I liked the film. It has everything to be great: the idea, the actors, the story. And yet, it could have been so much better! What's nearly ruin it is the pace. Repetitive scenes and padding. What a pity, it could have been a master piece! Still worth watching.
Gloria might throw you if you’re used to Cassavetes’ usual rough-and-ready style—this studio outing is suprisingly polished, almost slick by his standards. But once you adjust, there's a lot to admire.
Gena Rowlands is phenomenal, playing Gloria, fierce, multi-layered and strangely tender. It's a role that could've gone cartoonish, but she grounds it in something real. The plot—a woman protecting a kid from the mob—leans toward thriller territory, but there's Cassavete's usual warmth and melancholy just under the surface.
It's not Cassavetes' deepest work, but it's one of his most accessible, and Rowlands is, as ever, the beating heart of it.
John Cassavetes may not have directed many full length movies but they always impress me , especially when Gena Rowlands is one of main cast as with Gloria
Equally impressive in Gloria is child actor John Adames , in my view
However , some of the reviews of his performance were so extremely negative that John Adames decided to retire from the acting profession
I think this is a real shame because great performances could have followed Gloria
When I think of fine actors who have a number of prize turkeys on their cv as well as celebrated gems - Bill Nighy and John Hurt spring to mind - I feel John Adames was unfairly treated