feel Robert Redford is getting a bit old to play the romantic hero, I did enjoy this movie. I liked the newsroom setting. I felt Michelle Pfeiffer gave a very good performance and that she and Mr. Redford had a very likeable chemistry. I didn't care for the ending, but it was good viewing on the whole. A good love story.

user4529234120238

23/05/2023 05:42

The film tries to give an idea of the difficulties of TV journalists to succeed and the problems they may face during the job. The director of the film seems to be interested of what may happen in Cuba, and the film touches partially the ethic of contra group in Miami. It also shows how mass media are always behind sensation of the news, sometimes sacrificing the life of the reporters, and this is what happened to Robert Redford, one of the heros of the film. This is not an easy film to be seen, but the argument is acceptable.