dromasca 'Artworks' trues to take a rather classical story of seduction and theft and place it in the world of arts. It succeeds rather well on this respect, the setting is good, the camera work decent, the music fits well the action and the art works that play quite an important role in the film are good and credible. The problem of the film is that the theft story itself is pretty uninteresting and predictable. Worse, the characters are brought to the phase where they quite expectedly get into trouble at about three quarters of the screening time and then the rhythm changes, what was a decent psychological movie turns into some kind of remote controlled documentary and the movie ends with quite a banal and and rather anti-moral solution. Virginia Madsen and Rick Rossovic are a rather un-balanced cast for the film, she is sexy and interesting, he is artificial and boring and the relationship between the two does not work on the screen. Overall the film is not too bad, but it will be too easy to forget because of the lack of ambition, excepting the style.

stuman-2 The flick has genuine entertainment value. At the same time, one can't take it too seriously as gaps in scenes and plot prevail. But, that's OK as this movie is generally enjoyable. I've loved Virginia Madsen for a long time and she looks her sexy best albeit with some obvious good plastic having picked up her somewhat bulging eye type. Her look now is just classy and pretty. There is no one sexier around. Madsen knows what she has and uses it perfectly in Artworks. I didn't find Rick Rossovich to be a good match with Virginia. Somehow he just doesn't do it like say Don Johnson did in another film done with Viginia Madsen. Net net however, the idea is very good and that's what works so well along of course with Madsen's acting and seething hot style. She has a knockout perfect figure, and has never looked better. She now fits into this movie like a glove. Artworks is simply one of those movies, despite it's many gaps, that just entertains, is not too long or too short and then leaves a lot of good ideas for the viewer's imagination. A nice idea but to be taken with a serious grain of pepper. Look out for this movie on cable or rent it. You'll enjoy for the duration of the picture and then most likely will forget it, save Virginia Madsen, of course.'

phoenix1955again The premise of her entering this lifestyle after losing a baby is quite interesting to me, as I am well aware that grief can turn a person's life totally around, for better or worse. The fact that she shows remorse when she sees a photograph of her husband, but that remorse does not deter her from continuing is a touch that I find realistic. She's trying to fill the void in her life with thrill experiences, and that doesn't always mean sex scenes. I do think the husband gave up far too easily, however. By the way, I disagree with the other user, and I happen to appreciate Rossovich's looks. Sure, it could have been better written, but I think the acting levels are very good in this movie, and I would watch it again!

clyons Basically, that's all there is to say about it. You watch for the art, the dialogue, the acting, the look of the film, the fascinating inside look at the art world, and the unbelievable chemistry between Virginia Madsen and Rick Rossovich. Hell, just seeing Virginia Madsen, who has NEVER looked better, in a role where she is both seduced and seducer, makes it worthwhile. Just entering her fourth decade as she made this film, she radiates sexual charisma, while showing remarkable acting chops in the process. One of the most criminally underutilized actresses in Hollywood, without question--hopefully that will change now. And btw, she was ROBBED at the Oscars.Emma Becker is a woman in a bad marriage, who feels a special love for lesser known works of art that are ignored and neglected by the shallow people who own them. Rossovich plays Bret, a gallery owner who shares that love, and sees right away that the neglected work of art he most wants to acquire is Emma herself. The best thing about this movie, in fact, is the way it allows all us longtime Madsen-watchers to just bliss out on one of the most beautiful women ever to appear on film--particularly since most of her movies just don't allow her beauty to shine out the way this one does. (And unfortunately, most of her movies make this movie look like a classic.) One irony that occurred to me while watching it on Showtime--Madsen herself has come back into vogue since making this movie, thanks to "Sideways"--probably the main reason "Artworks" is now on DVD and getting shown fairly often on cable. A neat parallel with the events of the film. But while "Sideways" is a better movie than "Artworks" in general terms, "Artworks" is a better movie than "Sideways" if you're a Madsen-holic. And I don't mean her tough guy brother Michael, though he's pretty cool too. (g) There are no good guys or bad guys in this picture--in the end, it's just about people going after what they want, and the not-so-terrible price they pay, and you aren't supposed to sympathize--just recognize that part of yourself that might do the same thing in their place.You ask yourself--did Bret seduce Emma because he needed her to pull the perfect heist? Or did he come up with the heist as a way to seduce Emma? In the end, it works too well by half, as Emma finds her creative juices being stimulated by the danger, as much as the sex, which become hopelessly intermingled in her mind, like two colors blending together. She can't stop herself--so the movie has to come up with a way to stop her. It's not entirely convincing--can even a villa in Tuscany make up for the loss of her adrenaline high? Can Bret trust this dream come true, when it came at the price of her betraying him? I guess a lot of people would like the chance to find out.It might have been a lot better, no question. I don't think the ending is a problem, so much as the overly swift resolution of the dilemma the characters find themselves in. But I think it's pointless to judge a movie by what it might have been--you judge a movie by what it is, and this movie is worth seeing if you're interested in art, good acting, great sex scenes, and Virginia Madsen--in that order.The modern jazz score is done with superb taste, as is the film itself. If you can accept the deficiencies in the script, no worse than many a nifty 1930's Pre-Code picture, you'll have a lot of fun. And did I mention the sex scenes? It takes a big powerful actor like Rossovich not to get totally blown away by Madsen's powerfully erotic presence. Without really getting very explicit by today's standards, they heat up the screen more than any thousand soft core porn-snorers you could catch on Cinemax in late night. Genuine eroticism is a rare quality in movies today. It's almost a lost art in itself, for American movies. Enjoy it while you can. Virgina's got an Oscar nomination now, so she'll probably be doing a lot more straight dramatic roles. Shucks. (g)