Sadly Over-hyped

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

I have no idea what I watched. I then wondered why I bought the DVD. It has "Terrific" and similar comments from movie critics of well-known American newspapers. What they were on while they watched this stuff or when they wrote the synopsis is not clear but it seems it was the same stuff the makers of this celluloid product had. They should have kept it in their private library and watched it every time they had the stuff. Why trouble poor movie viewers who want to relax or at least have a laugh or two at the end of a tiring day or week?

I was surprised to see the rather low IMDb score for this movie which is actually one of my top ten American independent movies of all time. It has a terrific cast, a great story and a great sub-story (or rather a sub-text to the main story), the different camera work serving as the differentiating element between the two. As a 'film within a film' type of movie, it superbly conveys the reality-fiction duality, centering on two main stories/plots: the 'real' story (shot dogma-style) and the 'fictional' story (shot in a standard way) thus allowing the viewer to distinguish between the two. It is a film about love and the search for love, the search for love in the right or wrong places, in ways which can be right or wrong. It engages with two developing love stories – one fictional, the other real. The 'fictional' story involves Roberts and Underwood's characters (him - an up-and-coming Hollywood movie star, her –a journalist doing a cover story on him). The 'real' story running in parallel is about the potentiality of human relationships, with two protagonists who have not yet met in person and, through a prolonged online communication, have arranged to finally meet in person. As the movie progresses, the sympathetic viewer's anticipation and excitement for their upcoming meeting at the "Holiday Inn" in Tucson builds up giving the impression that this 'love story in the making' is essentially the leitmotif of the movie, engaging the viewer with these two people's chance for romance and love and the opportunity to 'get it right' this time around. The ultimate reason why this movie resonates with me so deeply is the final scene of the chance encounter between the 'real' love story protagonists before they board the plane to Tucson (the irony being that both of them are based in L.A. and share a number of mutual acquaintances) with the two of them ending up sitting together on the plane. It is at this time that the viewer experiences a heart-warming 'ooooh' moment about how real love can work in mysterious ways, which is almost immediately followed by a shocking twist in the story: as the camera zooms out, what is revealed is – a movie set! Shattering all our illusions that the 'real' love story of the film will indeed develop, the ending is truly a pessimistic one, however, managing to depict in a masterful way the thin dividing line between art and life/ reality and film. Even though the film yet again confirms the age-old rule that accomplished love stories get a better chance in the fictional (movie) world, it also presents us with a challenge for a real-world chance worth taking.

Fragmentary mini-guide through Los Angeles-area egos and insecurities, a dissonant dissection of characters at the proverbial crossroads in their lives, unsure how to proceed and dragging others into their inharmonious webs. Under the unwritten rule that low-budget art-films with big-name players acting for scale must be edgy and provoking, director Steven Soderbergh and screenwriter Coleman Hough have crafted a multi-character portrait of tangled lives laid bare (hence the title); they actually appear to perceive these unearthed 'truths' to be honest and outspoken, but the phoniness comes through. As a television actor hoping to make the jump to features, Blair Underwood has a chance to broaden his heretofore limited abilities and show us something special, but--aside from a funny rap in the backseat of a limousine--he's stuck playing boy-girl guessing games with journalist Julia Roberts (in a Jane Fonda shag wig). There's a funny episode with a stage actor (portraying Hitler in a production entitled "The Sound and the Fuhrer") rebelling against his direction, but the marriage and employment woes of the others smack of Alan Rudolph's "Welcome to L.A." (with perhaps a bit more needling sarcasm substituting for satire). What Soderbergh does with the look of the film (utilizing mostly hand-held cameras) is far more interesting than the writing, however no new ground is broken either way because we have all been down this lonesome road before. *1/2 from ****

The explanation for this and Solaris maybe that the director was contractually obliged to make those 2 before leaving. Brad Pitt sole appearance is as he walks down a street in one scene and that is all he does. Almost the whole audience in the cinema screen I was in walked out. The same happened in the George Clooney film Solaris and Dancing at the Blue Iguana in which the cast seem to be trying to improvise lines whilst under the influence of semi sedation. Is a hodge podge which I have almost successfully blocked from my mind. Even if you are on a desert island and a passing native offers you the chance to watch this film in his solar power raft and you haven't watched films for 10 years. Do not watch this. It will make the effort of sustaining your life hunting and fishing seem worthless.