LilyDaleLady I saw this movie when it first came out (1978). It was a catastrophe -- critically and commercially -- at that time and time has not been kind to it. It's a mark of how badly it failed that it never was even released for VIDEO, let alone DVD, despite the director (John Avildson of "Rocky" fame), Paul Sorvino and someother good character actors.Sorvino plays a NYC journalist who seems roughly modeled on TV's Columbo --he's scruffy, middle-aged and babbles on and on in a way that I think is meant to be eccentric and charming, but actually comes off as purely annoying. He's an "everyman" figure who falls in love with a seriously ill ballerina. I wonder where the concept of the ballerina as the supreme symbol of femininity comes from -- real life ballet dancers are ATHELETES, not simpering fashion models andinjury and disability go hand-in-hand with their art form -- but here it is handled in the lamest and most embarrassing way imaginable.Anne Ditchburn (Sarah), a real life Canadian dancer who never acted before (or again and you can understand why) has the world's strangest medical condition -- it's something vaguely inexplicable that has to do with her...uh...groin. Or maybe more accurately her thigh muscles, I don't know. We aren't told much, but she's clearly in a lot of pain when she dances, and her dancing bizarrelyincludes a lot of splits and arabesques and stuff where she wraps her thighsaround other dancers. So it hurts. She needs some kind of operation but thenshe probably won't be able to dance -- not this thigh wrapping stuff anyways -- so she is soldering on through the pain.That's about it for the plot. She insists on dancing in the "big performance" she is scheduled for, despite the pain, and along the way falls in love (veryimprobably) with big, beefy, talkative Paul Sorvino. Now, I want to say that I generally LOVE off-beat romances with oddball characters ("Harold and Maude"is about my favorite movie of all time) and that's probably why I went to see "Slow Dancing" originally.But the concept just curls up and suffers a slow death in this badly written, badly directed and badly acted film. There is no chemistry at all between Sorvino and Ditchburn. He really does seem to old for her and the contrast between her tiny, fit body and his big paunchy one is just awkward and even grotesque. There are no actual sex scenes, but you can't help thinking in your mind what they would look like together and...it would be pretty gross.The worst of it is that Sarah's medical condition (the...uh...groin problem) can't help but have sexual connotations, although none are mentioned, because theexact part of her body affected would be directly involved in sexual intercourse. You keep thinking "hmmm...he's really a big guy, and she's a tiny little thing who can't open her legs..." and any hope that the movie will be seen as touching or moving or whatever without making you break into helpless laughter is totally lost.Surely this can't have been the effect the director or screenwriters were going for -- the movie plays as if it's meant to be a quirky but deeply moving romance. Why oh why didn't they make her injury something less awkward, like arthritic knees or a foot injury (far more common amongst dancers and very believable)? Almost any other medical problem would have worked better here.Like the video companies who had no interest in putting this film on tape, I am puzzled as to who the heck would ever want to view this. Maybe a die hard Paul Sorvino fan? I can't honestly recommend this to anybody else, unless you are a film student wanting a case study example of WHAT NOT TO DO when makinga movie....

stuhh2001 It's gratifying that this movie has so many fans. As I remember it, it was a critical and financial disaster, but is still worth seeing. It has one of the greatest sets ever constructed for a movie......New York City. There's something about NY.that always adds to my enjoyment of a film shot there. It would make a good trivia party game to name all the films shot there. I'll start, "Prince of the City," "Raging Bull," "Malcolm X," "Mean Streets." Your turn. Paul Sorvino is always on the verge of super stardom but can't come up with the right vehicle, like Brando in "Streetcar", or Al Pacino in "Dog Day Afternoon, but he's incapable of giving a bad performance. Several things about the film annoy me. Sorvino's character with his non stop manic babbling and joking can be a real turn off. But he did the role as written or directed, and I'm surprised this wasn't noticed during filming. Anita Dangler as the cloying Franny, is a bit too cloying, but she gives a good performance as the waitress who shares Sorvino's bed only when he needs a body there, and knows there is no hope for a future relationship. She also has a steady stream of meaningless babble that she knows will further alieanate him, but she can't help herself. He's probably the first man she's had that didn't use her for a punching bag, and spoken with a semblance of kindness to her. Anita Ditchburn who I'm told is a ballet star in Canada is a strange young lady. She plays the role with almost one expression...a constant pout. The plot is as phony as Hollywood can get. A reporter who wouldn't be caught dead at the ballet, falls in love with a dying ballerina. Are you kidding me!? An adorable little Puerto Rican kid is also in there somewhere. But guess what. I've seen it a few times and I still love the movie. Give it a viewing. You'll enjoy.

michyh I only saw this movie once as a teenager when we had "ON" pay television (before SelectTV, and then inevitably, cable). It was the last showing and I stayed up until 2 am to watch it.Needless to say, after all these years it has stuck in my mind. I loved Paul Sorvino as the lonely, heart of gold newspaper guy and Anne Ditchburn as the vulnerable ballerina. In my minds eye I remember it as a quietly executed romantic film. This is one to watch on a rainy day curled up in a blanket with a cup of tea.After my first and only viewing I had hoped to see it again, and waited patiently, looking for a listing in the TV guide week after week.Unfortunately, after approximately 20 years I am still waiting. I sincerely wish that they would re-release this film again. Perfect for die hard romantics.

lovewine This is a wonderful movie. I've only seen it twice, and I've been looking for it again for ever. I'd buy it if I could find it. While it's sad, it shows three things -- how much a man can love a woman, how hard some people want something and how hard people work to overcome their limitations.