zing101
This movie is best watched late at night (if you can stay awake). It is 90 minutes long where the first 85 minutes are an odd and eerie sequence of scenes that seem to transfer from one character to the next in what appear to be chronological order. Then in the last 5 minutes the movie's point unfolds, and you're left with an interesting puzzle that may make you want to see it again: was the movie forward chronological, reverse chronological, disconnected, or an endless paradox that is broken in the "end", which is were the movie began? Makes me wonder if the title is a riddle, too. The first 5 minutes is also important, if you're trying to close the loop.
George Parker
(Question) What do you call 100 film critics buried up to their necks in sand? (Answer) A good start. Well, I don't know Peter Mattei from Adam but if he is the budding auteur his filmography suggests, "Love in the Time of Money" is a "good start". A classy shoot with whimsical music box style music, this flick looks at a chain of tenuous relationships as it moves from person A to person B to person C...etc...and back again ending with persons A & B in carousel fashion. The film gently probes the unhappy circumstances of nine people with finely rendered shadings beginning and ending with a street whore and her client. The downside of this film is the lack of a story which may have something to do with the many critical slams it received. I watched the behemoth "Angels in America" last night and was bored at the end while this little concatenation of character studies kept me spell bound. Use caution. I may be the only person who really liked this flick. (B)
mgressma
This movie starts slow, then tapers off. After watching for about an hour, and seeing absolutely nothing happen, I walked out. I mean, nothing happened. Zero. Zip. Nada. There is no story. The characters are vague representations of the most boring people any of us know. The producers of this film could be sued in a court of law if they try to sell it as a "motion" picture. There is no motion. I could have told the same "story" with a couple still pictures with captions. The script is a joke. It's just awful. I doubt that any script doctor in the world could save it. My biggest regret is not that I wasted 60 minutes of my life watching "Love In the Time of Money", but that I missed a great opportunity to be a leader. I could have been the first to walk out, but I waited a bit too long. Instead, I watched about 20 people walk out before me.
jbstone
I'd never been before, and I wasn't sure if I'd get tickets, but I actually got to see a lot--and this was by far the smartest and most entertaining film there. It took a while to get into it--it's not your typical boy meets girl story. In fact, the film follows how one relationship affects the next (and there are about 5 relationships or so whom we witness) and so it was hard to get into the rhythm of it immediately. But the dialogue was so fun and entertaining and every story was so real, whether it was a really dark scene or a witty one, that I eventually was picked up into the world. And, that's partly because the actors were so amazing--I'm a big Sopranos fan, and I was especially into Michael Imperoli's role (you wouldn't even recognize Christopher). I also thought that Rosario Dawson and Adrian Grenier's scene jumped off the screen (I wish Adrian had jumped off too--he's so gorgeous)--their relationship was so well done, and honest and funny. And the film was apparently shot on digital video, but I thought it was beautiful and looked like film to me!
AD
