XX/XY (2002) User Reviews (38)

Girls just wanna have fun!

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 22 November 2004]

Austin Chick has done wonders with "XX/XY". It's almost as though he is working in solving a mathematical equation. In the process, he makes us follow the three principals, Coles, Maya and Thea throughout almost ten years to see what become of the characters. Mr. Chick is a film maker in tune with young people, their language, their interplay, and their sexual discoveries.

In securing the services of Mark Ruffalo for the pivotal role of Coles, the director is blessed as well with wonderful performances all around. Mr. Ruffalo has become one of the best actors working in the American cinema. He always bring such an intensity to everything he does, but in a subtle and quiet way. We always know what's going on with this man because he expresses everything with gestures that are always right. There's never a moment wrong in Mr. Ruffalo's portrayal of Coles.

The story begins in 1993 as the original friends, Coles, Thea and Maya explore their sexual awakenings in unorthodox ways. Coles is the man who lusts after both room mates, but it's obvious that Maya is the one that gets the best of him until their separation.

As the story turns to the present time. We see Coles in a relationship with Claire, the 'together' young woman who seems secure enough with Coles never to pressure him into a marriage, because she feels he is committed to staying with her. Their life together suddenly takes a spin with the reemergence of Maya, who has been away in London all these years. Her presence unravels Coles to the point of betrayal to Claire. It is Claire who gets the last laugh as she confronts Coles to tell him how ahead of the game she really is.

The last scene is enigmatic. We watch Coles and Claire standing by the door. Coles is trying to hold it open, but Claire succeeds in closing it, and as a chapter in their relationship has ended.

The two principals, Maya Strange, as Sam, and Kathleen Robertson, as Thea, are excellent as the college girls that love to have fun. However, one has a feeling that it's Petra Wright, who plays Claire, that gives the strongest performance. Ms. Wright has a luminous aura about her; she overshadows the others. One realizes that Coles needs her and she loves him.

Bravo to Austin Chick for a job well done.

The odyssey of Mark Ruffalo's buttocks...

[flickershows · 7/10 · 4 February 2004]

'XX/XY' is an above-average examination of love and relationships, through college and then into adulthood. Mark Ruffalo, Maya Strange, and Kathleen Robertson star. They're 3 college kids who open the film with a menage a trois, then 10 years later when they've matured and changed. Or have they? Some characters seem to swap personas while another suffers from the Hamlet complex (ie. never being able to make up his mind).

Petra Wright (Ruffalo's grown-up love interest) has a powerful speech which serves as the climax of the film. We find out that she was always just as in the know about things as we are. Both she and Ruffalo play this scene perfectly.

When it's all over, this proves to be a successful character study. The characters seem real (and it doesn't hurt that they're all attractive) and they even reminded me of the characters in Mike Nichols' 'Carnal Knowledge'. Films like these seem to say that sex BETTER be fun if it's going to be worth all the trouble it brings.

Plus, director Austin Chick never goes more than 10 minutes without a shot of Mark Ruffalo's bare behind. Any potential werewolves in sight would've turned into their hairiest selves with all the full moons in this movie.

The Fault, Dear Brutus, Lies Not In Our Stars

[atlasmb · 6/10 · 30 October 2013]

As I was watching this film, I was wondering if there would be a fundamental difference in the way it was viewed by men and women. It seemed very true to life. I would be surprised if the author did not experience some of the film's events firsthand--or at least observe them.

The feel of reality is one of the best things about the film. It helps that the three main characters are played by actors who really inhabit the characters. Just as in life, we see awkward moments and situations where confusion exists.

The film's title could have been Woman/Man. The title XX/XY brings things down to the chromosomal level, suggesting the film is about the basic nature of men and women. Are the differences in the behaviors displayed by the two genders genetically encoded?

Coles (Mark Ruffalo), the man in the triad, says there is "no room for honesty in a healthy relationship." This shows his confusion over what a healthy relationship is. It also might suggest that honesty does not mean the same thing to everyone. Finally, it is an honest appraisal of a truth in many relationships. Not everyone wants the complete truth. And when you love someone, how much are you willing to hurt him if the truth might lead to his pain?

The main question I have about this film is whether or not realness is the only attribute a good film needs? I cannot say any of the characters inspired me.

In the end, we are left with Coles continuing to be ambivalent. Did he change throughout the film? Did anyone? The lesson is, I guess, that it is difficult to deal with your true nature and the true nature of others. Decisions are sometimes made not because they lead to the best of all possible worlds, but because the results of our actions (determined by our natures) lead us to them.

Kathleen Robertson, who plays Thea, is striking. Maya Strange, who plays Sam, reminds me of a cross between Clare Danes and Michelle Pfeiffer. The rest of the cast also do an excellent job.

Better Than Expected

[Lechuguilla · 7 May 2006]

Three college-age swingers "get together" for some fun, and in the course of a few months grow emotionally close to each other. The central character is Coles (Mark Ruffalo), a libertine who draws artwork and wants to be a filmmaker. The two women are attractive, and as arty and modern in outlook as Coles. But over time, the three drift apart. Five years later Coles and one of the ladies cross paths, which sparks a reunion between the three, together with their current mates. "XX/XY" is a cinematic study in growing up, making decisions, and accepting responsibility for those decisions.

The screenplay is weak, with a mediocre premise, an Act Two that dawdles and meanders, and dialogue that is not memorable. Still, the overall acting is strong enough to overcome the screenplay, and render a film that is mildly entertaining and engaging. It's certainly better than what I had expected.

The film's cinematography is not remarkable, but it's not bad either. I don't recall a film with so many close-up shots. It's as if the director wanted to emphasize that the film is a character study, by zooming in close to each of the main characters, over and over and over. I could have wished for more variety in camera techniques.

Also, given the romantic angle of the story and the arty personalities, I could have wished for a more bohemian cinematic style, along the lines of "Plein soleil"(1960), with dazzling colors and music, and more flair in production design. The apparent low budget of "XX/XY" renders a style that is somewhat pedestrian and bland.

But as is, "XX/XY" is not a bad film. It's worth at least a one time visit, especially for youthful viewers still searching for themselves and not yet committed to any particular path in life.

A calmer version of Jerry Springer

[Smells_Like_Cheese · 6/10 · 5 August 2006]

I'm not sure why, but while I was at Hollywood Video, I ran across XX/XY and decided to give it a shot. What did I have to loose? It was free! :D I'm in a special club. Anywho, XX/XY takes on at first this gritty type of independent film with a couple of actors I knew. Mark Ruffalo who I just recently saw in In the Cut and Kathleen Robertson who I have seen in Scary Movie 2.

The film is about Mark who plays Coles, a wanna be director who meets Sam, a simple girl who lives with her roommate, Thea, played by Robertson. Coles, Sam, and sometimes Thea hook up, but it is Sam and Coles that truly fall for each other. But when Coles goes too far with Thea, Sam breaks it off with him. They meet again ten years later coincidentally and despite Coles being in a serious relationship, questions if he still has feelings for Sam.

It's an interesting movie, but I did like it's true honest drama and human emotions. Although I felt like I could easily see these situations on a talk show, it still wasn't a bad movie to watch.

6/10

You can count on Mark Ruffalo - irresistibly cool on the surface, perplexed underneath - in Austin Chick's not just another relationship story

[ruby_fff · 7/10 · 12 June 2003]

That's how good he plays his roles - his characters are of the every man: not extraordinarily handsome, nor distinguishable in voice or gait, yet he has his Mark Ruffalo air about him. Writer-director Austin Chick's debut film "XX/XY" is a conscientious effort in telling it like it is the ordinary affairs of the heart of one man, three women. The jazzy rhythm (music by The Insects) of the opening song in French "Le Soleil est Revenu" sets the tone as the camera (DP: Uta Briesewitz) follows Mark's character, Cole, along NYC subway in a spontaneous way. It reminds me of French w-d Eric Rohmer's filmic style.

In order to appreciate the film fully, the first half of the formative years provides history to the storyline. The three friends - originally started out as a young man and a young woman courting in the college dorm, she then includes her roommate Thea (Kathleen Robertson) in the mix, and eventually became un ménage à trois. The story progression seem familiar: people loving each other yet on the surface, they appear to be 'free spirits' who would tolerate free love with no committed ties to anyone. But we can see Sam (Maya Stange) deep down does yearn for being with Cole and probably likewise for Cole, yet somehow fear and mistrust led to woeful breakup without a chance of soulful communication.

Yes, Ruffalo is the perfect Cole. Good at his illustrative skills, caustic at his delivery of ad campaigns, he can gloss over relationship issues when facing Claire (Petra Wright), his 5-year partner since his split with Sam 10 years ago. He weaves truth like a pro. It's irresistible not to dislike him.

"Love means never having to say you're sorry" (Love Story" 1970). But Cole does want to say he's sorry even though he's not sorry - he doesn't know he is not sorry. It's in his nature that he can't be sorry even though he says so, or wanted it so - that he's sorry. (This is sounding awfully like psychiatrist R.D. Laing's book "Knots"). It's a Möbius strip of an endless trait.

I love the ingenious door closing scene: you can see (you don't really see him) that he's holding onto the door not letting it close (as though once closed, any remaining strands of Sam will be cut off.) Now you really have to help him to let go and close it shut. Good for Claire (we don't see her either - assuming that it's her trying to close the door). Smilingly I see hope. Lucky for Cole, Claire knows him well enough and would know how to tackle love with this "never want to grow up" boy of a man. I like the strength demonstrated by Wright's Claire.

Kudos to Austin Chick for his script and direction. The story has its suspense of moments: how will Cole come out of this? What will happen next? Is Sam's staying? How will Claire react? It was brilliant casting (by Ellen Parks) of the 3 different women in Cole's life (Stange/Robertson/Wright), and of course, Mark Ruffalo - he's the one - you can count on him.

Ruffalo is in Bruno Barreto's "View From the Top" 2003, with Gwyneth Paltrow and co. It's a more relaxing role for him, rather fun actually. He's also in Rod Lurie's "The Last Castle" 2001, opposite Robert Redford, James Gandolfini and co.

I feel nothing

[hall895 · 4/10 · 5 September 2012]

Perhaps the most damning thing you can say about a movie is that it stirs no feelings in you. If you absolutely hate a movie, well at least you feel something. XX/XY denies you even that. There's nothing worth hating. But there's certainly nothing to love either. There's just nothing, an emptiness. The story doesn't engage, the characters inspire no reaction. It's very bland, rather monotonous and sorely lacking in entertainment value.

XX/XY is the story of a young man, Coles, played by Mark Ruffalo with a silly mustache. Coles meets young college student Sam. That would be a girl Sam by the way, played by Maya Strange. And Sam has a wild child roommate, Thea, played by Kathleen Robertson. Right after the trio meet they make their way to the bedroom for an exceedingly awkward threesome. They end up in a weird sort of friendship with Coles and Sam a couple and Thea floating around off to the side. And then Coles, who is at heart a jerk, does some jerky things and the whole thing implodes.

It is now years later. You can tell it's years later because Coles no longer has a mustache. Now he's in a long-term relationship with a woman named Claire. They're not married but they may as well be, that's the type of relationship they have. And then out of the clear blue sky Sam shows up and you can guess what happens from there. Jerky Coles decides he's wanted Sam all along. Wild child Thea re-enters the picture too, although she's not wild anymore, actually settled down and showing some signs of maturity. Maturity is clearly not something Coles possesses. He acts like a spoiled child and screws things up all over again. Sam's not much better. Poor Claire is there to serve as the aggrieved party, someone for you to feel sorry for. But again this movie really fails to make you feel anything. The key characters are unsympathetic, but not so much so that you can muster up any hate for them. The movie just sits there, nothing grabs you. It's all very predictable, it's not all very entertaining. The best thing you can say about the movie is that the performances are pretty good. It's a fine cast, they just have no material to work with. The focus is on the trio from the first part of the film but if there's any truly memorable moment in the whole film it belongs to Claire. She has a moment where she states the truth about all that has gone on, bluntly and honestly, something nobody else is willing to do. It's a strong moment for the character and for actress Petra Wright. But the movie can't even let us have that moment. It cheapens it, essentially nullifies it, later on by having Claire do something she quite simply should not do. In a smarter, better movie she would do no such thing. Here it's the final unsatisfying piece in an unsatisfying film.

Good and believable but a bit slow

[squatsified · 6/10 · 4 September 2003]

Excellent cast and intensity throughout. All characters and situations relatable to the twenty and thirty-something audience and quite believable. I just thought it moved a bit too slowly and felt long. It takes a drastic leap in time in the last half, and the cast pulls it off. But it does slow down the film a bit. Very sexy film.

But who cares?

[erxnmedia · 4/10 · 9 April 2003]

I saw this movie at the GenArt Film Festival 8 April 2003. As I watched the movie I kept wanting to like it. For one thing it is indeed an extremely realistic portrayal of a certain class of people. And it was introduced by the GenArt film programmer as being "young and hip -- very representative of our audience". And yet...for two hours we are treated to a portrait of a bunch of shallow, miserable, unhappy, selfish, clueless people with apparently no work responsibilities and no families and no relationships outside of their whining, mewling, sullen, mopey complaints about each other interspersed with bouts of apparently pleasureless intercourse. 45 minutes of the college version of this followed by 45 minutes of the soulless successful yuppie version of this. They cried, they screwed, they lied. They hardly ever laughed and it was a real strain near the end to watch them trying their damndest to have fun with a little karaoke. In the end, while I appreciated the skillful realism of the portrait, I couldn't get over the fact that I just wouldn't care about these people in real life. I made this comment in the Q&A afterwards and the director was intolerant. A few people afterwards came up and agreed with me. Also most of the reviewers on Rotten Tomatoes had the same impression. Still, it is valuable as a detailed anatomy of the insipid.

Great Movie

[amanda-153 · 7/10 · 14 June 2004]

It is sad that Mark Ruffalo did not come to my attention until I took my 10 year old niece to 13 going on 30. I was happy to see such a neat actor in such a cutsie movie. So much so that I sought out previous movies to see what this guy was all about. XX/XY is a great movie that, to me, was about whether the crazy s**t we did in college was ever REAL. Were the feelings real? the emotions real or just magnified by the intensity of the moment. When we fall in to the real life, we find what really makes us happy. This was a real look at the transition between college and adulthood. Great actor in a great flick! Worth the time to rent and watch. Also look up and rent My Life Without me. Equally awesome!

XX/XY = Pretentious

[blue_monday-1 · 1/10 · 11 October 2005]

What can I say about this XX/XY? It starts off promising with the 90's stuff and raver scenes, but doesn't nearly have enough back story to make us really give a care about the three main characters. The lady who plays Sam is an alright actress, I think she's one of the highlights. Also, it's refreshing to see Mark Ruffalo clean shaved. He looks good in this, but alas, his acting is pretty lazy and not up to his usual standard. Thea is played by Kathleen Robertson, and at least she tries. The dialogue in this film is the most wooden I've heard in a non porno. It doesn't come off as sincere, and the acting is lacklustre. Mark Ruffalo doesn't deserve such a bad movie. He's probably the redeeming quality about this. But even Mark Ruffalo can't save this relationship drama that plays out more like a movie of the week than an indie film. Awkward sex scenes, awkward dialogue, style over substance. Pass.

Closer with less glamor and more grit

[richardv-johnson · 10/10 · 29 October 2005]

From many comments about this film and the similar Closer, one would think all the characters were reckless libertine hedonists. They're not, they're unsuccessful serial monogamists like most of us in the modern western world. This one doesn't have the Oscar Wilde/Noel Coward wit or shocking vulgarity of Closer, but it does have amazing true-to-life performances, especially from Petra Wright (who has an aristocratic beauty similar to Mimi Rogers in Someone to Watch Over Me), Kathleen Robertson, who previously had a field day as an innocent bigamist in Gregg Araki's Splendor, Maya Strange (not Strange), who displays a vulnerability much like Natasha Gregson Wagner in some other independent films (what happened to her?). And of course Mark Ruffalo, an undecided everyman for our times, like the dog in Aesop who loses his bone because he thinks he sees a better one. And as someone remarked, this is definitely Eric Rohmer territory. Excellent writing, cinematography, and use of music, and not one redundant line or wasted shot.

Whatever

[=G= · 6/10 · 30 July 2003]

"XX/XY" is a relationship flick about an FFM trio of young adults who become close, drift apart, and then rediscover each other years later only to find their reunion raises issues about mate selection. The film is a naive drone of chick flick yammering which fleshes out the core characters superficially leaving the audience to marginally engaged voyeurism. It does, however, paint a somewhat realistic picture of the trade-offs life requires as opposed to wandering into romantic fantasyland. An okay drama-lite for the less than middle-age crowd. (C+)

Every Character in this Film Needs to Grow Up!

[lavatch · 2/10 · 2 April 2005]

After suffering through "Closer," I honestly was not prepared for another depressing film filled with artificial dialogue that purportedly deals with contemporary "adult" relationships. But that is precisely the kind of clichéd material that "XX/YY" recycles in this embarrassing film experience. How is it possible for an actor to say the line "there is no room for honesty in a healthy relationship" with a straight face?

The characters, story, and even the film's style were all unbearable. The editing of this film was amateurish, and there were too many awkward close-ups on the characters smoking, drinking, kissing, vomiting, and even flossing their teeth!

The story traces the development of three characters who bounce around to different relationships. We see the threesome in their exuberant, youthful phase. And at the midpoint of the film, we meet them in their "mature" phase. But the problem with the screenplay is that the characters do not really change. By the end of the film, I wanted to take Mark Rufalo's character aside and give him some good advice, as follows: "Grow up!"

XX/XY misses the mark

[serendip83 · 9 April 2003]

XX/XY feels undone.

Take the male adolescent fantasy of bedding two females and hopefully watching them bed each other, throw in some complications, and see where it takes us, is essentially the crux of this movie.

Unfortunately, despite the excellent camera work and sharp performances by the cast, something is missing in this screenplay in order for us to empathize with these characters. It's as if the writer wanted to give everybody equal screen time, but forgot to flesh out the true love interest--Sam, played nicely by Maya Stange. If Maya were further fleshed out as a character, the audience might actually feel satisfied by the end of this so so movie.

Too bad. There is a diamond in the rough here...but it is buried in shallowness.

Speaking of shallowness, considering the constant state of free love depicted in the movie, nobody seems concerned with STDs or AIDS. What's up with that?

Well written characters are believably depicted

[rosscinema · 6/10 · 3 January 2005]

One of the refreshing things that this script has to offer is the depiction of it's characters without hiding their faults and allowing them to act and speak as real people would. Story starts out in 1993 where a young aspiring filmmaker and animator named Coles (Mark Ruffalo) meets Sam (Maya Strange) while at a party and they engage in a very clumsy menage a trois with Sam's roommate Thea (Kathleen Robertson) but it doesn't go very well. The three of them remain close and Coles and Sam start a very passionate relationship but after time passes things get rocky when Coles admits to sleeping with another woman and then after a party getting it on with Thea!

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Ten years later Coles is living in Manhattan with Claire (Petra Wright) and working in commercials but one day he bumps into Sam and after talking some they agree to get together with Thea and catch up on things. Thea is married to a restaurant owner named Nick (Zach Shaffer) and very happy and while all of them are having dinner it's obvious that Coles has never stopped being in love and while Sam has feelings similar to his it's unknown to everyone that Claire knows what is going on between them.

This film was written and directed by newcomer Austin Chick who is making his debut and his script remains sharp throughout the films duration and gives the viewer characters that are flawed but believable. The script never gives us unreal situations and the scene early in the film of the three of them experimenting with a menage a trois illustrates this by having the character Sam flee after knowing that this is not what she wants. A film that was just trying to sell tickets would have given a more erotic scenario with everyone involved having a good time. This film stays true with it's characters and they're realistic reactions to certain events. For me the strongest scene in the film involves the character Claire confronting Coles after he starts talking of marriage and she tells him that she knows precisely what is going on. It's a well written scene delivered very strongly and accurately by Wright who makes a nice little impact in the film. This film doesn't have any real thought provoking idea's to share but it does possess a script that is both refreshing and humanly accurate in the way it deals with it's characters.

Great Start, Dull end

[johnnybigpants · 6/10 · 15 April 2005]

Austin Chick's movie starts with a great shimmer, gruff Ruffalo follows an enigmatic prey in the shape of Maya Strange home, hand-held camera as much as a voyeur as he is. What emerges is a College frat party where Ruffalo rolls around with Maya and her best girl pal Kathleen Robertson who have a greater understanding of sexual sharing than Ruffalo.

Despite Ruffalo's obvious attraction to Maya, though more than willing to fool around with both, when the film fast forward's to a decade later, Ruffalo is shacked up with clean and sensible Claire in a subtle performance by Petra Wright From now, the film falls as flat as Ruffalo's new nerdy haircut. What exactly happened in those 10 years? It's in there somewhere but suddenly we're watching a completely different, slower, duller film that we no longer care about. The inevitable reappearance of one of the college girls is no surprise (nor a surprise as to who it is) and the artificial denouement leads to further disappointment. A huge anti-climax.

'I want to make movies that make people think'...

[Howlin Wolf · 2/10 · 11 May 2005]

... Well, something to point out to the director, Mr. Chick: if the character who said this was in some way a mouthpiece for your own self, then you failed miserably! (I understand more how the guy who wanted his money back felt... ) All we have here is a tedious merry-go-round of people who make 'bad decisions' left, right and centre. When you're the objective bystander and a friend comes to you after yet another foul-up, in most cases you grin and bear it because the person you're listening to shares a bond with yourself; a connection. I wouldn't even have any feeling for all this if it were real-life friends I knew intimately. It's like being the only one sober in a room full of drunks - they're all too 'self-absorbed' to take seriously... ! The vast majority of people would surely be even LESS keen if they were hearing the troubles of some isolated stranger who they're completely alienated from? That's what this film is like - a random person accosting you in the street and acting like the 'Ancient Mariner', and all the while you're desperately looking for a way out...

Why should I care about the infidelities and indiscretions of these characters when absolutely no sense of 'permenance' even begins to rear its head until past the halfway mark of the film, anyway? We've watched incredulously as they've been carelessly irresponsible, but hey, now we should automatically begin to care because... what, they're older? With age does not come greater significance; the mistakes you made at 20 are just as stupid if done at 35; so don't ask me to care to any greater degree just because this time life has made it sure that you have more to lose...

It could have been 'emotional' in the heady, 'youthful' stage of the film had Thea been shown to be 'serious' about her thing with Coles; but she isn't, until she suddenly turns on the taps when he admits he 'meaninglessly cheated'; and the collective seem to be angling for an outpouring of sympathy for her! The other two 'empty vessels' at this point failed to make me care much, either... So, all of a sudden my feelings are expected to 'kick in' later on, just because the players have advanced in age? I don't think so, somehow! To get me thinking about relationships; I have to be able to say: "OK, maybe I don't agree, but I can see why you might've done that". Instead, all that was presented to me was a morass of those bad decisions that I talked about... It's nothing but pure undiluted LAZINESS to work from the stereotypical template that all college students fornicate first and ask questions later; and then take the bad habits of 'coupling' that they learnt when they were in study with them into the outside world. The most critical bad decision I made was to watch this; and about the only thing it made me "think" was how long before it was over, so I could go do something else.

2 films in 1 movie

[MichaelLange210 · 7/10 · 22 November 2002]

This movie is interesting yet not compelling. This movie is actually two films in one. The first half of the movie is a coming of age (College age that is) dark drama/comedy that is filled with desperate sadistic characters. The second half of the movie is a more settle redemption of life, ten years later in the lifes of the characters, that resembles a Woody Allen film. The transition did not work. The first half was a good film and the second half was a good film but putting the halfs together did not make a delightful whole. Somewhat disturbing actually. Austin Chick does have much potential and a great eye for cinema art. I will definetly be looking for more of his work to come. Next time maybe he will make two compelling films instead of two interesting films within one movie.

xx/xy=0*

[edwagreen · 1/10 · 31 July 2008]

Mark Ruffalo has proved himself to be a fine actor. What an engrossing mess this miserable film is.

The story could have been told in about a half hour or so. Hippie guy meets girl, they split and meet some years later. He is in another relationship and she is also involved. Naturally, sparks fly between them and his girlfriend catches them and is angry. The girl goes off and marries the guy she had been with since ditching Ruffalo.

What is the point here? Bad relationships? Immaturity continues? What is the writing trying to convey? An absolute stinker in the sense of the word. You will cheer when The End lights up the screen.

Ok art house relationship drama

[Spanner-2 · 7/10 · 15 April 2003]

This is a smaller film that starts in college with indy film vet Mark Ruffalo hooking up with two co-eds (Maya Stange and Kathleen Robertson) for a weird three way relationship... which quickly fizzles out... flash forward five years or so and they have dispersed and are all in new relationships when fate brings them back together.. As art house relationship films go, this one doesnt break any new ground but works for the most part because the script is decent and the cast is game. A fairly effective tale that asks more questions than it answers. GRADE: B

20 somethings have fun, then pay the consequences.

[rob-236 · 4/10 · 24 November 2005]

A tale of 3 twenty somethings who meet at a party and end up having a threesome.

two of the trilogy end up in an "open relationship", until feelings for each other get in the way and they end up drifting apart.

fast forward 10 years and the trio meet up again, their lives have taken them on different routes but this meeting makes them realise that they never really moved on from each other, and this could have a devastating effect on their "new" lives unless they come to terms with their feelings and sort out some problems that first surfaced years before.

Watchable relationship yarn, but the real problem is that all the characters are quite dislikable therefore its hard to feel sorry for any of them, and this reflects on the film - making it hard to enjoy and making it impossible care one bit about anyone involved in it.

Impressive movie with a sense of humor!!!

[summitabc · 10/10 · 29 April 2003]

This movie is impressive and different from anything I have seen. I really enjoyed Mark Ruffalo's performance. He is the perfect anti-hero, and his character represents so many people that we all know, trying to settle into serious relationships. A perfect date movie. I have been talking about it with my boyfriend for days.

It is a drama, serious business about love and commitment, but also so funny. A lot of genius one liners, excellent quips. I never am really moved to write these reviews, but this movie is really refreshing and a really good time.

OMG, another 20-something, self-absorbed, attempted-hip, convoluted relationship film

[john4films · 1/10 · 8 January 2005]

Please have mercy on us. Another newbie, would-be writer-director, possibly just out of film school, dumps another one of these on us.

Lord love a duck. But not a turkey. Pa-leeeeze!!!!!! It seems like the massive hoard of wanna-bees graduating in mass from film schools in every state and small town think that they have to do a meaningful film about the human condition, which to them obviously means the romantic and sexual and relationship trials and tribulations and complications of, of course, themselves.

Apparently, they just don't realize that nobody cares about this except . . . themselves. Those younger than 20-something couldn't care less, and those older than that have already been through it and don't really care to watch for an hour and a half or more some newbie film school grad's self-absorbed, personal version of it. Even most other 20-somethings are yawning and watching other films that are professional and fun.

Oh, well, if you like it, you like it. I don't. I find it to be another example of why recent film schools grads seem to be able to do nothing else except something self-absorbed like this. Try getting some real life experience before attempting to make films for anyone except yourself. The fact that one of the characters is a wanna-bee film writer/filmmaker shows you the extremely limited range of life experience of the would-be writer/director of this self-absorbed and boring-to-anyone-else 20-something project.

Just another one on the massive pile. Should we just shoot these egotistical children constantly graduating from film school with nothing but fame and fortune and pretension in their limited imaginations? Or should we just wait until mommy and daddy's patience and/or money runs out and they end up in a tiny cubicle in an office, under constant stress, and continually whining and unhappy, 40 hours a week for the rest of their pompous lives? Oh, well, I won't worry about it. When mommy and daddy's money or patience runs out, reality will hit them in the head. Then, after years of struggling and suffering and hopelessness, maybe, just maybe, they'll finally have something to write about and film. But even then, they still might not have any talent.

Gawd, but this was boring. Boring story, boring characters, and poorly executed. And totally self-absorbed. Get years and years of life experience before you try again. Please. But you will still need talent, and I didn't see any here.

Sorry. For everyone involved in this supposed film and for everyone who tried to watch it. There are so many good films in the archives, and more added each year, that I don't recommend bothering to watch this one, unless you are this kid's parents. And then I highly recommend it, so that they will know to immediately cut this kid's free money off, so that he will be forced to get a job and deal with real life.

1 out of 10, and only because the actors tried real hard to produce their horrible acting. 0 out of 10 for the writing and directing. And I've worked in the film business for years, and the TV and the music industries, too. But even just as a film consumer, it was horrible.

The one reason that it is of any note at all is as a classic example of the phenomenon of recent film school graduate self-absorption and pretension to fame and fortune and talent.

Fans of Petra Wright Will Enjoy It

[aimless-46 · 4/10 · 11 December 2005]

The first half of "XX/XY" is a labeled as a flashback to 1993, the second half is labeled a flash-forward a few years to the present. The transition between the two time periods is immediately proceeded by a confusingly contrived match cut from bedroom to subway. The subway scene is brief and unnecessary, a less than zero addition that must have looked like a good idea on paper. Unfortunately, once they staged it they felt compelled to use it.

Although "XX/XY" is told as a linear story, during post-production they realized that it was too choppy and confusing for straight viewing and elected to label the scene transitions with a lot of on-screen titles. Although viewers will thank them for this last-minute fix, it is like making an explicit admission of writer/director Austin Chick's limitations and/or pre-production laziness. The final cut gives the impression that it wasn't until the actual assembly of this film that Chick gave any thought to the sequence for many of the scenes.

The bleak colors, inadequate lighting, and bland production design are depressingly consistent with the tone of the story. Don't expect to find anything uplifting except the Taco ads and the advertising agency parody.

Those expecting a script on the intelligence level of "Closer" (a similar premise) will be disappointed despite decent performances from the entire cast. I initially watched from the perspective of a Kathleen Robertson fan and was disappointed with her quite ancillary position in the story relative to Mark Ruffalo and Maya Strange. Although promoted as the story of a "carefree threesome", Robertson's Thea is just a third wheel in the Coles (Ruffalo)-Sam (Stange) relationship. Chick briefly gives Robertson something to do as she breaks Sid (Kel O'Neill), a shy puppy dog boy who she teasingly sleeps with once. But he goes nowhere with this, apparently it is just there to insure viewers dislike all members of the threesome, not just the principal two.

If you can manage to tough it out for a while, things get much better in the second half. The "Gatsby" ending is actually very good. Mostly this is because each member of the threesome has paired up in monogamist relationships with very likable people. By this point Coles has become the principal character as Chick begins to explore the mysteries of male discontent. The Coles' characterization is hard to buy into, there is just too much inconsistency as Chick tries to make him both a wimp and a "stick it to the man" rebel (I assume that this inconsistency is supposed to be the whole point for the movie). Although Ruffalo can adequately play either character he cannot perform the impossible and weave these disparate traits into a believable person.

The second half shows Coles involved in a long-term relationship with Claire (Petra Wright). Once her character is introduced, Wright proceeds to steal the remainder of the film, not just because she is the film's first well-adjusted character (and arguably most talented performer), but because her part is written so much better than the others. Claire's scene on the pier is the film's best moment and the one thing here that you will want to go back and view multiple times.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.