RavenGlamDVDCollector An erotic movie. Shot with a malfunctioning hand-held digital camera.Okay, the producers and director will insist this was a study in color, with mood-enhancing black-and-white, blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum through the drudgery of the commentary I just waded through, ooh horrors why do I do these things to myself?You shoot a picture Man Loves Woman, and you feel the need to go extremely artistic and we have to sit and watch as the color spectrum goes slightly haywire like on a broken TV set and you think it's high art?The joke is on the reviewers who are simply wowed by this. The punchline is indeed, low budget movie, sex as selling point, instant major audience cause the girl IS mesmerizing, maybe for real they only had broken equipment, which is suddenly A+ cos how arty it is gonna seem? And think about the profits!!! They're flogging a dead camel and making it walk!!Okay, so I'm kidding, but it could just as well be true. It looks like it has been shot with a faulty camera. And that says it all!!Except that freckle-faced red-haired supple lissome lean and lovely Molly Parker makes the whole thing worthwhile.(but for those of you who go for Carla Gugino, hoo boy...)

John Raymond Peterson There's a reason this movie is unrated. The criteria for an R rating are likely overstepped. Seriously, all one needs to do to get a sense of what you're going to be watching is read the IMDb full storyline. Common sense prevailing, you know you'll be seeing nudity, erotic scenes, and that's why most will choose to see the movie. Yes, there's a fairly good character study story developed and both Molly Parker and Peter Sarsgaard do a good job of delivering performances that make it such. But let's face it, I'm not the only one that decided to view the film for the character study… as an afterthought. Carla Gugino thrown into the mix helped seal the deal for me. I have to warn the prospective viewers that you'll be seeing as much, if not more, of Sarsgaard's bottom than that of Parker's. I wonder if that could be considered a double spoiler.

metallicmoor This movie is absurd, vague, slow, abrupt and incomplete. But isn't that how life is? I wont take any sides but one thing is certain that the director has been able to keep it as close to life as any of our lives could be. This movie is not about unreal heroes, super-hot babes & witty dialogs. It has a millionaire loser for a hero and a shy hooker for a heroine, and their love which is not your run of the mill happy ending love story but love which is free from any bias and desires of the flesh. Picture this - A really hot woman, dressed in exotic lingerie acting all horny in front of you, but you don't feel a thing. You don't feel a thing because you want her to undress her heart,her mind,her soul and not her body which you know could be bought by money. The brilliance of this movie lies in the fact that despite he is given what he wanted( at least what he bargained for), he still feels incomplete and we as viewers experience this by ourselves,and that goes for one scene and the actors life as a whole too. While she never lets her guard open(though baring all for him) but finds herself helpless in the face of the goodness and respect which she perhaps never experienced before. She denies its love because she doesn't want to complicate things or probably also realizes that their love is not to be, but the matters have complicated already. A poignant tale of absurd, incomplete love and the absurd, incomplete life of our internet world.* Don't watch it for the sleaze, you might end up erecting your sensitive side instead.

rosscinema Wayne Wang has built most of his career directing films about unique relationships and this one is exactly that. But its also one that really doesn't have much to say. Peter Sarsgaard plays Richard who is a man that has a computer business and its on the verge of going public and earning him even more money than he has now. Molly Parker is Florence who is an exotic dancer in a strip club and she meets Richard in a coffee shop. They talk and he finds out where she works. Finally he asks her if she would come to Las Vegas with him for 10,000 dollars. She lays out the ground rules like no sex. But between 10pm and 2am she will do erotic things with him without intercourse. During the stay in Vegas Richard meets her friend Jerri (Carla Gugino) and at one point she says her boyfriend beat her up. Richard gives her money to help her out. One of the questions surrounding the story is if Florence and Jerri were in on it together to get more money out of Richard. Its possible. The center of the film is Parkers performance as Florence. Its the best thing in the film and Parker reminded me of Linda Fiorentino in "The Last Seduction". A very smart woman who doesn't compromise and is in control at all times. At one point in the film Florence is masturbating and I think the scene shows that whatever sexual pleasure she receives will be on her terms, when she allows it. *****SPOILER ALERT*****The end of the film has no revelation and the character of Richard is so predictable that one can't help but call him a big fool. Of course he falls for her and thinks that over the course of time she'll change her mind about him. But business is business and Florence tells him that she's here for the money, just as they had agreed on. The irony of the film is that Richard is a very successful man with a computer company making lots of money but when it comes to relationships, he's a failure. Florence is the one that understands what business is. She's a consummate pro! Film is moderately interesting without having any real message or angle to the story. We don't know if Florence and Jerri set up Richard and you can't feel sorry for him. He's portrayed as such a schmuck. We saw his intentions when he first asked Florence to Vegas. I guess that makes Florence quite the opportunist!