Supposedly this was the film that brought Al Pacino back from the dead so-to-speak.

Um, for real?

Okay, so this is not a horrible movie, but Al Pacino is the films weakest link (or is that the script). The film is far from thrilling, which is sad because it had that kind of potential. It also lacks the sensuality that would have brought the film to a different level. We are expected to believe that Keller and Cruger have something real, something that would really compromise his safety, but I just don't see anything real behind Pacino's eyes. It's not funny, at least not intentionally, so I'm not really sure what this movie is supposed to be.

It's not thrilling.
It's not dramatic.
It's not romantic.
It's not funny.

What is it?

The film follows two police officers, Detective Frank Keller and Detective Sherman as they try to track down a woman (supposed) who seems to be targeting men who put out personal ads. Going undercover, Frank puts out an ad and gets a response from the beautiful Helen Cruger. She happened to have seen all three of the men who turned up dead so far, but her allure is too much for Frank to resist and so before long he has placed himself in danger by forming a relationship with Helen.

I don't see much use for the film alone, but the film does sport one impressively engaging performance by Ellen Barkin, so it has that going for it. Barkin infuses Helen with enough charm and irresistible mystery that you are left constantly wondering just who this woman really is. That's the best part of the film, wondering if she is really as dangerous as you're convinced she must be.

Sadly, the end revelation is far from interesting.

Al Pacino is a bore here, and this marks possibly the start of his tired overacting stage. There were glimpses of the old Pacino here, but not many. It doesn't help that the script is so ridiculous that it makes Pacino look like a moron. John Goodman fares better, thanks to little screen time. He is a great actor, very underappreciated, and he manages to create a character we want to see more of.

See the film for Barkin, but it's sad that Barkin's splendid turn wasn't in a better film. I'll never watch this again, but every time I see Barkin I'll recall this amazing performance. So, maybe stay away from the film, because honestly, she is the films only redeeming factor.

I've been looking at purchasing the HD DVD release of 'Sea Of Love', but haven't been overwhelmed by the responses of the big league review sites. The message I'm getting is that 'Sea Of Love' doesn't cut it relative to 'Basic Instinct', and that the transfer to HD DVD is haphazard.

I just want to say I've seen both films several times and my biggest question is whether 'Sea Of Love' looks best in 1.33:1 or 1.85:1 (I have both LD versions) -- personally, I prefer the picture composition at 1.33:1 (as originally shot), rather than the masked down widescreen 1.85:1.

More importantly, 'Basic Instinct' is a very slick and hip film with a very slimy underbelly -- whereas 'Sea Of Love' has heart and soul and depth of characterization that leaves that other film in the shade. If overt sex, sensuality, and titilation is what you're really interested in, then 'Basic Instinct' delivers in spades -- go for it! On the other hand, if you are looking for down to earth characters with real world feelings and a darned good plot, then 'Sea Of Love' is killer -- a truly fine film!

I was expecting better after reading the Amazon review: "this taut 1989 thriller", "Expertly written", "...Sea of Love one of the best films of its kind".. What does this mean? What kind of movie is Sea of Love? A thriller? Yes. One of the best of it's kind? No. Taut? Well, about as taut as John Goodman. Expertly written? A little strong. The tension between Al and the guy who stole his wife seemed a bit forced. The ending seemed forced (if not silly - that much the Amazon review got right). Even the love scenes, while not terrible, seemed a bit forced, and I didn't believe in Al's attraction for her, though Ellen Barkin did seem to become progressively attractive as the movie went on.

I suppose I got this movie because Al was in it. But for good Pacino movies, check out "Carlito's Way", or "Godfather II". "Insomnia" was a great recent one as well. Maybe it's the Goodman factor. I've a hard time taking seriously movies that plays in, although he was better in this than in "The Big Lebowski" (he was actually good in "O Brother, Where art thou?" but then everything was good in that movie). Ellen Barkin was fun to watch. Still, this movie isn't a "must-see".

An average procedural, but with a decent performance by Pacino and some steamy Ellen Barkin scenes. But what's with that AWFUL cover image? The original Poster image was not only vastly superior, but fairly recognizable. If 'Sea of Love' wasn't on the cover, I'd have a hard time knowing what movie it was. And Al looks completely stoned. Just horrible packaging.

In the network TV version of this film there is added footage showing Lorraine Bracco as Pacino's ex-wife confronting him at the police station. She is sick and tired of his harassing her and her new husband, and the information she gives Pacino is a release for him. It changes his actions toward them and makes him emotionally free to pursue Ellen Barkin.

Aside from Bracco's terrific performance in this small role but important scene, there is definately a gap without this footage. Why not add it to a new release? I would buy it in a second and rate it 5-stars without a doubt.