(Spoilers within.)
As I write this, there are only two IMDB comments, both describing this as light weight. Both are recent, which I suspect comes from Blockbuster's beginning to stock it as a DVD.
But this is anything but light weight. It is not a lifealtering work, but it does have some admirable acting and some notable writing.
The writing is deft, and concerns an age old problem in the theater: what is storytelling? How can you shift the focus of storytelling to include the audience?
This film is the story of three men who meet one day to each tell a story. Each story involves a woman and one of the other men. Each is likely at least partially a tall tale which requires the collaboration of the silent participant. Each is intended for the other players, thus putting the audience in a limbo of participation. Since each involves sex, and various notions of love-flavored fascination and through that the definition of self, we are given characters not by what they are, but by what they say they are.
This same notion was explored in much the same way by Kubrick in `Eyes Wide Shut,' but with notably less sophistication.
Each story builds on the previous one, perhaps escalating the falsehood, perhaps not. We never know. There's always the hidden `gotcha,' in one case made explicit to establish its existence.
The directing is ordinary, even trite. The writer of this next wrote `Winter in New York.' which turned audiences off with its thick treacle. (It continuous the story of romancing the terminally ill.) But it amazed me at its competence. Once (if???) this fellow discovers real issues, he'll be really effective, maybe even important.
The acting is very, very good. There are no extremely showy parts here, so one has to actually look for the competence. But it is there. All these actors are fine, nearly all constantly working and often in good films too. James Frain provided the center of the riveting `Hilary and Jackie,' and was remarkable in the eccentric `Titus.' I saw him in four other major films where he did well enough. He's someone to watch.
Even the weakest of these, Jennifer Grey (of `Dirty Dancing') though not world class is quite good compared to, say Julia Roberts.
Don't dismiss this as light. It is instead just not very cinematic, relying on the more subtle conventions of theater than we are used to seeing 40 feet across. I note that this is one of the very few films that I think would have been dramatically improved by having the sex scenes more explicit.
7 out of 7 found this helpful