John C
If I were to boil this movie down into one sentence: lonely people trapped within jail cells they either create or accept. Character One: Simon, a severely socially-maladapted 20-year-old living in an apartment with his mentally ill mother who uses him for her emotional gratification. Character Two: Tommaso, an elderly mail clerk who has lived alone his whole life so as not to have to share his time or attention with others, and who learns at the outset that he's going blind. Character Three: Rose Phipps, a young professional who, when we see her, we sense a mute sadness. Character Four: Mark Phipps, her estranged husband, who has only two notes - anger and frustration. And Isabel, a family matriarch in Tommaso's office who lives vicariously through her grandchildren. With the exception of Rose, who is the emotional center of this movie, these really aren't people I'd want to spend much time with.Rose, an optometrist, gives the diagnosis to Tommaso, and suggests that he tell his family and his friends of his condition so as to help his transition into long-term disability. She later becomes a de-facto therapist for him as he works through his denial and anger over the predicament, and later, as he tentatively pursues a romance with Isabel, in his office. Isabel, for her part, develops an attachment to him but it really seems unmotivated; there's no real chemistry between them and their interaction up until the time he asks her on a date is full of un-charming awkwardness. Nor does he doesn't do much to endear himself to her or her family as the romance, such as it is, progresses. He just seems like a grumpy old man who can only talk about himself. I could understand her motivation if it were mere sympathy, but the script wanted it to be more, and it just wasn't earned.Simon works in a camera shop and as such has access to long-range lenses; since he doesn't have any social outlets, skills, or interests, he already lives rather voyeuristically, so walking around photographing strangers comes quite naturally to him. But he has a problem: he's attracted to pretty women. OK that might not be a problem in itself, but what he decides to do as a result seems questionable. He stalks them. He follows them to their residences. He sits in the dark across from their building and lurks, and shoots photos through open windows. He follows them when they go with their ex-spouses to public events and sits nearby watching them. These scenes are interspersed with scenes of his home life with his crackpot mother, in which there's an unhealthy lack of intimacy boundaries, and this is all meant to show him as pathetic and helpless, but I wasn't buying it. He seemed simply creepy. And that's what makes the next thing so implausible; when Rose catches him out, she doesn't have a restraining order put in place on him, which anyone in her position in real life would do. Instead, she eventually starts to encourage his behavior.Rose is afflicted by grief, and I do have to say that Graham hits this note-perfect. She has the stricken aura that anyone who has lost someone near can identify. Her emotional world has been slammed sideways; only her work continues, which she continues, joylessly if competently. Of course, it's telegraphed from the first scenes what her affliction is, which makes the explication later more or less gratuitous. Her estranged husband attempts to maintain contact with her but he's oblivious to all but his own needs, and this makes him oafish and repellent.Tommaso eventually treasures his isolation more than any intimacy Isabel hoped for and was willing to offer, and he asks her to meet him at the park and then stands her up. We saw this coming, didn't we? He watches from a distance in order to cradle his loneliness. Rose lures her stalker into her brownstone and seduces him. Within the confines of her story, this is believable - she wants to feel anything different that what she's been feeling for the last 8 months - but then, the movie itself takes you out of that believability by reminding us just what damaged goods Simon is, so that even while her motivations make sense, the scene is implausible. Not even the sight of Heather Graham's finely-shaped rear is enough to take this scene seriously. And then, with even greater implausibility, the movie wraps up these dangling threads with succinct neatness: Simon stands up to his abusive mother, leaves her to her own twisted devices, and suddenly walks with confidence, soon bumping into and befriending Tommaso, who's finally accepted the need of the help of others. Rose returns as a surprise to her estranged husband.I guess the takeaway is: all a young guy needs is to get laid by an older woman. And all she needs to return to her husband is to get laid by someone who's violated her privacy. Eh, what? 4/10 only because the acting is mostly good, especially by Graham and Pena.
joe38_1998
I loved this movie. The feeling and pace was graceful, the cinematography and music wonderful. There's loneliness and loss here, but it's covered in a way that makes you just fall in love with the characters and care for them, hope they come through. For those that can identify with the vib of New York, the film is likely to be appreciated even more, as elements of the subway and streets come through realistically.This movie visits the lives of three different people, and how they coincidentally intermingle within the movie time line. The other characters in the movie add some color and background, and do well also.I've watched this movie multiple times and every time I come away satisfied, and more so: inspired. You can use this movie to better your life, to better your art. Strongly recommend watching it on a quiet, relaxing night.
charlytully
Skimming through the nine comments previous to mine, they mostly seem to be from New Yorkers or New Yorker wannabes. If one does a general survey of this IMDb comments site, they will notice that comments coming from a film's location shoots tend to be disproportionately positive. Since New York City is notorious for attracting and harboring a coterie of people best described as self-centered navel-gazers who don't give a rap about the rest of the world, maybe it's not surprising they smugly go ga-ga over ANYTHING New York: Andy Warhol proved they'll even wax poetic over a 48-hour flick just showing paint drying, as long as it's set in New York.If this creepy movie had been shot here in Rosebush, with a mom flashing her bare tits at her 20-year-old socially crippled son, who then loses his innocence doing Rollergirl doggie-style while beating her butt and telling her she's a bad mom because her toddler fell out the window while she was on the phone, and next stumbles across Nasty Mom Number Two's blind patient lashing out angrily with his cane in a local transit hub, New York moviegoers would accuse our town of being an inbred backwoods hell-hole with nothing to offer the world culturally.For non-New Yorkers in search of something serious set in the Big Apple, go see DOUBT. For those wanting to see a well-done movie about intersecting lives, rent the Los Angeles-set SHORT CUTS. But if you want your skin to crawl watching a series of random amoral anti-erotic incidents happening to uniformly implausible characters, perhaps you also belong ADRIFT IN MANHATTAN.
