RavenGlamDVDCollector If Bridget hosted a nature conservation documentary dealing with dung-beetles, I'd buy the DVD. That said, if this one dealt with that subject, surely there'd be, like, say, these two territorial dung-beetles clamoring for a better chunk of the pie, and we'd have some intriguing development, which would make for better viewing than this drawn-out navel-gazer drama? I'm kidding. But not too much...I saw it years ago, and what with Bridget's popularity here on the ElectricLadyLand screen, especially LEATHER JACKETS, reviewed some 16 months ago, I remembered that I was much enthralled with her beauty in this movie, though I couldn't remember the flick itself at all. Watching it tonight, I realize that there is naught else to remember. Had she not been in it, I wouldn't have signed up for the damn thing. Now, just as back then, I was only after Bridget.Don't get me wrong. If your heart is opened to Bridget, you'd also notice that this movie is more than the sum of its parts. It's actually good, but if you notice the general gist of the other reviewers here, most guys will get restless because of the slow build-up.LEATHER JACKETS might be an atrocious movie, but give me Bridget styled as she looks in that one, not SINGLE WHITE FEMALE. The movie that elevated her for me personally was that lowly one that all film critics take a p*** on.Once again, just as it was with LEATHER JACKETS, Bridget takes what little material she has at her disposal, and weaves it elegantly, making the absolute most of it. She possesses a natural grace and charm that shines through in all her work (though I must confess that I've only seen her earlier movies, and then also JACKIE BROWN). The lady is classic, truer words I cannot speak. That close- up tear-filled red-eyed scene is THE Bridget Fonda moment, congratulations to both her and the director. Later on there is that closeup of her lovely face as she receives cunnilingus from her real-life boyfriend, and also, that scene beloved by Quentin Tarantino (and myself!) where she joyously, gloriously, cutely replies "good" with a musical lilt to his statement that he wants to be inside her. Not forgetting that other great shot towards the end of her performance, another closeup scene, in the bathroom. That little, little exasperated sound, that slight twitch of the nose... Bridget was what celebrity appeal was about during the 90s.Bridget fans, do rent LEATHER JACKETS and BODIES, REST & MOTION. For nothing else but for the sake of just sitting back and feasting your eyes on the Hollywood Princess, and going "Wow, man! She is like really, really pretty!" (sigh, heartfelt long, drawn-out sigh) Special mention to Alicia Witt as Elizabeth, the wistfully pretty redhead kid who has a seminal, though short- lived part in the movie.Okay, boys, the little joke's over now. Where did you hide the last roll of film? So, this is an indie movie, no happy ending as studio execs would have prescribed. Still, you leave it at that point? Come on, in the spirit of the title, get off your butt!If you are watching this on a stay-at-home night on cable, you are most likely in for a boring evening. But if you are a Bridget Fonda fan, or just of pretty actresses in general, in for a treat. Deep, soulful movie? There are hundreds better. But they don't have Bridget in them.

wrcong I stumbled across this little piece of fluff on IFC television last night. It had a cast worth checking, so in spite of IFC's unhopeful two star rating, I settled in to watch. What an odd little film.The actor's performances were good -- very natural in terms of their interactions and relationships. The pace was a tad slow -- while I don't think movies need fist fights and explosions to create pace, a dialog-intensive film needs to beware of ......................... long..................................pauses. Still, that is a minor criticism in my view. If that was the only flaw in the film, I could and would have given it a higher rating because for the most part the actors handled those dialogic gaps pretty well.The worse problem with this film was its failure in my view to address the fundamental "So what?" question. I was never given any reason to care a whit about any of these characters, with the limited exception of Beth (Bridget Fonda) whom I was hoping would get the hell out of Enfield. After she left, I rooted for her not be found by the pseudo-intellectual painter, Sid. Beth had made a couple of very bad choices, with the amoral Nick (Tim Roth) and the vacuous pop-psychologist, Sid, so I was rooting for her to stick to her guns, enjoy the moments of pleasure she had with Sid, and get away before her brain turned entirely to mush. Either Nick or Sid would have destroyed her: Nick with his amoral outlook and lack of direction; Sid with his pretensions of profundity that he used to shield his fundamental lack of imagination and ambition.Still, I didn't care a helluva lot about Beth either. She made the right decision (finally), but her escape was not a complete triumph because for all we know she fell into yet another destructive relationship with some other needy weirdo two towns over.All of these characters, in the end, were drifting along in pointless situations. With a film so lacking in plot, brevity was important and, thankfully, present. If this movie had pushed toward the two-hour mark, it would have been an utter waste of time unless the time had been used to give the viewer a reason to care about this crew of self-indulgent dim-wits.

joe38_1998 Despite the little attention this movie has gotten, and the varied, sporadic comments and reviews, "Bodies, Rest and Motion" is the most wonderful thing I have seen in years. The four actors (Fonda, Stoltz, Cates, and Roth) could not do better to bring to us a very subtle, touching, and elegant portrayal of loves come and gone and lives living on threads. There's no action here, and very little actually happens, but the dialogue and the attention to details are so strong, you find you don't need anything more; you can simply revel in each actors' beauty and condition. You have to watch this movie more than once, and you have to cry at times, it's that good. I'm scratching my head why this movie did not make greater acclaim. Either I'm going mental, or the world is just missing out.

mattserendipity A film which manages to perfectly sum up the dilemma encompassed by the so-called Generation X: a generation that has never had it better, and has it all for the taking - if only they could figure out just what 'it' is.Nick (Tim Roth) carries the momentum of this notion, claiming that what he wants "isn't in here, and it isn't out there...", yet he regardless embarks on a voyage to Butte, Montana which is rumoured to be the City of the Future: "I read that a while ago, so the future's probably already there".Much of the film is concentrated on the aftermath of his departure, and in particular his decision to leave his girlfriend Beth (Bridget Fonda)behind in Arizona. Beth now must reach a similar decision in Nick's absence, finally deciding what 'she' wants as opposed to the wants of those around her (namely Nick). Also involved in this tangle of relationships are Nick's ex-lover and Beth's best friend (Phoebe Cates), and a painter (Eric Stoltz) whose introduction to the situation further complicates Beth's thinking.The film, like Glengarry Glenn Ross, is based on a stage play and this is evident in the minimum of locations employed and heavy emphasis on dialogue. However, this is really quite satisfying as characters are allowed to express and develop far much more than is customary in other such, so-called 'soul-searching' films.Stand-out performances from Fonda and Roth, and an intelligent script.