The essence: At a campus mixer,
a predatory male asks a woman to go to bed with him almost as soon as
he meets her. She not only agrees, but asks that her roommate be
allowed to join in. The guy figures he's in hog heaven, but when they
all start doing the deed, it gets really uncomfortable. This
uneasiness sets the stage for the interaction that will mark their
relationships through college and then, in the second half of the
film, about ten years later as they hook up again after years of
separation. |
|
Hollywood films may tend toward being phony, but the
rule of thumb in commercial filmmaking is that you can't ever
sacrifice entertainment value for honesty, because entertainment fills
the seats in the theaters, allowing filmmakers to make a
profit, thus allowing them to make more films. This, on the other
hand, is an honest film which will get some good reviews but fill no
seats at all, thus forcing the filmmaker to go scratching around for
enough money to make his next film. It played at Sundance. It will
make a small arthouse run, then go to video.
The lead character in this film, Coles, ends up in advertising. He
first made a
stab at filmmaking, during which he made "art-house movies no one will ever see",
crude no-budget films on digital video. Like this one. |
TUNA's THOUGHTS
|
xx/xy (2003) is a story of
three college students who start their relationship with a ménage
à trois. None of them felt it went that
well, but all also enjoyed it. The three become inseparable, but
two of them (Mark Ruffalo and Maya Stange) become an item, and
live together. Stange is getting serious, but Ruffalo is the
sort of man that is never faithful. His infidelity ruins the
relationship.
Cut to 10 years into the
future, and a chance meeting reunites them. Seems nobody has
learned anything in the last 10 years.
What I saw was a drama where none of the characters grew or
learned anything, and so were the same at the end as they were
at the beginning. In other words, they all three could have just
skipped the ten years. Not only didn't the characters grow, but
they were not very likable people. I can't help but think that I
could have skipped the 10 years as well, and not missed
anything.
|
|
The
Critics Vote
|
The People
Vote ...
- It is still in theaters, as I write this.
After two months, it has attracted little notice, has never
reached as many as 15 theaters nationwide, and has grossed
less than $100,000. In the week of May 18, for example, it
grossed about a thousand dollars per screen - assuming three
showings per day, and a ticket price of eight bucks -
that's six people per screening.
|
The meaning of the IMDb
score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics.
Films rated below five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one
and a half stars from the critics or even less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is. My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but
will be considered excellent by genre fans, while
C- indicates that it we found it to
be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Any film rated C- or better is recommended for
fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is
recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C-
that often, because we like movies and we think that most of
them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know
that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below
C-.
Based on this description, this
film is a
C- (both reviewers). It is trapped in the inevitable arthouse
dilemma of how to portray immature, uninteresting, unlovable
characters truthfully. It sticks with truth, which is
theoretically a good thing, but it just isn't very involving,
and the characters are the kind of people you'd cross the street
to avoid.
|
|