Fast Food Fast Women

2000
Fast Food Fast Women
6.4| 1h35m| en| More Info
Released: 15 May 2000 Released
Producted By:
Country: United States of America
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

How important is the truth when falling in love? Bella is a Manhattan café waitress, about to turn 35, stuck in a long-term affair going nowhere. Paul is a widower, facing old age alone. Bella's mother sets her up with Bruno, a novelist/cabbie who likes to bed-hop and whose ex-wife expects their two children to stay with him for awhile. While Bruno learns some maturity from his young daughter, Paul answers a personals ad placed by a "widow, 60." The two couples - along with one of Paul's older pals and a Jungian stripper - sort out how to initiate a relationship these days, what to do when someone you like disappoints you, and when to tell the truth.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

Trailers & Images

Reviews

bastard wisher OK, OK... that pun is pretty lame I admit, but no worse than some of the attempts at humor in this film. Which is actually not to say that this film is completely terrible. It isn't, not by a long shot. But it just isn't that good either. I actually enjoyed Amos Kollek's earlier film "Fiona" quite a bit (and I would still be very interesting in seeing his film "Sue"), but this was really nothing like that gritty, slice-of-life, documentary-style film. This was more of a quirky, almost sitcom-ish comedy. To Kollek's credit, this predates the whole quirky indie trend by a few years, so it doesn't quite have the same pre-meditated feel as, say, "Me and You and Everyone We Know", however it has a lot of the same problems as that film did. None of the characters seem at all real, and everything they do or say feels completely scripted to be "witty" or "quirky" (and is only sporadically funny, although at least it is, a little). The whole film gives off a decidedly no-budget feel, with very primitive camera work and often amateurish acting (despite the presence of Louise Lasser), which in and of itself isn't bad, since at least it doesn't have the studio gloss of most recent similarly-minded pseudo-indie films. If anything, i give the film a little more credit than it probably deserves, just for having such a run-and-gun, no-budget feel. I did like the choppy, rough editing, for purely aesthetic reasons. Also it deserves some credit for not having too much of a plot (except towards the end), and a good unhurried pace.
RARubin At first, Anna Thomson's bot-ox lips, nose job, and silicone distracted me. I notice that this look is big in Hollywood, the bee stung lips of so many movie stars, their big boobs on a starved stick of a body makes the young guys pant, but the girls can't possibly match the impossible can they? Anna is an educated woman that has rejected Wall Street to work as a waitress in a diner. She's 35 and her mom's applying the pressure. Her Broadway paramour, a married man has strung her along since she was 23. Enter Jamie Harris, starving taxicab driving, failed novelist. Suddenly ex-wife dumps Jamie's kid plus one on him. Naturally through a series of unlikely big city moments, Anna and Jamie hook up, lose each other, and love.Then there's the autumn autumn match of still spry, 70 year old Robert Modica and Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, ex-Woodie Allen wife Louise Lasser. This relationship of seasoned citizens so rare in film took the show away from the yougen's. We cared whether or not sweet, only had sex with someone he loved, Modica can get it up for willing Lasser. We hoped the drugstore was stocked with Viagara.The screenplay offered some silly city shtick, New York City hip, but these scenes fall flat; nevertheless, this one, the babe and I enjoyed.
Kenn-15 This film ran through the art house circuit so quickly most people missed it, and that's too bad. Now it's finally beginning to show up on cable, and I hope it gets a larger audience. Amos Kollek's other films are also hard to come by in the U.S. -- I know I'D like to see more of them, after having seen this one, but this seems to have the lightest touch, from what I can tell.Among the many things it has going for it, is the incomparable Anna Thomson (Levine), a character actor I've followed since her days in the rep company of the original Tracy Ullmann Show on Fox television, through her unforgettable role in Clint Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN, to this interesting role of Bela.Magical Realism is a kind of sub-genre I always enjoy, and when it plays against the gritty, wonderful city of New York (my home town), I sit up and take notice. This is the kind of dark underbelly of one of my favorite (also underappreciated) TV shows, Jay Tarses' "The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd." If you knew and liked that, and can do with something darker and more sexually explicit, you'll probably like this.Bela triumphs, and so do her strange friends, in this pretty unique film, which is slow paced, as slice-of-life character studies are, so be prepared for that. If you tend to criticize films for being "too slow" or not having enough plot, you might not like this, but if you are happy examining characters and living with great dialogue and situations, hang in there. If you like "Smoke" or "Blue in the Face," you'll probably love this.
toclement This is the third film I've seen pairing director Amos Kollek and actor Anna Thomson. The other two, "Sue" and "Fiona", were both great and about the most depressing things you could watch ("Sue", in fact, is a masterpiece). So I was curious to see where Kollek was going to go with this, a more light-hearted, and even comic romance. Of course, we aren't talking "Sleepless in Seattle" here, thank goodness. I have to say that while I was watching the movie, there were times whenI shook my head and said to myself, "this is bad" or "that's ridiculous". In fact, this film had many more flaws and awkward scenes than Kollek's earlier work. But at the same time, after it was all over and I was walking home, I really felt like I had seen something special.I can't explain why exactly, but one thing that was surprising is that Anna Thomson's character, while the driving force in the previous films, was comparatively dull and uninspiring and underdeveloped here. Her love interest, even moreso. But this film was buoyed by a secondary romance plot involving two 60-somethings fumbling their ways into some sort of relationship. Louise Lasser Louise Lasser, hehe, making a comeback of sorts in recent years ("Happiness"), was just wonderful. Her partner (was it Robert Modicka?) was also off-the-map charming. If I have one complaint, there wasn't enough time in the film devoted to this burgeoning romance. There is one scene involving the two that is about as tender as anything i've ever seen on the big screen. It's nice to see good love stories about middle-aged people and above and they show that often the actors, perhaps due to more experience acting, pull it off much better than most of the young and the beautiful.In sum, another winner for Kollek and Thomson, and I just wonder when, if ever, Thomson will become a star in the states (she is quite popular in France). I kind of hope she doesn't, but that's out of my own selfishness to see her in more of these kinds of films as opposed to the inevitable lure to make the big money in the bad movies. I also hope Louise Lasser continues to get more parts because she rocks. (8 out of 10)