Memories of Midnight

1991
Memories of Midnight
5.6| 3h3m| en| More Info
Released: 30 November 1991 Released
Producted By:
Country:
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Catherine lost her memory and wound up in a convent in the care of nuns. She tries to discover the terrible events which led to her condition, not realizing that she's being watched by a wealthy and powerful man who will do anything to protect his secret - a secret that only Catherine can reveal to the world.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Trailers & Images

Reviews

clanciai It's not as bad as it looks. On the contrary, it's a great story, there is nothing wrong with its screening and direction, and I can't see why so many fail to appreciate it for what it is. It's a regular Greek tragedy, and the wife of Omar Sharif is the centre of the drama - her exit is simply magnificent, and is followed by the intricate scheming of Theodore Bikel, who plays an important part as the final nemesis - when he first gets disposed of it provides an interesting question mark, since his death is never followed up, but then this story is a series of deaths that inevitably fail and turn up again as ghosts too much alive. Omar Sharif, who happened to die today at 83, makes an excellent performance all the way, he is actually the star, while Jane Seymour, beautiful as always, accompanies him excellently - no one brings the show down. It's a wholly Greek story of rivalry between dominant ship builders, great fortunes are at stake and are gambled and wasted, and love gets caught in between and is sacrificed, while it turns the other way by a surprising twist of fate. A much underrated film and story, also the music is very satisfactory and excellent accompaniment all the way, so it definitely deserves better appraisal. Better than most of the Bond movies of the time.
Jake Jose If you're a big fan of Sidney Sheldon's The Otherside of Midnight, both the book and the movie version, try avoiding this mini. Jane Seymour is now starring in the role originally played by Susan Sarandon. Nothing can saved this disastrous sequel from anything. Seymour's overacting is the main reason of this stinker. Her facial expression is all the same all throughout the film. She probably holds the record of starring in so many miniseries but she also holds the record of appearing in so many miniseries stinkers in the history of Nielsen ratings!Avoid this at all cost!
vpilutis First off it does help to understand the story if you know this is the sequel to: "The Other Side of Midnight", so the characters of Noel, Larry, Demirious, and Cathy all were in TOSOM, one different is while TOSOM (both book and film) takes place before during and after WWII and MOM the book takes place right after TOSOM, MOM the Mini takes place in the modern age.Poor Jane must have gotten a neck pain having to look up at Ken Howard.One thing I hated is what Melina did to herself to frame her husband, (For those who haven't seen MOM, I won't say what it was)Our Greek friend is a first class baddie (Played by Omar Shariff), more so than Raf Vilone who played him in TOSOM.Paul Sand is first class as the office odd ball.
lambiepie-2 Well this one is. Big time. Being young when this came out and a die hard Jane Seymour fan, This was one I HAD to see. Gotta be honest, I was bored silly, I couldn't believe Sidney Sheldon wrote any part of this or Ms. Seymour acted in it.All I could get from this was Jane played Catherine, a woman who lost her memories who's husband Larry (played by a man who's lead singing for the group Chicago I adored as a child but to whom I barely recognized as an adult with his acting in this film, Peter Cetera) thought he killed and she shows up elsewhere trying to remember her past life. Maybe it wasn't worth remembering, for the story just fizzled out. It starred alot of actors and actresses who got thrown into mini-series staples as they reached middle and old age of that time but the direction was really bad and so was their acting. Even a fan of Seymour's like myself couldn't find a redeeming quality to this. The writing was bad...not even "campy" bad, just--bad, very sub-par for Sidney Sheldon. The direction didn't add to it, it was choppy, made it worse. Maybe it needs a big time do-over like a film within a film sorta thing, or maybe it should just be left alone. I would not recommend this for any fan of Sheldon's work or Seymour's work at all. Sadly, a 1 out of 10...and even that is being generous.