Sunday

1997
6.7| 1h31m| en
Details

This film concerns two mysterious characters who meet on a Sunday in Queens. Madeleine the most unsettling creature of that name since "Vertigo" is a middle-aged, moderately successful actress. Oliver/Matthew is either a homeless man or a famous film director or both. Madeleine hails him on the street as the latter, launching a bizarre chain of events that includes a conversation in a diner, a very unromantic sexual encounter, the arrival of Madeleine's odd husband and unsuspecting daughter, and a child's birthday party. The film also compassionately tracks the daily rounds of Oliver/Matthew's fellow denizens of the homeless shelter, some of whom will be recognizable to New York audiences.

Director

Producted By

Sunday Productions

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Greenes Please don't spend money on this.
JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!
Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.
Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?
hdavis-29 I doubt many people will care about this review of a 20 year old movie. I've read over 30 previously posted reviews and the verdict seems pretty consistent. This is a unique, brave, sensitive project with two stellar performances at its center. There's a lot of ambiguity and confusion in the script, leading to quite a range of reviewer interpretations. Is he, isn't he? Can they, can't they? These two lost souls have the ability and opportunity to rescue each other as friends and lovers, but come the crunch seem to back away from it. They come tantalizingly close, but just can't make it happen. They're both too broken. She refuses to let him be who he is, even though he's risked everything to admit his identity. She just won't have any of it. When he wanders off into the lonely night at the end, you realize they aren't capable of more.Only two reviews I read here, both "professional," commented on the nudity. It is so refreshing to see un-self-conscious nude scenes by two middle aged actors. Lisa Harrow was a beautiful 54 year old woman when she made this film. Women everywhere, especially those who rail against the cult of youth, should applaud Ms. Harrow for her willingness to bare all for her art. One critic observed that her character seems more comfortable in her body than in her life.The documentary-like footage of a homeless shelter was my least favorite part of the film, but arguably it is necessary to establish the indignity to which David Suchet's life has fallen. All in all, this is a rewarding film. It's not a date movie (unless you want to get a real quick read on your partner). It's not a family movie. Are they still making indie films like this? If not, the loss is ours.
g0b0 I watched this movie only because David Suchet was in it. I have followed his career for the past 7 years or so. It is frustrating to find anything beyond the 'Poirot' series with his name in the credits. I am not here to analyze the story but David Suchet's contribution to the overall success of the film.According to his website, Sir Laurence Olivier was Sir John Gielgud's mentor in acting. Sir John Gielgud was David Suchet's mentor. That means that from a thespian genealogy, there is a relationship between Olivier and Suchet. In this film, I realized why Suchet's talent for years has mesmerized me. His performance reminded me of Laurence Olivier in his powerful quietness. He evoked such angst and emotion without any outburst, tears or flailing of arms. He said volumes silently through quiet eyes. I simply felt like I was watching Olivier performing in Suchet's skin. I have seen this briefly in other films but never so unleashed as in 'Sunday'. This was the right script and the right director for David Suchet's talents. It was not a perfect script. It may not be the best film but it was a good script and a talented director. I know because I got to see a brilliant actor shine.I found the movie a bit difficult to follow but attributed that to artistic style. Every author and director has their inclination and desire to make their own voice heard. I can accept that and suspend my own sense of disbelief, at least for a couple of hours. After all, it was for the performance of the lead actor I had settled in.
cdoer I loved the beginning--the way you can't quite tell what the setting is, or who the main character is...the story is out of focus the way the world is to Oliver when he takes his glasses off.At the beginning, it stated somewhere that this film was based on a story called "Ate, Memos: the Miracle". All while watching it, I kept trying to figure out what the memos were. A lot of the film was in blue and orange. I wonder what those colors meant to the producer?When they were telling each other those stories, Oliver's was true but Madeleine didn't know it (although at first I thought she did)--and Madeleine made hers up, but Oliver thought she was telling the truth (and so did I!).That husband of hers was really scary. What was he trying to do? I didn't quite catch the story about the ex-husband and the couple in the shower, but it probably was supposed to connect with the scene where the plant was in the shower.That scene on the street when they run into the other men from the shelter was really weird--very spooky and unreal the way Oliver was suspended between them and Madeleine. Must have seemed that way to him, too. Lots of blue and orange there, too. When Oliver paid for their meals at the diner, I knew their relationship was doomed. How could he afford to keep up the pretense?What was the significance of those plants behind plastic in the bedroom? Did they represent Oliver? He was half dead (spiritually, anyhow), Madeleine brings him home and revives him, but doesn't really see him. It's like she's looking at him through not very clear plastic.Madeleine looked like Manet's Olympia, the way she was posed on the bed at the end.....I wish I knew what happened between Oliver's gazing at her there and ending up back on the street. Did she see that fax and realize that he was an imposter? Or did she know already and not care? Could he have told her the truth before he left? Was she using him, thinking of course that he was a producer? It didn't seem like a love story to me, just a couple of unhappy people who got caught in a time warp together.The saddest part was watching Oliver warming his hands on her radiator, knowing that he was going to be on the street all night in the cold, because it was past curfew. I wonder if that one day of being considered a "real" (read: not homeless) person was worth losing his place at the shelter. I expect Madaleine probably went back to England and Oliver managed to pull himself together, find some sort of a life.....but changed, of course!I really want to see it again and try to figure some of this out.
morjim A delight in a world where "if you don't know what's going on in the first thirty seconds, you're lost." The first half-hour or so lets a viewer take in another world, one with which she may not be familiar, and allows a gradual "easing into" the plot, which sheds far more light on human behavior than almost any ten glossy, big-budget H-wood films out there. Most won't want to do the work required to fully appreciate this film. Take the time, talk it over, then get Signs and Wonders.