User reviews

Claire "On a Dare" wakes up by an airport runway wearing a red dress. She's dirty and bruised. She has no idea where she is or how she got there, or even what day it is, but she does remember who she is and retains most of her memories. She strips off her dress by a creek to wash off it and herself what seems to be blood, and sunbathes nude to dry off - sustained full-frontal nudity within the first two minutes of the movie, jeepers!

I'm reminded of a line from the novel The Screaming Mimi by Frederic Brown, "There's murder before the story proper starts, and murder after it ends; the actual story begins with a naked woman and ends with one, which is a good opening and a good ending, but everything between isn't nice."

Claire, finding the blood washes off her thinks someone else must be dead. Discovering and remembering that she is in Spain, she thinks she may have killed her ex-lover Augustine, or his new wife.

Claire had been due to skydive without a parachute into a dormant (or artificial?) volcano covered with a net to catch her, that will be on fire. If she misses the net, or hits it after it has burned too much, she's dead in Death Valley. Receiving a letter from her ex-lover who doesn't want her to do the stunt, she flies to Spain to try to get him to return to her, despite her having been married to her promoter for six years or so.

Claire has some strange adventures, sometimes pretty horrible. A fat taxi driver with tin dentures offers to help, but his price is sex, or rape. An eccentric brawling artist tries to help her, and doesn't seem to have any motive other than "the good you give out is returned to you."

Sprinkled throughout are shots of Claire skydiving; like Roger Ebert, I couldn't tell if this was "fantasy [...] memory, or anticipation" not that it makes much difference. Throughout "falling" gets mentioned a lot in other ways. Claire, in a Catholic church says she feels like she is falling, the artist talks about how the only kind of falling that isn't failing is falling in love, etc.

One thing the title seems to refer to is a siesta Claire's ex-lover takes in a small building near a church, where they perhaps used to have sex.

Bruce Joel Rubin wrote a screenplay in the 1970s that was considered one of the best unproduceable scripts. This movie seems in a way an attempt to make it, though it is based on a novel. This movie didn't really do it for me, and perhaps time would be better spent reading the novel. Rubin's screenplay was produced a few years after this movie, and turned out quite well.

I watched this in theater when was actual, so some 30 years ago, and found it interesting. Could not tell that remembered much before recent rewatch. Basically remembered only 'twist', nudity, red dress and most interesting - that text on leather jacket: "Live fast, die young" . What served as interesting memory test. So started to watch it in late hours, just to reach scene with jacket to see do I remember it correct. And what the Hell ! - I seen first that text on wall, not jacket. which was in dark, and DVD quality helped not much (no BluRay release yet) . Then thought that I did not remember well. Something like Hruschow's supposed banging on desk with his shoe :-) However minut-two later jacket was shown on daylight, from back, so that text was well visible. I was so happy ! My memory is perfect !

Sorry, no word about my memory more here :-) What to say about movie ? Some famous actors, some which will be very famous soon (Jodie Foster), and pretty much poor direction and dialogs. But overall it was watchable, with good atmosphere bigger part of time. Ellen Barkin was perfect for role, I guess, at least physically. Was not impressed with male actor performances, including Gabriel Byrne, Julian Sands.

The real reason for watching it again is that I felt almost like main protagonist of movie - in my last couple months happened so strange things. Who watched it will know what I talking about ... And yes, IMDB rating is OK, I say it.

I bought this video for one reason: I had seen pictures of Ellen Barkin's nude body in a celebrity nudes magazine. The movie delivered in spades on that, so I wasn't too disappointed--until I saw the rest of the cast. My god, with Isabella Rosillini, Martin Sheen, and Jodie Foster there must be more to this film. But Alas, no. I will admit that Jodie has a real nice "grown up", sophisticated look here which I found a turn on, but when she had to prove her sophistication in a three way with Ellen, she obviously held back--too bad because I would have respected her more as an actress.

This movie makes "Dude, where's my Car?" look like Ben Hur!

I watched this movie again recently after not seeing it for about 10 years, and it's held up very well. I remember after seeing it the first time, that I kept saying to myself, "What?", but upon seeing it a couple more times, I figured it out.

Overall pretty good, kind of a mind-bending mild thriller. It looks as if the director trimmed out some of the original movie that might have helped fill in a gap or two here.

Nonetheless, it is an interesting film with good acting, particularly with Ellen Barkin. Interesting supporting cast, too, that includes Julian Sands, Isabella Rossellini, Jodie Foster and Grace Jones.

7 out of 10. My favorite dialogue in the film: "I'm your guardian angel", to which the response is, "I'm almost tempted to believe you."

The working motto behind this pretentious blood-and-sex psychodrama seems to have been a paraphrase of Murphy's Law: if a thing is worth doing, it's worth doing badly. Here's a film with nothing to recommend it besides perverse casting, starring Ellen Barkin as an amnesiac skydiver wandering semi-naked around Spain, thinking she might have killed someone. But is she only dreaming, or has she gone insane? Attempts were made to camouflage a fatally weak script by needlessly fracturing the scenario into convoluted flashbacks and flashforwards, but the results are not unlike the rock videos director Mary Lambert once made, offering little else except the same self-absorbed imagery, artfully posed to no apparent purpose.

Mary Lambert's "Siesta" offers plenty of wonderful visuals and a nice amount of sensual atmosphere.A woman in a red dress lies in an airport field,supposedly dead.She wakes.There's blood on her dress,but it doesn't seem to be hers.She can't remember the last few days.As time goes on,the pieces come back to her,and she meets up with some pretty weird people.The plot of "Siesta" is quite confusing and the climax is unpredictable.The acting is alright with Ellen Barkin's excellent performance to boost.Barkin has also some amazing nude scenes,so I wasn't disappointed.Give this one a look.A perfect film to analyze,if you have enough time to waste!

Convoluted, pretentious tripe by a dimwitted hack named Mary Lambert. Freshman year student filmmaking at its absolute worst. This is the type of abomination that usually destroys a director's career. Unfortunately, it didn't.

It's 4th of July. Claire (Ellen Barkin) wakes up in a bloody dress next to an airport runway in Spain without any of her possessions. She remembers 5 days ago in the US with Del (Martin Sheen) planning her big stunt sky dive on the July 4th holiday. She takes off for Spain vowing to return for the stunt. She's there to see trapeze artist ex-lover Augustine (Gabriel Byrne) and meets his wife Maria (Isabella Rossellini). As she tries to recall the last few days, she stumbles in the streets, almost gets raped and attends a party where she meets Nancy (Jodie Foster) and Kit (Julian Sands).

The most memorable thing is Ellen Barkin in and out of her red dress. However everything else is a mess. The dialog is horribly written and delivered clunkyly. Barkin is walking around in a daze which is very fitting for this movie. Its worst sin is that it's boring. I find her odyssey rather lackluster. I don't care if she killed anybody or not. Director Mary Lambert tries to inject some surrealism but it's done badly like everything else in this movie. The best thing that I can ascribe to this movie is that it tries very hard to be different.

Ellen Barkin plays an American sky-diver in Spain who has apparently crash-landed, awakening bruised and disheveled and with memory loss; her attempts to get back to civilization are thwarted by a myriad of oddballs who paw at her like demons from Hell. What might have been an interesting, artistic treatise on purgatory has ended up stagnant and confounding in director Mary Lambert's hands. Perhaps with someone like David Lynch at the helm, "Siesta" may have drawn the viewer in not just with imagery but some haunting subtext as well. Lambert is only interested in externals--and, as a result, her film is portentous and shallow. Lots of talented people litter the cast, but only a handful of scenes (Barkin walking the high-wire above a crowd, her run-in with a deranged cabbie, and the well-staged finale) are astute or memorable. *1/2 from ****

Siesta is a most atmospheric film, almost dreamlike, you feel the Spanish heat while Ellen Barkin is stumbling through the pictures in confused despair. She wakes up lying on the roll way of an airport, not knowing where she is or how she got there. Her red dress is full of blood and she starts running... From there, an odyssey begins for her, with strongly impressive scenes of -not only sexual- passion. A bit confusing for the first time watching because of all the flashbacks, when you watch the film a second time you can really enjoy it. Many stunning actors, who appear to join Ellen without really helping her situation, only dragging her deeper in confusion. A surprising end, all of a sudden you begin to understand what happened to Ellen and why she lost her memory. This film left such a strong impression on me that i still recommend it to all of my friends and other movie fans.

Sieata. A 90 minute sleep. This is the worst film made. A perfect example of how not to make a movie. How to avoid story, development, purpose. It can't even be surreal when it tries to be.

It has no idea. Like most "art films" it's artless, and only paints boredom.

It consists of characters doing nothing, but vague disconnected rambling, with no action. The only skillful part is Jodie Foster's English accent. Also a quirky poem from Sands.

It's this kind of crap that puts me off films. I hate it.

A review mentioned Jacob's Ladder. That skillful and powerful film showed how an original or different film can be made, with definite surreal moments - actual changes that can't occur in reality - scary scenes, excitement, with clear or specific messages and intentions you couldn't miss.

This film called Sleep is utterly powerless. The dreariest dream with no intelligence. Even the "shock" ending seems implied.

Erotic thriller? The first part (ho hum) is there, about as excessively as the other qualities. Minus 10 stars (for how many stars are in it).

This movie is not for everyone. That being said, I loved it. It is surreal, complex, and asks more questions than it answers. It evokes rather than exposes, and creates a vivid imaginary world using only good acting, editing, and camera technique. Although it may have been marketed as an erotic thriller, it is actually a profoundly personal, emotional, and psychological exploration of one woman's struggle for spiritual freedom.

Ellen Barkin is captivating as the enigmatic Claire, a woman desperately trying to uncover her past. This is, for her, a true tour de force.

The supporting cast reads like a celeb who's who, with Jodie Foster, Martin Sheen, Isabella Rosallini, Gabriel Byrne, Grace Jones, Julian Sands, and a surprisingly intense cameo by English comedian Alexi Sayle.

If that weren't enough, the soundtrack features original music by Miles Davis, some of the last work he recorded.

As I said, this film is not for everyone, but my mind returns to it again and again. It lingers in my memory and, for that, I am grateful.

What Can one say but...."Siesta?"

Remember that line in Amadeus...when Salieri asked Mozart what he thought of his music?..."What can you say but Salieri?" this was his answer, trying not to insult... Actually that would be a grossly inaccurate an unfair comparison since Salieri had more than a Modicum of talent. Also, I am no Mozart. Although the cast was replete with some here to for fine actors, they were lost in this paradise of tripe. This film has no such molecules of anything resembling quality or lyric profundity Mozartian, Salierian or otherwise to worry in it's furrowed pseudo intellectual brow over.

At the end of this film my first thought was... What were these fine actors thinking of when they read and ACCEPTED this dreadful script? Surely it must have been ..'I need a movie in which I can really do a terrible job... and that will possibly help me destroy my career, Hmmm?..this will do nicely!' This movie is quite possible one of the 10 worst films I have ever seen.....and I have never seen worse direction ...not ever. Some "Godzillas" and even "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" was directed better than this work. When I re rolled the credits, I saw that it was directed by Mary Lambert I......whose surgery on Pet Cemetery in my opinion totally destroyed and butchered Stephen King's book. This film was ...where shall I begin? was, Disjointed. Poorly Acted, ...Gabriel Byrne did not have a clue about the spanish accent in English, (and what did one of my favorites Martin Sheen think his was doing with that character?)...not to mention photography that was 3rd rate....a plot that was so disjointed that only the recent recipient of a tab of LSD could have followed it....or cared about it. What Can one say but...."Siesta?" ?... A siesta of talent put to work well, good screen writing, cinematography, continuity, good acting, interesting and compelling dialog...they were all on siesta. Only, this siesta wasn't the normal two hours between 2 and 4 pm it was a grueling 93 minutes of this un likeable piece of cinematic junk. A little night music please! Oh yes, the only saving grace in the filme was the dab of some rather nice Flamenco Music....Unfortunatly....just thrown in.....just like the bullfights.....Where is Ernest Hemmingway when you really need him...Fin

Everything which at first sounded so potentially great when I first read about this movie, unfortunately turned out to be quite mediocre or even ridiculously bad. An example of potential greatness turned sour: there are great supporting actors to be seen, but they all fail miserably. Jodie Foster for example has got an unintended silly English accent, which makes her character totally laughable. Another example of greatness turned sour: a soundtrack by Miles Davis! Great, but then I realised it was one of his worst records from his eighties period. Ellen Barkin, an actress whom I truly love, is acting ridiculous as well in this flop. Her ridiculous acting style, with a lot of exaggerated body movements, were probably made to invoke a certain artsy fartsy effect, but it looked laughably ridiculous.

What's left that is unique about this movie is some full nudity by Ellen Barkin, right at the start of the movie, so for those interested in that, one only has to watch the first 5 minutes. Her full nudity isnt portrayed in any real erotic fashion though, but more in a bland and laughable sort of artsy fartsy way.

The director of this disaster was fresh from film school and continued to make nothing else but music videoclips after this flop. Her incoherent, exaggerated style of directing is indeed better suited for music video clips then for serious feature films. In the end this movie is only interesting because it is such a laughable flop. ALL of the actors involved would love to forget they ever took part in it. I guess the reviewers who digged this movie were all guys who love to see Ellen Barkin naked...

Someone please tell me what is so great about this film? It is nothing but very thinly disguised porno. Ellen Barkin proves once again what a very poor actress she is and that the only thing she knows to do in a film is take her clothes off. The only good thing about this film is Gabriel Byrne.

Who unfortunately has very little screen time and the screen time he has he must share with Ellen Barkin. What a waste of time, film, and money. Why is this film called a mystery? I realized the minute that Claire woke up on the runway, with blood all over the front of her dress under which she was naked, that she was dead. Claire got what she deserved. As for Jodie Foster being in this film, this is another actress that is overrated.

This is a wacky, extreme, insane movie. When she isn't stalking around in a black leather jacket emblazoned with a bald eagle, Barkin is running madly through Spanish streets in a flaming red dress. She wants to sleep with Gabriel Byrne (who doesn't?), who's married to Isabella Rosselini, who wields a knife, while Julian Sands lowers his trousers for Jodie Foster, who kisses Ellen Barkin on the lips. There isn't much sensuality, but there are countless tragically, monumentally bad lines. This is a masterpiece of bad taste, kitsch, bad accents, etc. And Barkin is often naked, putting it in five star territory.

Did Ellen Barkin kill someone? Was Jodie Foster cloned from Myrna Loy? Who is the most beautiful man alive, Byrne or Sands? These and ten more profound questions are posed over the course of Mary Lambert's "Siesta."

My brother and I saw this movie when it was playing at Stanford, and we both felt it was the most pretentious dreck we had ever seen. People try to rescue it with words like "surreal" -- no, I've seen Buñuel and this film simply presents its lack of consistent characterization as real -- there is no surreal level to it. Others say it is "film noir" and while there is some idea of a mystery to be solved, there is no tension, and any critique of conventional mores is undone by its voyeuristic gaze on Ellen Barkin. Siesta is a fiesta of cliches and puerile dialog, a masochism-curious vicar's idea of an art film, and a barely disguised attempt to discredit Martin Sheen's movie career. I've been in more enjoyable automobile accidents.

This is an odd movie. In places there doesn't seem to be much of a plot, and many of the characters are....well, odd. Essentially, the story is about Ellen Barkin's character, Claire, attempting to get to an airport in Spain in time to return to the US for a daredevil stunt she's supposed to perform. Why the hurry? Well, she came to Spain to look up an old boyfriend.... I don't want to give too much away. Claire's attempts to get to the airport run into obstacles...peculiar obstacles. In places the movie has the same frustrating feel to it as a dream in which one continually tries to do something, but somehow nothing quite works out. There's a supporting cast with some big names in it, but just keep your eyes on Ellen Barkin, as those other characters come and go. There's an interesting use of mythology in the movie, but I'm not entirely certain that it was deliberate. In places the pacing seems a bit slow, but overall I think it's very watchable

The only good thing about this movie is the story (aka ...the original novel by Patrice Chaplin). I believe many cinematographically worthless movies get positive credits just because of the good script as in this one. Most of the positive comments here are in fact about the interesting storyline (... and well, about the nude scenes of Ellen Barkin.

But when watched from the cinematography point of view this movie doesn't even deserve 2 stars. There is almost no art direction or DoP. And it is impossible to talk about the existence of film direction. Its a huge failure. OK, there is decent acting time to time.

When i've read the book about 20+ years i loved it and all these years i looked for the movie. I watched it 2 times in the past 6 years and both times i thought what could have been if any other director had shoot it. Baz Luhrman could have made a gem out of this novel for example. Its clear that Mary Lambert wasn't ready to take the responsibility of shooting a movie back in 1987, as it she is not ready to shoot Siesta today.

I believe any cinematography student can shoot a much better version of Siesta today.

Its so sad to see a real gem got wasted in the hands of Marry Lambert (aka the music clip director). If you think this is a good movie read the book, you will see that every single thing that makes you think this is a good movie is in the book already.

Boring. Title is appropriate, will put you to sleep

Not to everyone's taste I appreciate, but whilst it is undeniably flawed, I always enjoy watching this movie. Ellen Barkin is at her sexy peak, Gabriel Byrne smoulders confidently and if Isabella Rossellini is a little underused, Julian Sands turns in one of his really quirky performances that leaves you open mouthed and smiling, if that's possible. I feel Martin Sheen is a little out of control and Grace Jones barely there but Jodie Foster really lets her hair down and Alexi Sayle has the time of his life and gives the film some edge. Clearly director Lambert is happier with rock videos but she has a keen visual eye and I just think this has enough to keep anyone amused/excited as long as you don't take it too seriously. Fun.

So many negative reviews and anecdotes about this film abound that I must speak out! I love this movie! It is thought-provoking, surreal, passionate and symbolic. My theory on why so many others have panned it is they don't have much awareness of concepts related to spiritualism, guardian angels or reincarnation and maybe don't enjoy movies that are multi-leveled and require thought. Watch it again!