1980 John Cassavetes film "Gloria"

Basically, does it get better?

I’m thirty minutes into this film and so far am hating every frakking second of it.

Gena Rowlands was nominated for an Oscar (hence it being on my “to watch” list), and all I can say so far is that she is the best thing about the movie.

But that ain’t sayin’ much. I don’t ask much of a movie I’m willing to watch while exercising at 7:00 am, but so far I’ve noticed what appear to be two glaring continuity errors, one spectacularly bad special effect, and an metric ass-load of bad writing and acting.

No spoilers, please, at least until I decide if I’m going to finish watching it.

No, it doesn’t really get any better. And yet, it’s somehow worth watching.

No, it keeps on sucking. That kid is the worst child actor I’ve ever seen, and I mean including that kid who played Seven on Married with Children.

not one of Cassavetes’s better moments - mostly worth seeing for Gena. Watch any of his other movies from Shadows to Love Streams instead, or to see a similar story told better, try Julia with Tilda Swinton.

I didn’t mean to abandon this. Short follow-up: I agree with Two Many Cats. This movie starts bad and never gets better. It will take a lot of convincing before I give this director another chance to impress me.

Gloria is not one of his better films, but it is one of his more accessible films.
Now, I happen to love Cassavetes but I’m going to disagree with jordanr2- from your frustration with this film, I expect his other films would just infuriate you. Oh, and not a one of them is good for a movie to watch while exercising at 7:00 am.

All of his films were highly improvised which would lead to plenty of continuity errors and awkward editing when a performance would differ so much from one take to the next. The acting was always wonderful, invigorated by the improvisation, but the actors’ improvised “writing” could often be ham-fisted.

And again, I say this as someone who loves Cassavetes.