Mistress
Tags: comedy, satire

Plot synopsis:
A young woman is torn between the affections of her two lovers. One is a young bachelor who brings passion into her life. The other is a married old man who has kept her as his mistress for years.
Architect JD (John Lloyd Cruz) has a chip on his shoulder about his businessman father Rico (Ronaldo Valdez) never really accepting him as his son. Seamstress Sari (Bea Alonzo) struggles to take care of her family. The two meet by chance, and JD aggressively pursues Sari’s affections. Though the two are clearly a good match, there is a problem standing in the way of their bliss: Sari is the mistress of JD’s father. Against his better judgment, JD continues to court Sari even after finding out this difficult fact. He hides his true identity as Rico’s son, and fights to win Sari’s heart.
Upon their struggles, Rico's wife was angrily dismayed to see Sari which is his mistress as both his son JD and himself had a rivalry for Sari's heart. When they travel through the province to deliver a wedding formal suit to her relative in the province, both Sari and JD finally show their true feelings with each other as they watch the wedding ceremony despite her relationship to JD's father, Rico as Sari finally gives in to JD's feelings and both became romantically involved as they make love.
After their travels in the province, they were found by JD's father Rico who is furious to see his son became close to her mistress making both having a fistfight as Sari tried to stop them until Rico suffers from a stroke.
At the hospital, JD finally apologizes to his father, Rico who is dying and bedridden and he gives his position to his son on their family business before he dies. In the end of the movie after JD makes his speech towards his father's business employees about his father's life and his business, he watches Sari who fixes the formal suits she had sew in the tailor shop as she saw him before JD drove his car away this implies that their romantic relationship is finally rekindled.

Review: the most accurate depiction of Hollywood outsiders trying to bust in.
Knowing several real-life wannabe actors, screenwriters, directors, and producers, none of whom are exactly 'A-List,' I thought this movie was an accurate portrayal of the twists and turns that the life of a project and one's personal life take while one, lacking connections, tries anything to come up with financing to get a potentially great movie off the ground.Look at how long it took to get "Ray" funded and made -- 10 years!
Similar stories abound.
It takes a monumental effort to get anything made that's a little bit different.
Guys who control the money don't like risk!
With all its iterations depending on the focus of the potential underwriter -- think Money-Man -- with a colorful cast of stars, all playing well-written characters, I can't get enough of this movie.
I own it and have watched it many times.
A real laugh fest for those captivated by all things "Hollywood." The name IMHO ruined this movie's chances at the box office.
It implies a certain salaciousness that is simply not there.
It is a warm and sweet movie about guys trying to help their sweethearts achieve their dreams.
Should have been titled, 'The Darkness and the Light,' which is the name of the screenplay they are trying to produce, or 'A Hollywood Story,' or something similarly innocuous.
Worth seeing by all means!.
Worth seeing.
Bob Wuhl, never acclaimed because he has little range, actually turns in an excellent performance as a screenwriter who pulls out all the stops to get his script filmed.
Martin Landau is his producer, and the money men they find, one of whom is Robert DeNiro in a wonderful role, all want him to cast their mistresses in the film.
Although the film is slow at times, excellents performances all around make this worth seeing..
brilliant and underrated.
A sadly underrated movie.
Hollywood could not have loved it because of the cruelly true things it says about how movies are made, about how a writer's creative vision becomes corrupted and debauched on its way to the screen.
That doesn't sound like a setup for a comedy, but a wonderfully dark comedy it is, with some richly witty dialogue.
Landau's performance is superb (he is one of the best actors around), and the descent of Wuhl's character from idealistic writer to desperate self-promoter - a sad journey - is made humorous.
Wonderful bits by Eli Wallach, Danny Aiello, and all three mistresses..
over looked gem.
This movie is another over looked gem made awares recently to my consumerized multiplex movie taste.
Robert DeNiro acted in this movie for free (according to IFC Channel's little factoid footnotes).
It has a low budget feel to it.
I dislike Robert "Arliss" Wuhl as an actor.
Nontheless I found myself intrigued and enjoying Mistress.The discussions about art, and how they are a reflection of real life: the question posed in My Dinner With Andre:  Is the art a reflection of it's artist, or is the artist a reflection of his art ?
The discussion and breaking down of some of the tedious aspects of screenwriting and what it means and how one goes about it in the movie industry.
The compromises required in movie-making, and art in general, is an intriguing aspect to this movie, making it more than just a run of the mill "dish on Hollywood/Los Angeles" movie.
Also, the comprises woman in the movies have to make, and blacks.
I think this is a great movie for an aspiring (screen)writer/actor to watch by providing some of the clues to how one has to think or approach writing and also the realistic constraints that get applied by the way the industry is structured.(BTW, I feel as if I am the only one to notice that this seems alot like Woody Allen's Bullets Over Broadway ((which was released 2 years after this movie)); Woody Allen is the greatest, but the uncredited theft of this movie may be a travesty ((especially provided the knowledge, also courteasy of IFC's footnotes, that the Writer/Director Ron Powlus[sp] spent 7 years running around trying to get this movie made.
Which is a sad fact because this is an excellent movie and the amount of work he must have put into it is reflected.))Now looking at this as well, this is sort of a movie about the making of a movie about the real life making of a movie; which in itself is stating something very profound about movie making..
Very Underrated Gem. This is one of those movies that I fervently hope gets rediscovered one day.
The performances are top notch, especially Landau as the extremely obseqious producer and Ralph as DeNiro's actress girlfriend.
What makes this movie so great is that it understands the need of subtlety in satire, something that is often lacking.
This film also says a lot about Hollywood and financing that REALLY hits the mark, maybe a little to close to home for some in the industry..
Recommended.
A sophisticated dark Hollywood comedy, IMHO superior to THE PLAYER.
The cast is a powerhouse, but Martin Landau is outstanding, as is the black girl who plays Beverly, DeNiro's mistress.
I've seen it three times and laughed harder each time.
Basically, it's about the woes of a director/scriptwriter (Wuhl)who, upon wannabe producer Landau's urging, tries to pitch his script to three money guys (Wallach, Aiello, DeNiro).
He fights unsuccessfully to preserve the integrity of his artistic vision..
It`s Not BATMAN 3 That`s For Sure.
The info button described MISTRESS as thus " An earnest screenwriter sees his dream mangled in the Hollywood movie machine .
Robert DeNiro is a crass moneyman demanding a role for his talentless mistress " Great I thought , this is going to be like THE KING OF COMEDY except it`s set in Hollyloot .
Twenty minutes later DeNiro`s still not appeared and I`m aware of one thing - info buttons are never right The info button wasn`t so much wrong but it was rather misleading .
DeNiro does indeed play a crass moneyman who is after a role for his  mistress but she`s not exactly talentless .
The plot mainly revolves around a failed director/screenwriter called Marvin who finds himself having to severly alter his script if he wants it produced , it`s a sort of satire/black comedy on the Hollyloot system of film making and once you get over the initial disappointment of it not being a Scorsese / DeNiro masterpiece it`s an enjoyable film , and one with a lot of scathing truth like a pitch is all down to presentation , casting is down to who the actress is sleeping with and a producer`s vulgarity is only matched by his ignorance .
Also watch out for the line " This isn`t BATMAN 3 " which at that time hadn`t been produced yet .
I guess someone made BATMAN 3 as a homage to MISTRESS ?.
"Mistress" misfires.
"Mistress", a misnomer, tells of a bunch of Hollywood hacks slogging through the process of networking, schmoozing, compromising, and sucking up required to launch a film project.
A messy flick with little to offer considering the talent behind it, "Mistress" seems to be trying to make the point that making a film is often about everything but the film...careers, quid pro quos, personal agendas, etc.
Unfortunately, "Mistress" is a poorly focused comedy/drama which doesn't work well in either genre.
Most likely to be appreciated by people like the IMDB.com users who are not Hollywood insiders but have above average interest in films.
The anti - "Player".
MISTRESS (1992) *** Robert Wuhl, Robert De Niro, Martin Landau, Sheryl Lee Ralph, Danny Aiello, Eli Wallach, Jean Smart, Ernest Brognine (cameo).
Bitingly funny satire about a struggling filmmaker wanting to make his dream script facing obstacles by each financial backer wanting their mistress in the film.
Christopher Walken and Laurie Metcalf have small roles..
Great actors in search of a script.
Pun intended.
This is a comedy about trying to make a movie in Hollywood.
There's a screenwriter (Wuhl), desparate to see his long-forgotten masterpiece brought to the screen, a producer (Landau) who hasn't had a hit in 15 years and three wanna-be producers (De Niro, Aiello and Wallach), of varying competence.
All of the producers have girlfriends who want to be in the movie.
Everyone has complicated lives.The theme is compromise, and who can and who can't.
Some parts of the film are mesmerizing, earning it a seven from me, and others sag.
A splendid birthday party serves as the climax of the film but I had no idea of why the birthday boy was being feted.See it if you like the lead male actors - they're terrific (even if it does remind you that women of the the same age can't find roles as juicy).
Otherwise, it's another "ain't Holywood awful" movies..
slow, but great casting!.
could be better, could also be worse..
nothing to see if you´re not a fan of Robert de Niro or Martin Landau.
I don´t really think Robert Wuhl is such a great actor.
He dissapears during the scenes with de Niro and Landau.
One reason to see the film is the fabolus scene where Christopher Walken commits suicide after delivering a chilling line.
Epic!!
well, it was not very bad, but it was nothing new.
I prefer "Ed Wood" with Johnny Depp if I wanna see a movie about moviemaking.** out of *****.
Impressive cast overplaying to the nth degree....
Barry Primus directed and co-wrote this 'Hollywood insider's comedy' which isn't very inside and is never terribly funny.
Robert Wuhl is a struggling screenwriter who, with help from Martin Landau's over-the-hill movie producer, hopes to get his picture made with financial backing from three hot-tempered high rollers; the catch is, each investor wants his mistress to have a part in the film, and all three women prove very difficult to handle.
Potentially interesting premise given over to foul-mouthed neurotics who are never as amusing as they're supposed to be.
Wuhl, an actor of quicksilver comedic timing, thanklessly plays the incredulous observer here, while the all-star supporting cast loudly plays up the material until the satirical edge flags and becomes cartoonish.
Primus' direction is wobbly and uneven, though he gets some amusing facial expressions from Robert De Niro (who also co-produced, for reasons which are unclear).
Shabbily edited, and with ungainly cinematography.
Requires some thought.
This film has a few good moments.
The story line about the director as an artist unable to overcome the devastating end of his first try to film his masterpiece is convincing and moving.
The rest of the plot about the producers and all their girlfriends is silly.
But, as you work through this dichotomy, you realize what is happening - somewhat in the manner of "Adaptation," the journey of the script in question is echoed by the journey of the characters to produce the script.
However, this film has none of the wit and pace of Adaptation.
The characters are fairly one dimensional.
Al Pacino does a shrill and annoying job of playing a shrill and annoying character..
Important comment on screen writing but a little dull.
The movie is actually fairly dull, not that funny, with kooky characters that are just kooky and not that interesting.
That said, it makes an important statement about Hollywood and Hollywood screen writing.The consensus is that this film accurately explains the hellish environment a Hollywood screenwriter goes through in trying to chase their dreams.
I've read a couple of biographies of famous writers and the issues they mention are shown in this film.
While most people presume that everything we see in a movie is based on the many concrete choices made by its screenwriter or director, the reality is different.
For a screenwriter either you never get the film made the way you want it, or you chase the paycheck and compromise with the money men.In this movie the money men are only willing to put up money for a film as long as their girlfriend is handed a juicy part.
This of course means the main character, a screenwriter played by Bob Wuhl, has to decide to compromise or not to compromise.
A complication exists in that his wife is in New York, trying to get their dreams of a restaurant up and running.
Unfortunately this isn't a real fallback option, since she isn't his muse; the Hollywood dream is.
Thus the concept "mistress" is multifaceted.
Is it a reference to the girlfriends of the producers?
Is it his wife?
Is it Hollywood?
Is it his dream of being a famous respected artist?
The movie could have gone deeper and been a powerful satire, a wonderfully entertaining critique and an important cautionary tale.
Regrettably its not as deep as all that and only succeeds at the latter.
Perhaps this is in itself a statement.
A very formulaic film done on purpose to explain why most Hollywood films are indeed formulaic?
It feels like a precursor to Adaptation.
Or am I trying to see things that aren't there?In any case while the whole experience is a little watered down, if you know someone that wants to be a screenwriter you should show them this film as it does lift the lid on the Hollywood dream and reveals how it really is, at least most of the time.
For a better quality satire on the same topic watch The Player (1992)..
Wears out its welcome.
Starts with a good premise and Martin Landau in the first scene.
Pretty soon Eli Wallach shows up.
Bit later Robert DeNiro.
Things are rolling along nicely when I realize Robert Wuhl, who irritates me at the best of times, was shouting his way through the movie.
And then Laurie Metcalf shows up.
Is she really this bad an actor or is it just a bad director working with no budget?
It's all downhill from there.
I just didn't care anymore.
Didn't care about Wuhl's character.
And why would I care about Christopher Walken's ''Warren'' character?
And who is the kid's dad supposed to be?
Elmore Leonard?
Yelling, yelling, yelling.
So tiresome.
I bet this movie didn't gross a thousand bucks when it was released.