Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

WillSushyMedia This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

corief I too saw this movie at a young age of 14, but I had read the book first. I agree that mostly of the characters were casted wrong. For instance in the book Maria is described as a fair skinned woman with white blond hair yet Sandra Bullock played her. Being the early 1990's no network would have been prepared to handle the open gayness of Dario (no-doubtly it wasn't "PC" yet) I think they could have added a bit more violence when trying to explore Mobster actions. It would be interesting if they remade the movie now would it resemble The Sopranos in some way would it be violent and hoping they would make better casting choices?? The book was better than the movie you were able to get more involved with the character's and their story.

Shari As usual, the movie is nothing like the book. I really enjoyed the book, because you became invested in the characters. However, I did the process backwards: I saw the movie before I saw the film and liked the film. I saw it at a fairly young age, but I still liked it. Vincent Irizarry was on my mother's soap, so we had to see anything he was in. Nicolette was not the right person for Lucky I think. And Sandra Bullock as Maria? The entire purpose of the character was not what Bullock represented, but it's how I first fell in love with her and remember her to this day. However, she wasn't right for the part either. The movie was fair enough, but you could tell that NBC wasn't ready to deal with Dario's homosexuality and real mob violence. It almost had the moral appeal of an after school special. The movie should of took itself more seriously. I liked the movie, but after reading the book, the actors were all wrong for the characters.

mandyhorn26 I thought that this was a good movie and that Nicolette Sheridan did a great job in the role of "Lucky". However there are parts of this movie which are not the same as the book. Overall the casting of Vincent Irizarry and Michael Nader were perfect as "Gino" and "Enzio" and if you don't blink you will see Sandra Bullock in this film.

Victor Field Funny how things turn out; while going through the site and checking up on "I Saw What You Did" with Shawnee Smith (whose on-screen appearances on "Becker," curiously enough, coincide with the times during that amusing but inessential sitcom when yours truly pays most attention to the screen. There, comments on two TV productions for the price of one), I found out that she was in this interpretation of two of Jackie Collins's novels... like one wouldn't have been enough. Joan's more attractive sister also wrote, executive produced and even got her name in the title of "Jackie Collins' Lucky/Chances," clearly eager to remind us just who exactly we have to blame for this. Consider yourself blamed, Jackie.Six hours of dire pap (Sandra Bullock was also in this, and must have counted herself as the real lucky one since her character died at the end of part one), and with a cast seemingly intent on seeing who can give the worst performance, it's ultimately only endurable as a laugh riot. In amongst this Olympiad of appalling acting, Nicollette Sheridan romps home with the gold as Lucky Santangelo (as one American critic wrote at the time, she's as adept at playing the daughter of a mobster as Roseanne is at singing) and only Michael Nader matches her in the thespian-as-plank stakes; we don't even get to appreciate Nikki's sublime bubble butt. At least "Hollywood Wives" had Laura Branigan doing the title song (though how Aaron Spelling persuaded her to waste her talent on his behest we can only speculate).Wait for "I Saw What You Did" instead. (That's three comments now.)