Tedfoldol
everything you have heard about this movie is true.
Merolliv
I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.
Stephanie
There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes
leahz
I watched this film after first watching "The Outsider" (2005) which is a documentary that follows the director, James Toback, during the shooting of this film. This movie is an interesting and artfully done study of sexual explorations by several interrelated characters. It does not follow the traditional formula of mainstream movies, which is one of the reasons I liked it. It was especially fulfilling to watch this film having just viewed the documentary that delved into the objectives of the director in making this movie, the feelings of the cast before and during filming, commentaries on Toback's style and techniques from other directors and actors with whom Toback has worked, and the challenges associated with shooting the entire film in 12 days.
Michael_Elliott
When Will I Be Loved (2004) * 1/2 (out of 4) Incredibly bizarre film about a rich slut (Neve Campbell) and her wannabe hustler boyfriend (Fred Weller) who happens to set her up with a rich man (Dominic Chianese) so that they can collect $100,000. Like The Brown Bunny, I'm sure there will be plenty of people who love this film and plenty who hate it. I'm somewhat in the middle but have to lean towards the hate side due to several reasons. This is the type of film where the screenwriter/director thinks he has created the most hip, refreshing and original film and he rubs every scene in the viewers face. Throughout the entire running time the screenplay is full of wannabe smart and hip characters who aren't nearly as hip or as smart as they think. This reflects on the screenplay, which isn't nearly as hip or as smart as it thinks. The director constantly swings the camera as some sort of hip style but once again, it's not hip and it's not stylish. Roger Ebert is one who gave this a full four stars so you can read his review for praise. There are a few good moments including the scene where the rich guy shows up at Campbell's apartment for sex. She questions him and this leads to some interesting moments. The film starts and finishes with Campbell taking a shower and we get to see every inch of her nude body. I suggest you watch these scenes and pretty much skip everything else.
guilfisher-1
This 2004 loser of a film, written and directed by James Toback, could not rise above the level of unbelievability and virtually boring performances, particularly by Neve Campbell in lead role of a young thing that had no reaction or emotion past a platypus in heat.I couldn't stand watching her walk around the set in a trance, without expression. Whatever was going on around her, she seemed vacant in the face, which was not that pretty in my book. All the fuss over this not so attractive woman who was using men. Who would want her? I wanted the Count to just leave the witch and go find a better looking dame worth the million dollars he spent on her. Believe me, this person is not worth that. I wouldn't spend a dime on her. She seemed to have the IQ of a coconut.I felt bad for Fred Weller, her pimp, for he gave a decent performance. But strapped to her, he couldn't do much as an actor. A good looking guy with lots of sex appeal, why waste him to the likes of Campbell's cold chemistry? I also liked the Count, Dominic Chianese, who summed the whole film up with spitting in the face of the hero. He should have done that to the witch, Campbell. He gave one of the most honest performances in the film. And the presence of Karen Allen as Mommie Dearest to Campbell, was a waste of a decent actress.What is it with this Neve Campbell? What's the big deal? She's a very boring and predictable actress and not worth the price of admission.
glormac
This is one of those truly awful films whose true awfulness doesn't even amuse the viewer. Sometimes a perverse enjoyment can be derived from very bad movies; all that can be derived from this is a keen sense of having wasted a valuable segment of one's alloted time on this earth. The sex scenes are as most risible, boring and lacking in eroticism as one can imagine: there was more eroticism in "The Donna Reed Show" - note to those of you not old enough to remember this piece of televisual entertainment, Donna and her unfortunate husband shared a bedroom but not beds. The script, if there was one, is meaningless, wandering twaddle. The plot, such as it is, could have been successfully resolved in fifteen minutes, and the denouement is just plain preposterous. To those of you still determined to watch this because you think it might offer some sexual gratification I can only say again "THERE IS NO SEX IN THIS MOVIE This film is as entertaining as athlete's foot.
