blunthead When I think the term "bad movie", I seem to think of Quiet Days in Hollywood first; it looming so large in my mind as to block out memory of all others. I know what you're thinking: It can't be that bad. Oh, yes, it be.The movie is exceptionally bad in every film-making area. The acting isn't bad just because the writing is so bad. The acting is bad all on it's own, too. What story there is is an unnecessary story. If good direction is Sean Connery in a tuxedo, this direction is an obscene clown. The movie is embarrassing to watch for human beings. One wonders how it survived unhindered through human minds to it's current form.All that said, Hilary Swank manages to be good. Talent can make such a difference. Otherwise, film teachers and students should use this movie as a template for what not to do.

Pepper Anne Matt Adler fans might be interested in this one, though he only appears as a very minor supporting character for three or four minutes total. But what the heck? It's one of the last films he's actually appeared in (because he's doing mostly adr loop credits these days).In spite of that, however, this is one utterly dull movie. You have probably seen a zillion movies just like this one, a few separate stories which share interrelated characters (in one way or another). But, they're basically very short scenes of insignificant events between the characters (all connected through sex) in which they take the time to pontificate (both through action and dialog) to the point where your wondering if you're the only one who has no idea what they're saying or if you're the only one who doesn't care. While there were a few interesting things that occur in the movie (most all of them involving any of the scenes with Hillary Swanks character--since she was probably the most interesting, if not the most likable character in the whole mess), this is just about an hour and half of non-sequential nothing. It may work in some films (Tarrantino, borrowing from the anarchistic stylings of 70s french and Italian filmmakers was able to pull it off, among others), but this the way 'Quiet Days in Hollywood' worked out, it is one of the many that makes no sense, and rarely strives to do little more than waste time.

billm75 This early Hilary Swank movie showcases Ms. Swank's charisma but little of her talent. She has a thankless role(the foul-mouthed but philosophical hooker with the ubiquitous heart of gold), but to her credit she speaks her ridiculous lines(I'm sure the German to English translation didn't help) without embarrassing herself.Hilary is only in the first and last vignettes, and the first is a total waste; she's just not meant for this kind of role(but who would be). The later scene is the best part of this film and there's a moment where she jumps in the shower(no nudity shown) and exclaims "It's cold!" with a wonderful smile on her face that lightens the whole(rather depressing) affair up. Her repartee w/ Peter Dobson(and doesn't his voice sound EXACTLY like Martin Sheen's?) is natural and funny, if poorly written.Natasha Gregson Wagner is similarly wasted(as she was in Another Day in Paradise(a very good movie BTW)).The rest of the movie makes it painfully obvious that the director/writer has worn out his copies of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, esp. the diner scene with Chad Lowe.A professional effort but it's only for Swank/NGW/Tarantino fans.

JOF If you've seen the movie in the theatres, it was probably a cut version. The version I've seen wasn't. I am generally against cutting everything out of a movie, let the people see the original or tell them not to see it. Well, it's not that easy and for this one it is clear that as everybody sleeps with everybody without being a porno or anything, this is difficult not to cut and to put in a normal movie theatre. Well see it yourself, or don't. I think it is not that bad. Well there is a story behind it.... I guess