Nico I like many albums Prince made, and even a movie he starred in (Purple Rain). This review is not based upon a strong dislike of Prince. It's based upon my strong dislike of this movie.My guess is that only massive fans of Prince (who are also most likely quite young) would deem this to be a good movie. I had it on while I did housework, so my time wasn't "lost." However, I would have enjoyed just about any other movie *more* than this one.Poor direction, mediocre acting and a horrible script bury this movie. There were some nice costumes and the cinematography was okay, but nothing (including the song "Kiss," which I like) can save this heaping mess.

Steve McQueen The people who dislike this film because it doesn't fit into popular convention or wasn't a bock office success are missing the point. At best it's an elitist point of view. Here's why:This film is about control. It's about people who are the gatekeepers of things (wealth, a lifestyle, accolade, whatever.) and the lengths those people will go to to keep it. Mary is one example, she thinks she's the odd, charming, center-of-attention. In fact, she is, until the strange gigolo, Chris, comes into her life and is even stranger and more narcissistic than she is. At first she hates him because he offends her, possibly poses a threat to her world view.Mary's father is another example, he's clearly a control-freak reveling in the hold he has over his daughter, wife, and everyone else around him. The third example is the film itself. It's genre-mashing and disjointed, juxtaposing many elements that seem to conflict from the presence of two black playboys in South France to the contemporary music and the choice of black & white. The movie deliberately is clearly and deliberately making a mockery of cinema standards. He went to great lengths to cast some of the finest acting talent, execute beautiful cinematography, and evoke a certain feel just to walk in an unapologetically represent a point of view that isn't often referenced on screen. Film critics love to cite films that speak to their own cultural references, their own aspirations for beauty and prestige, or their own tastes or history. But that's only a perspective, Prince not only challenges that perspective but defies it by being himself -- comedic, crass, sexual, even borderline offensive in his role.Critics call UNDER THE CHERRY MOON awful, amateurish, a 'disaster' and all sorts of other names. But I often wonder if they've ever considered that maybe that was the whole point -- part of Prince's artistic point of view?One could say as much about his entire career: he is a control freak, he plays all the instruments on all his albums, he writes songs that don't conform to popular convention, he isn't always at the top of the charts as a result - but in spite of all these this he remains a success. He thrives in the opposite of conformity and his three movies are perfect examples of that. This one, in my opinion, being the most "Prince".Before he made this movie and after, he couldn't care less what you thought about it. Some might call that arrogant. I see it as a very distinct confidence in being able to do exactly what you want -- not expecting everyone to love it but equally not caring either way. In the placing of two black-American hustlers in South France and telling a love story while shooting a contemporary film in the style of the early 20s, this film is deliberately challenging a lot of social norms. The only real shame here is how dismissive the entire industry has been to a film that was clearly a carefully crafted message of disdain for their very existence. Razzie? This movie deserves an Academy Award.

rooee Behind the swathes of purple, there was a dead serious story about damaged domesticity and teenage rage at the heart of Purple Rain. So for the feature follow-up, it's understandable that the electro-rock-RnB maestro should aim for a lighter tone. If anything, this romantic comedy encapsulates the Prince persona - sexy, funny, sweet and sentimental - more accurately than its Oscar-winning predecessor. Gone is the concert film structure and in comes the screwball slapstick, set against an ostentatious and anachronistic Riviera backdrop, which isn't the '30s, and even farther from the '80s.You can decry the acting and the script, neither of which rises above functional, and the echoing vacuity of it all, but to condemn the film for being a vanity project is empty in itself. It's like complaining when a Peckinpah movie goes slow-mo, or lamenting that the Farrelly Brothers' latest work isn't Bergmanesque enough. You get predictable treasures with a Prince movie: barrels of fun, colourful characters (even in black and white), great music, and an ego the size of Montmartre - and Under the Cherry Moon is the richest trove of the lot.

sparkindigo I am a fan of Prince. Don't get me wrong. But this movie was as bad as most people thought it to be. If you notice in most of the positive reviews here, the author will often say something like, "Of all of Prince's movies..." Look, if you have seen more than 2 of Prince's movies, you are a Prince groupie and thus can not be counted on to give an unbiased review. Personally, after this train wreck, I refrained from seeing any more of his theatrical releases and stuck to just enjoying his music. So, if Graffiti Bridge was a good movie...I can't tell you. I loved Purple Rain, though. But sometimes you catch lightning in a bottle and you just can't reproduce it. Can't blame him for trying though.