Add a Review

  • Matt Adler fans might be interested in this one, though he only appears as a very minor supporting character for three or four minutes total. But what the heck? It's one of the last films he's actually appeared in (because he's doing mostly adr loop credits these days).

    In spite of that, however, this is one utterly dull movie. You have probably seen a zillion movies just like this one, a few separate stories which share interrelated characters (in one way or another). But, they're basically very short scenes of insignificant events between the characters (all connected through sex) in which they take the time to pontificate (both through action and dialog) to the point where your wondering if you're the only one who has no idea what they're saying or if you're the only one who doesn't care. While there were a few interesting things that occur in the movie (most all of them involving any of the scenes with Hillary Swanks character--since she was probably the most interesting, if not the most likable character in the whole mess), this is just about an hour and half of non-sequential nothing. It may work in some films (Tarrantino, borrowing from the anarchistic stylings of 70s french and Italian filmmakers was able to pull it off, among others), but this the way 'Quiet Days in Hollywood' worked out, it is one of the many that makes no sense, and rarely strives to do little more than waste time.
  • FlickJunkie-226 July 2000
    You can always count on some mercenary to take advantage of an actor's success by releasing one of his or her early roles in some worthless B movie. 'Quiet Days In Hollywood' is an abominable ensemble production produced in 1997 and never released in theaters in the United States (it saw a limited release in Germany). It was recently released to the video market with Hilary Swank as the marketing hook. Actually, despite the fact that her picture and name dominate the package, Swank has only two limited appearances in the film.

    The film is a series of chain linked sex vignettes. Each character has sex with another character and then the second character moves on to the next vignette and has sex with another who moves on to another etc., until finally, the circle is complete and the last character has sex with the first character. The story has all the substance of a porn movie, with banal, profanity-riddled dialogue serving to bridge the gap between sex scenes. Since the sex scenes were mostly implied, even the prurient aspect was limited.

    Hillary Swank plays a hooker on the streets of Hollywood. She is brash to the point of stupidity, taunting and insulting dangerous people as if she has some sort of death wish. Her performance here is very amateurish and unpolished. Natasha Gregson Wagner was the only other cast member worth mentioning. She gave a reasonably good performance as a woman in an open marriage having sex with one of her husband's employees (the husband knows).

    There is not really much more to say about this sham. I rated it a 2/10. Don't get duped into seeing it as I did just because Swank is on the cover.
  • Lordy this movie is bad! I rented it because I'm up for anything set in L.A., but I gave up less than halfway through because it's all but unwatchable. The director is reasonably competent from a visual standpoint, but it doesn't matter. The characters lack any kind of charm, although Daryl Williams' natural charisma manages to occasionally overwhelm the idiocy of the writing. The voices of the characters are so angry and obscene it's revolting and the audience has no choice to reject them all, especially Chad Lowe's malicious suit. Natasha Gregson Wagner is lovely, but she, like all her fellow characters, talks too much and says nothing. This film is bereft of plot and fundamentally, criminally incompetent. Don't even think about renting it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    According to this movie, anyway. Imagine a remake of La Ronde set in Hollywood with contemporary characters, written and directed by Quinten Tarentino while he's having a bad day, and you have a pretty good idea of what this movie offers. It's a series of vignettes in which one character has sex with another, then the second has sex with a third, who has sex with a fourth, and so on until the last character has sex with the first character. In the process, the characters treat us to a lot of cheap sex, spew four-letter words constantly, and treat us and psychobabble & gibberish that's meant to pass as being philosophical observation. And we're supposed to say, "Wow, what an intelligent, edgy work of art!" NOT!!! The problem with the sex and nudity is not that it's there, or even that it's casual and recreational. It's just that all the sexual activity is angry and aggressive, as though it's a substitute for violence. And that some of it takes place in improbable places (in a car wash, in a restaurant toilet stall). All of the characters are completely unpleasant. While bad guys can be interesting, none of these people are. They're all just rude, crude, boorish users, and not even interesting ones.

    The only thing that saves this from the lowest possible rating is the cast, who tries to rise above the muck. Some succeed, some don't. Hilary Swank steals what little there is to steal, making the most of the scenes she's in. But doesn't have much screen time. Natasha Gregson Wagner is beautiful but doesn't have much to do. As a cheating Hollywood socialite in an open marriage, she's little more than set decoration. Stephen Mailer is funny as the heroin-addicted lover of a closeted gay actor, and he has the best line in the film (which can't be repeated here, but involves moth balls). But his character is such a bitter, self-pitying, self-destructive loser, you wish he'd go away. Chad Lowe gives one of his less worthy performances as a misogynist pig of a studio exec sleeping with his boss's wife. Bill Cusack makes little impression as Wagner's cheating phony of a husband, and Peter Dobson makes less of one Mailer's closeted A-List lover. And Meta Golding's role is particularly degrading. It's a hit or miss affair that usually misses.
  • I can't believe that some people gave this movie a 10! I could barely stay awake while watching it and I had just woken up!

    There didn't seem to be any distinct plot, the acting was horrible, and the dialogue was bland. I honestly don't know why this movie was ever made.
  • This early Hilary Swank movie showcases Ms. Swank's charisma but little of her talent. She has a thankless role(the foul-mouthed but philosophical hooker with the ubiquitous heart of gold), but to her credit she speaks her ridiculous lines(I'm sure the German to English translation didn't help) without embarrassing herself.

    Hilary is only in the first and last vignettes, and the first is a total waste; she's just not meant for this kind of role(but who would be). The later scene is the best part of this film and there's a moment where she jumps in the shower(no nudity shown) and exclaims "It's cold!" with a wonderful smile on her face that lightens the whole(rather depressing) affair up. Her repartee w/ Peter Dobson(and doesn't his voice sound EXACTLY like Martin Sheen's?) is natural and funny, if poorly written.

    Natasha Gregson Wagner is similarly wasted(as she was in Another Day in Paradise(a very good movie BTW)).

    The rest of the movie makes it painfully obvious that the director/writer has worn out his copies of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, esp. the diner scene with Chad Lowe.

    A professional effort but it's only for Swank/NGW/Tarantino fans.
  • I hope I'm not too late- I hope you haven't already rented this-

    This movie was painful to watch. It goes on my list of the worst 20 films I've ever seen. Childishly bad writing, painfully bad acting by Chad Lowe and others, and a horrible waste of Swank. I was embarrassed for some of the good new talents in this movie that had to work with such horrible writing.

    Some of the visuals, the locations, the framing of the scenes were actually very enjoyable- If I'm too late and you've already rented this, watch it on MUTE.
  • If everyone in Los Angeles ran around having sex in car washes, water fountains, public balconies, etc., I would know about it. (I live here.) The scene where the lady cop pulls her gun, then believes the young, skinny black thug is Barry White was utterly stupid. Chad Lowe does a good job as a rapist suit lawyer. I especially liked Peter Dobson, he has real charisma, and a voice exactly like Martin Sheen! Hilary Swank has come a long way since this stinker, both in her career, and her craft.
  • JOF23 November 1999
    If you've seen the movie in the theatres, it was probably a cut version. The version I've seen wasn't. I am generally against cutting everything out of a movie, let the people see the original or tell them not to see it. Well, it's not that easy and for this one it is clear that as everybody sleeps with everybody without being a porno or anything, this is difficult not to cut and to put in a normal movie theatre. Well see it yourself, or don't. I think it is not that bad. Well there is a story behind it.... I guess
  • When I think the term "bad movie", I seem to think of Quiet Days in Hollywood first; it looming so large in my mind as to block out memory of all others. I know what you're thinking: It can't be that bad. Oh, yes, it be.

    The movie is exceptionally bad in every film-making area. The acting isn't bad just because the writing is so bad. The acting is bad all on it's own, too. What story there is is an unnecessary story. If good direction is Sean Connery in a tuxedo, this direction is an obscene clown. The movie is embarrassing to watch for human beings. One wonders how it survived unhindered through human minds to it's current form.

    All that said, Hilary Swank manages to be good. Talent can make such a difference. Otherwise, film teachers and students should use this movie as a template for what not to do.
  • awake24hrs30 December 2008
    I keep this movie on Tivo and watch when I have insomnia. It is clear why it never got a proper release and if it did not have Hilary Swank in it, this would have remained in its rightful place......

    The concept of the film has potential but has been executed significantly better in other films. The whole picture has an amateurish, student film quality about it; you understand what they are TRYING to do but between the glacial pace, turgid characters, on hold music soundtrack, and community theater overacting you never get invited into the world of the movie. The proper way to view this movie is to have it on in the background while filling out your tax forms.
  • the viewer is dead wrong who claims that some 'mercenary' has 'exploited' hilary swank's success by releasing one of her early roles in a 'worthless B movie.'

    first, this film was made seven years after her first role, and just before her breakout role in 'boys don't cry.'

    second, it is the job of the owner of a library to make money from that product - as much money as can be made; so how is that 'mercenary'?

    third, this is NOT a worthless movie.

    it's too bad that some people don't understand authentic depictions of life when they see them. having grown up on the streets of Hollywood, i found this film to be remarkably accurate in its picture of that town. in fact, i was surprised that it took a largely-German crew to get it so right.

    the camera work and editing were superb, considering that the film is not a big-budget work. the script was, if not brilliant, at least very thoughtfully wrought (though i could object to several scenes that strained believability).

    its format is the meta-rondel (or meta-rondelle), a form in which we follow an object or an idea from one character or set of characters through other sets of characters until we come to a conclusion. other rondels are: La Ronde (1950), The Gun (1974), Twenty Bucks (1993), The Yellow Rolls-Royce (1964), and Winchester '73 (1950).

    the viewer previously mentioned is correct in that the film follows semi-related sexual encounters, which are the subject of this rondel.

    all in all, a film worth watching.
  • torbz25 February 1999
    I saw this film not long after it's release in Germany. It was presented in German although I believe the original version is in English. Until now, this rather clever film has eluded all film outlets and video retailers I have cared to visit.

    This film really attempts to shock and gets away with it. The often hectic and ambiguous dialogue left me part-confused and part-stunned by the accuracy of the characters and their ability to cut-down other characters with mere conversation. How the script writer got his ideas remains to be seen, but here lies a person who knows his psycho-babble.

    I really cannot remember too many plot details, I think I sat there powerless to control my reactions and was lead thorugh the barrage of different situations to the end of the film, which only a few deep breaths and a strong cup of coffee could help.

    Search this film, and see it : - regardless of your taste (action, comedy, thriller, drama) this film contains all, albeit in forms that are hard-hitting and sometimes very difficult to interpret, and the humour is strong irony, on the nature of humans and their interactions. A scary encounter...