Chances and Lucky are great reads, but to say that the miniseries doesn't do it justice is a HUGE understatement. It's not the worst thing ever made. I just wish that the powers that were had been a little more faithful to the book, at least in the casting part. I mean, blonde, blue-eyed Nicolette Sheridan as Lucky, YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING! That also goes for Sandra Bullock being cast as Maria and Shawnee Smith being cast as Olimpia. The casting director was either drunk or in a hurry. The closest that the casting people got was with Gino, played by Vincent Irizarry. There were also a lot of plots that were skipped, like Dario's homosexuality, Carrie's abuse and rape as well as how and why she came to be a prostitute, the stories of Gino's abusive father, and the list goes on and on. I would pay anything to see a "CORRECTLY CASTED AND NON-POLITICALLY CORRECT" remake of this movie, whether it be on the small screen or on the big screen, preferably on the small screen, or otherwise many subplots may have to be sacrificed due to time. Let me know if it ever happens.

As usual, the movie is nothing like the book. I really enjoyed the book, because you became invested in the characters. However, I did the process backwards: I saw the movie before I saw the film and liked the film. I saw it at a fairly young age, but I still liked it. Vincent Irizarry was on my mother's soap, so we had to see anything he was in. Nicolette was not the right person for Lucky I think. And Sandra Bullock as Maria? The entire purpose of the character was not what Bullock represented, but it's how I first fell in love with her and remember her to this day. However, she wasn't right for the part either. The movie was fair enough, but you could tell that NBC wasn't ready to deal with Dario's homosexuality and real mob violence. It almost had the moral appeal of an after school special. The movie should of took itself more seriously. I liked the movie, but after reading the book, the actors were all wrong for the characters.

Funny how things turn out; while going through the site and checking up on "I Saw What You Did" with Shawnee Smith (whose on-screen appearances on "Becker," curiously enough, coincide with the times during that amusing but inessential sitcom when yours truly pays most attention to the screen. There, comments on two TV productions for the price of one), I found out that she was in this interpretation of two of Jackie Collins's novels... like one wouldn't have been enough. Joan's more attractive sister also wrote, executive produced and even got her name in the title of "Jackie Collins' Lucky/Chances," clearly eager to remind us just who exactly we have to blame for this. Consider yourself blamed, Jackie.Six hours of dire pap (Sandra Bullock was also in this, and must have counted herself as the real lucky one since her character died at the end of part one), and with a cast seemingly intent on seeing who can give the worst performance, it's ultimately only endurable as a laugh riot. In amongst this Olympiad of appalling acting, Nicollette Sheridan romps home with the gold as Lucky Santangelo (as one American critic wrote at the time, she's as adept at playing the daughter of a mobster as Roseanne is at singing) and only Michael Nader matches her in the thespian-as-plank stakes; we don't even get to appreciate Nikki's sublime bubble butt. At least "Hollywood Wives" had Laura Branigan doing the title song (though how Aaron Spelling persuaded her to waste her talent on his behest we can only speculate).Wait for "I Saw What You Did" instead. (That's three comments now.)

I can't tell too much about this one. Yes it's a good movie, but not more. I've read the novel, but there isn't a big difference between book and movie. The book is little boring and in the movie plot is usual and actors' play was highly mediocre. So, this movie fits for review only once.