Why is this woman taking that little Puerto Rican boy with her? She never even liked children! I guess she had to. It's just like the story says. Everyone died, and she had to keep the kid. This is a strange story. Here's a woman that, even though she's on parole, is evidently in full control of her destiny. ...And now, with a little Puerto Rican, that says she's her mother, father, sister, girlfriend, everything. I guess is good if the boy does not swell the statistics of the child protection offices in the tri-state area. The kid could very well have wound up in Paterson, and part of the famous "corridor". She did nothing to cause the child's predicament. I guess she felt a kinship, also victimized. There are two things I liked a lot about this movie. The story is not one of them. I can think of other Stone films where the story was one I understood and liked better, for instance, Sliver. But this film is quite an achievement, I think. I often felt as if I was watching a very current film, directed by Hitchcock. A lot of sequences look quite a bit more artistic, than one would expect to go with the story, while simultaneously remaining perfectly current. I think Sharon was, as always, real good. Her fans will recognize her best as the great piece she is, during the first scenes, when she leaves the pen in NJ. But after that, everything takes a back seat to the problem with the Puerto Rican bundle of joy. I recognized Lyndhurst Castle, one of the oldest buildings in NJ, where the school scene was filmed. And although I have never been to any of those localities in the city, the film makes them look familiar but not so threatening. I wonder what happened next, did she become the little boy's mother? Did they live together in blissful domesticity? Well, in any case she did a great job with the boys I thought. I won't see this one seven times, like Sliver, but I'll see it again.
Review of Gloria
