evening1
Two people lost in the world somehow find each other.He is a nerdy, depressed Mr. Nice Guy, willing to pay to get close to people. She is a stripper who works out her anger as a drummer in her off-hours. When she tells him she won't let him get close, he takes it as a challenge.He wants to believe she's fundamentally normal, just great in bed. What she sees is a guy she can squeeze for money. Not understanding, or caring, what she's doing, he's willing to throw everything away for her. When she rejects his love, he's not such a nice guy after all. Yet they both keep going back for more.There is a tremendous amount of sex in this sordid Vegas-based movie and I sense it was used to pad a flimsy story. This film takes itself very seriously, but like time spent in Sin City, it doesn't amount to much.
oarch
The script is disastrous, pretentious boring drivel. Whoever wrote those dialogues and plot is a loser who never had a meaningful relationship with anyone, or hopefully had one but absolutely no writing talent whatsoever.The camera work is a pathetic attempt at presenting the movie as an 'art film', 'independent' or whatever is supposed to give it some value. The only reason I managed to get through to around 90% of this film is my friend who laughed at and ridiculed every single line of those fake dialogs. I mostly spend my time wondering how much worse is it going to get.If people can actually get this kind of trash to DVD and cable TV, I wonder whether I should give up my profession and start making movies. I am convinced I can write a much better script than this junk.Don't even think about watching this.
Swampfox
If you decide to rent this film or catch it on HBO (which seems to run it several times a month these days), know up front that it is uneven and ultimately doesn't really end up anywhere interesting. The writer/director Wang was trapped with only two possible outcomes, granted. But after the level of trust his performers put into him, he owed them and us something more satisfying than where the movie takes the audience. However, the performance of Molly Parker makes watching this film more than worth the failings of the script.No one, NO ONE, came close to what she does in this film that year. If you have any respect left for the choices the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences members, not to mention most of the critic groups, don't watch this movie. The fact that Parker was completely overlooked, while Julie Robert's over-hyped, far-short-of-spectacular turn in ERIN BROCKOVICH got the accolades, shows what total rubbish these critical popularity horse races really are. In CENTER OF THE WORLD Parker gives an astoundingly brave performance. Yet it is the nuanced, subtle touches that show the viewer her character's shifting attitudes that make it such a stand-out job.
Without a single line of expository dialogue to illuminate the internal one, one can follow the character's struggle to maintain the control she thought she had on her own emotions. The idea that some young people have the wisdom of adults without having had the experiences to form that wisdom and what happens when they face situations that test them in a similiar fashion is very intriguing. Its a shame the film cannot match the effort Parker puts into it. Peter Sarsgaard does a 180 degree flip from his turn in BOYS DON'T CRY and while not as amazing as Parker, he does fine job too. His character is more of a now stock one: the brilliant guy with immature sexual development.But above all else, bravo Ms Parker, BRAVO!
jconner_1984
"You don't *look* like a stripper..." was the first clue. Director Wang, who clearly OK'd Zalman King/Adrian Lyne film style ad and packaging art, was hardly hiding the reality vs. fantasy (or real vs. fake) themes of his superb dot-com romantic tragedy much past the opening credits.Wang's use of hand-held camera, grainy 8mm, incandescent lighting color wash, high-definition close ups, and assorted traditional noir and verite style cinematography and direction is a breakthough exploration of digital media.Vegas visitors brave enough to leave their Strip casino/hotel cocoons during daylight hours will surely be struck by the almost surreal difference between how ugly and unglamorous the city is by day and how other-worldly beautiful after dark. Florence, however, is no Vegas...
Get it? Florence (Italy), is *real*, and every flaw she (the city) may have simply adds to the unearthly beauty she emanates. Whether filmed in handi-cam, Fisher-Price pixelvision, or 70mm IMAX, at high noon or midnight, the beauty of Florence (Italy) is timeless and media-independent. At least in the hands of Wayne Wang, Florence glows with or without the lipstick and latex...I mean neon.Richard's visit to the Venetian Casino/Hotel near the end of the movie completes the tragic romantic (city) metaphor. The "canals" at the Venetian Hotel are truly as pathetic as the film depicts them.
The problem is, these two tragic lovers have always kept a safe distance away from Florence (Italy), or *reality*, and are tragically resigned to a Vegas-reality. Or a dot-com reality...Filmed digitally and rendered as cinema verite, even duplicating the "grainy" silver halide crystal image artifact of low light film stock with a digital effect extends the film's theme to the medium communicating the artist's expression.Great film.I just wish my many shares of homegrocer.com were as valuable as a single used copy of a DVD of this film....or a single apple from an actual grocer.....
AD
