COLOR OF NIGHT – The Blu Review

Review by Roger Carpenter

We all have so-called “guilty pleasures” in life and I guess my affinity for Color of Night would be considered a guilty pleasure. This film, which has been reviled by critics and viewers alike since it’s 1994 release, and won several Razzie awards upon its release, is one of my favorite films. I absolutely love this film. It’s not a guilty pleasure for me at all because I feel no guilt whatsoever in admitting my love for this film. I cannot tell you how excited I was when I received a screener copy from Kino-Lorber in my mail. So, now that my admission is out of the way, let’s talk about the release itself.

Director Richard Rush, who had not directed a film for 14 years after the success of 1980’s Peter O’Toole vehicle The Stuntman , was tapped to direct Color of Night. Rush was the successful director not only of The Stuntman, but also of films such as the early Jack Nicholson vehicles Hells Angels on Wheels and The Psych-Out as well as the popular action-comedy Freebie and the Bean. He teamed up with executive producer Andrew Vajna who, though the two had a troubled relationship, asked Rush to direct the picture.

Color of Night was one of a whole slew of erotic thrillers of the early- to mid-90’s, perhaps started by films such as Fatal Attraction and No Way Out (both 1987) and perpetuated by the controversial Basic Instinct, Sliver, and many others. The film stars Bruce Willis as Bill Capa, a New York lawyer who lost a patient to suicide and has come to a crossroads in his career. He feels tremendous guilt for the accident. In fact, he feels so much guilt that the trauma of seeing so much red blood pooling on the street from the suicide has left him unable to see that particular color in anything but shades of gray. He has come to L.A. to visit his old college chum, also a psychiatrist, hoping for a catharsis which will point him in the right direction, whatever that direction may be. His buddy, Bob Moore (Scott Backula), is a highly successful psychiatrist and author who lives in an exotic mansion high up in the Hollywood Hills. But shortly after arriving in L.A., Bob Moore is brutally murdered in his office. Capa comes under immediate suspicion once the police inspector discovers Capa’s tragic story and realizes the psychiatrist is one of the only people who might have had access to Bob’s office on the night of the murder. Other suspects include the “daffodils” (as referred to by the police inspector) in the nightly group therapy session which had just been completed prior to the murder. These five individuals share a deep connection with Bob in addition to possibly having a reason to kill the psychiatrist. Now Capa is forced to defend himself from the police, fend off several mysterious attacks and intrusions by the killer, and take over the group therapy session for his late friend—all while trying to maintain a highly sexual relationship with a gorgeous young woman whom he met by chance in a fender bender.

Rush directs the film with colorful yet noir-ish style, which sometimes reminds one of the Italian horror director Dario Argento’s, filming techniques. It’s a bright and colorful film as so many 80’s and 90’s films were, obviously featuring the color red, since Willis’ character is unable to see that shade. Perhaps this is one flaw in the film that more sophisticated viewers found unforgiveable. Though Rush denies it in the audio commentary, many viewers felt the mystery of the film was ruined by the obvious clues to the killer within the film. One reason viewers felt this way was the use of red throughout the film in the killer’s clothing choices. But we’ll get back to the criticism of the film in a little while….

Rush has populated his film with some fantastic character actors, some of which aren’t such obvious choices yet are nevertheless outstanding. Scott Bakula supports as Willis’ psychiatrist friend and, though he exits the story fairly early on, his presence is palpable throughout. And while he is in the film, Bakula’s Bob Moore comes across as a sympathetic yet highly flawed character. Astute viewers are quick to note that while Moore seems to genuinely care about his friend’s well-being there are some clues that the relationship isn’t perfect. Complicating things is the extreme success Moore has had both in his practice as well as in the publishing of a major book that has earned him millions. Capa is obviously impressed at Moore’s lifestyle and Moore is obviously pleased by this even as he dismisses that success. And, while both doctors are single, there’s a bit of a clue that Capa might have had feelings for Moore’s ex-wife, as evidenced by his clear discomfort when Moore accidentally shows Capa a nude picture of his ex. The police inspector also picks up on this competitive angle in their relationship, too, driving it home far too bluntly. Could this be another reason viewers don’t care for the film? Do they feel that some information is hand-fed to them as if they weren’t smart enough to pick up on the clues? My interpretation is simply that the police inspector, superbly played by Ruben Blades, is just that kind of guy. He revels in emotionally torturing each suspect, cursing them, using slurs, and generally acting unprofessionally and outrageously throughout the running time of the film. He’s arrogant, narrow-minded, and plain rude…but is this behavior calculated for a reason? Just as both doctors have more complicated backgrounds than they let on, so does the police inspector. And, in the end, though his manner and techniques remain detestable, he proves to be one of the good guys after all.

Likewise, all the character actors that comprise the therapy group are excellent in their portrayals. Brad Dourif is nearly unrecognizable as Clark, an unemployed lawyer with an OCD complex that has so paralyzed him he can barely leave his house. Normally quiet and mild-mannered, he can be explosive when the right buttons are pressed. Lesley Ann Warren supports as a nymphomaniac so consumed with sex that every relationship she has is either physical or heading in that direction. Has her sexually-fueled life embroiled her in a murder plot? Kevin J. O’Connor is Buck, a rich kid and aspiring artist who must come to group therapy as a condition of his father, who foots his bills. He’s also into an S&M relationship. Could it be with the killer? O’Connor is a terrific character actor and can deliver some of the most hilariously deadpan lines in movie history. He’s made a living portraying quirky characters such as this. And finally, there is B-horror movie icon Lance Henriksen, who chews the scenery up as an ex-cop guilt-ridden at the loss of his wife and young daughter. He is angry as hell and trained in weaponry. He also has no time for everyone else’s B.S. in the group. Perhaps he’s even more unhinged than we think.

Finally, there is Jane March, who was starring in only her second film. She burst across the screen in all her unclothed glory in 1992 courtesy of Jean-Jacques Annaud’s unrated romance, The Lover. Only 19 years old at the time, she was barely 21 when she appeared, nearly constantly nude and in several steamy sex scenes with Bruce Willis, in Color of Night. March plays Rose (a famously red flower as well as a shade of said color), the young woman who plows into Capa’s car early in the film, then seduces him. The two become lovers, adding even more tumult to Capa’s already chaotic existence. Rose shows up whenever she wants and Capa cannot turn her down. He’s so in love with her that he dismisses things like her unwillingness to share her phone number or address. And honestly, I can’t blame him. March is one of the loveliest women to grace the silver screen, ever. Neither is she shy about disrobing or partaking in steamy and erotic scenes. In fact, one scene with Willis in particular was voted as the “Most Erotic Sex Scene in Film History” by Maxim magazine. Here may be yet another explanation for the vitriol surrounding the film. Producer Vajna felt the movie too strong and forced Rush to cut 20 minutes of footage before the release of the film. The resulting, R-rated version of the film flopped at the box office thought Rush claims both versions were previewed before release and the uncut version previewed much better. It may all be purely academic though as it is doubtful the film would have made it through the MPAA without cuts anyhow. However, Rush was allowed to release the uncut version on video where it did extremely well in rentals, perhaps lending Rush some extra credibility.

The ending to the film is also quite transgressive—or hokey—depending upon your perspective. Characters who exude confidence throughout the film expose emotionally crippling flaws that don’t necessarily fit with the viewer’s previous contructs based upon material that came beforehand. Again, depending upon your perspective, this could be a fatal flaw during the admittedly bizarre finale of the film. I find it fits perfectly with the imbalance of practically every single character of the film, so I didn’t mind it at all, though perhaps I am a little too forgiving.

Regardless of what you hear about the film, it certainly is worth tracking down if, for no other reason, to see what all the fuss is about. I would recommend the unrated version though Kino-Lorber has seen fit to include both the 121-minute, R-rated Theatrical Cut as well as the 140-minute unrated Director’s Cut.

Two audio commentaries are included, one on each disc, so if you like special features, you will end up viewing both cuts anyhow. Director Richard Rush comments on the Director’s Cut while screenwriter Matthew Chapman comments on the Theatrical Cut. Both are interesting commentaries. A theatrical trailer for the film rounds out the special features on this two-disc Blu-Ray release from Kino-Lorber. You can purchase the disc directly from Kino Lorber at kinolorber.com or through Amazon.