A smoother, funnier, more suspenseful and more endearing version of the 1980 John Cassavetes film of the same title.

If the external threat in the plot were a little more credible, this would be an annoying distraction. But in the context of the rest of Gloria, it's a safe strategy: When not watching Sharon Stone act, audiences can fall back on just watching Sharon Stone.

It's entertainment, but mild entertainment.

Just because it's not boring, that doesn't mean it's worth plunking down the price of admission.

Stone's latest penance is Gloria, the Sidney Lumet-directed dud that sprung from the singularly bad idea of remaking John Cassavetes' oddball 1980 character study. I mean, really, did anyone even like the original?

The shadow of Gena Rowlands looms over this picture like a cinematic eclipse. [25 January 1999, Tempo, p.5]

Not so much a remake of a film as it is a remake of an overcooked performance--a case of ham imitating ham.

Cassavetes's “Gloria” may have been action-packed nonsense, but it was enjoyable precisely because it was all of a piece. This Gloria is simply pieces--a few of them enjoyable, most of them not.

The most dispiriting thing about Gloria is that it's further evidence that filmmakers just don't know what to do with Sharon Stone.

A pale imitation of the John Cassavettes original.

Listless clunker.

Poor Sharon Stone! Poor Sidney Lumet! [22 January 1999, Life, p.11E]

While the somewhat indefatigable Stone may survive this misfire (she's survived plenty of others), Lumet may not.

It’s hard to know what’s more depressing -- a senseless remake or the idea of a once-great director doing such shockingly slack work.