This is a cute, quirky little film, that has some pretty darned good acting performances in it. Drew Barrymore was good, and beautiful, as was Jennifer Beals. I wasn't very familiar with James LeGros, but he almost stole the show. Excellent characterization of "Max". I have to say that I did enjoy the basic device of the film, the use of different point of view characters, but the director eventually got too cutesy and that did detract from the movie. Grade: B-
24 Reviews
Mediocre
missingkittie778 September 2003
The 2 good things about this film were the costume and personality that Drew Barrymore had, and the way that they worked the 3 individuals stories into one another, which kept you a little in suspense. Other than that, this film didn't have much to offer. It wasn't romantic or funny. Not horrible either, though. I give it a 5/10 (Average)
This needed a second viewing
jim-12251 July 2006
'Wishful Thinking' was shown on TV last night, with more appearing after midnight than before. I'm afraid I was rather tired, and dozed off here and there. I do not recommend napping during this title, as there is so much of the content which the viewer needs to tie together. There isn't much padding. Fortunately, I was smart enough to record this title in case it was worth a review, and I'm glad I did. I watched it again this morning, and made so much more of it now that I'm in more awake mode.
The plot is based around a quintet's relationships: three guys and two girls. I found all of the characters interesting. True to real life, each displayed virtues and vices. As far as I'm concerned, this does qualify as a comedy. It is not the slapstick variety, but a quiet sense of humour, which amused me, pervades the movie. I'm not so sure that it is a romantic comedy, because the romance isn't really touching enough, but I wouldn't call it unromantic.
The whole quintet played their parts well, and which of them we prefer will depend on our outlook on life. Elizabeth (Jennifer Beals) was the character I liked best. There was something very charming and commendable about Elizabeth, and I will look forward to seeing Jennifer Beals again on my screen if she has done any similar work. I also enjoyed Henry (Jon Stewart), a character of depth whose company would be great fun and appreciated by everybody.
I'm no expert, so what I am about to say concerning the film's director, Adam Park, may reap disdain from those more knowledgeable than I, those having different tastes, or those who have a different understanding of life. I thought the director did a great job in many respects. Like 'Pleasantville', the clever use of colour and monochrome added an extra dimension. There were plenty of facial close-ups, which I need to get a good feel for a character. Continuity might seem somewhat disjointed, but that is the nature of this beast. In fact, the viewer is steadily gaining more of the overall picture throughout. I would like to make three points in particular: (i) This film is well structured, but demands intelligence and alertness from the audience. Other reviews indicate that it is easy to lose track of the action, and some will fail to make the necessary connections. (ii) The ending, shown concurrently with the credits, gives a strong indication as to how events pan out, but it wasn't sufficiently conclusive for me. As a person who loves everything properly wrapped up and with a happy-ever-after ending, I didn't have full confidence in the enduring quality of the suggested final relationships. I'm willing to grant that they might be promising, however. (iii) Particularly as the writing credits were attributed to the director, please take note that a significant minority of us don't like effing in the scripts, of which there were about five bouts in 'Wishful Thinking'. Also, cheap laughs might be had by demonstrating a lack of respect for God and religion, but the serious consequences of this will only be understood by many when they inevitably meet their Maker. The moral tone, language and respect for God in a film largely determines whether or not I am willing to buy the DVD, if there is one. In this case, it would need to be exceedingly cheap to tempt me, but by that I am not suggesting this movie is without merit.
To sum up, please don't judge this movie on a single viewing. It improves greatly on the second time around, and I would certainly be tempted to watch it again in a while, if and when it is re-shown.
The plot is based around a quintet's relationships: three guys and two girls. I found all of the characters interesting. True to real life, each displayed virtues and vices. As far as I'm concerned, this does qualify as a comedy. It is not the slapstick variety, but a quiet sense of humour, which amused me, pervades the movie. I'm not so sure that it is a romantic comedy, because the romance isn't really touching enough, but I wouldn't call it unromantic.
The whole quintet played their parts well, and which of them we prefer will depend on our outlook on life. Elizabeth (Jennifer Beals) was the character I liked best. There was something very charming and commendable about Elizabeth, and I will look forward to seeing Jennifer Beals again on my screen if she has done any similar work. I also enjoyed Henry (Jon Stewart), a character of depth whose company would be great fun and appreciated by everybody.
I'm no expert, so what I am about to say concerning the film's director, Adam Park, may reap disdain from those more knowledgeable than I, those having different tastes, or those who have a different understanding of life. I thought the director did a great job in many respects. Like 'Pleasantville', the clever use of colour and monochrome added an extra dimension. There were plenty of facial close-ups, which I need to get a good feel for a character. Continuity might seem somewhat disjointed, but that is the nature of this beast. In fact, the viewer is steadily gaining more of the overall picture throughout. I would like to make three points in particular: (i) This film is well structured, but demands intelligence and alertness from the audience. Other reviews indicate that it is easy to lose track of the action, and some will fail to make the necessary connections. (ii) The ending, shown concurrently with the credits, gives a strong indication as to how events pan out, but it wasn't sufficiently conclusive for me. As a person who loves everything properly wrapped up and with a happy-ever-after ending, I didn't have full confidence in the enduring quality of the suggested final relationships. I'm willing to grant that they might be promising, however. (iii) Particularly as the writing credits were attributed to the director, please take note that a significant minority of us don't like effing in the scripts, of which there were about five bouts in 'Wishful Thinking'. Also, cheap laughs might be had by demonstrating a lack of respect for God and religion, but the serious consequences of this will only be understood by many when they inevitably meet their Maker. The moral tone, language and respect for God in a film largely determines whether or not I am willing to buy the DVD, if there is one. In this case, it would need to be exceedingly cheap to tempt me, but by that I am not suggesting this movie is without merit.
To sum up, please don't judge this movie on a single viewing. It improves greatly on the second time around, and I would certainly be tempted to watch it again in a while, if and when it is re-shown.
Good enough
Hypercentury28 May 1999
I've just watched this movie and I found it very good. I decided to watch it because of Drew Barrymore - she is my favorite - but even though she didn't have a very big part I enjoyed this movie a lot. This movie is about a woman who wants the boyfriend of her "friend" and she does everything to take him from her. It is separated in three parts. In the first part it shows the whole story briefly. It stops in the most agonized scene. In the second part the story starts again, almost, from the beginning and shows more information about how and why and stops in the same scene and in the third and final part - which is colorless - it finishes and you finally understand what' s all this about... I put 9 out of 10
I was misinformed....
GlenysThom25 September 2002
I thought this movie was a comedy like "Never Been Kissed". The back of the box says something about "sexy, funny, etc.", so I took a chance. Thankfully I borrowed it from the library for free, because I'd want my money back if I rented it or paid to see it in the theatre.
In all honesty, the premise is interesting - the same story told from three points of view. The problem with this movie is, it isn't funny, it isn't sexy and it takes a really a l-o-n-g time to get to the end. You just keep waiting for some kind of action, because it doesn't play as a good "chick flick".
Drew Barrymore and Jennifer Beals are good, but James LeGros (as Max) is really irritating and it's unbelievable that either Drew or Jennifer would find him interesting and actually want to be with him.
In all honesty, the premise is interesting - the same story told from three points of view. The problem with this movie is, it isn't funny, it isn't sexy and it takes a really a l-o-n-g time to get to the end. You just keep waiting for some kind of action, because it doesn't play as a good "chick flick".
Drew Barrymore and Jennifer Beals are good, but James LeGros (as Max) is really irritating and it's unbelievable that either Drew or Jennifer would find him interesting and actually want to be with him.
Lackluster dud from Sundance...
moonspinner5518 January 2007
Undistinguished, straight-to-tape comedy-drama about a group of young people in New York hoping to find true love, apparently made by a gang of Hollywood friends just out to have a little fun. It's a competently-made but forgettable trifle financed by Miramax and developed by the Sundance Institute, none of whom could get this thing into theaters. Written and directed by Adam Park, who has a TV sitcom sense of humor and sense of timing to match. The cast including Jennifer Beals, Drew Barrymore, James LeGros, Eric Thal and Jon Stewart (!) is an attractive bunch, but they aren't given anything interesting to say or do. * from ****
90 minutes of my life gone forever.
graveguy5526 September 2002
As a comedy, it isn't very funny. As a love story, it isn't very romantic. As a movie it isn't very entertaining.
Drew Barrymore and Jennifer Beals give it a half-hearted shot but even they look bored 15 minutes into the film.
The leading man (and I use the words loosely) has a total lack of talent and charisma. His name is James LeGros but you needn't take note of it, for with any luck at all you'll never hear it again.
The only bright spot in the film are the few minutes alloted to
John Stewart, but it is not enough to justify sitting through this incredible bore.
Read a book, watch tv, go to bed early, go out to eat , do anything but sit through this mess.
Drew Barrymore and Jennifer Beals give it a half-hearted shot but even they look bored 15 minutes into the film.
The leading man (and I use the words loosely) has a total lack of talent and charisma. His name is James LeGros but you needn't take note of it, for with any luck at all you'll never hear it again.
The only bright spot in the film are the few minutes alloted to
John Stewart, but it is not enough to justify sitting through this incredible bore.
Read a book, watch tv, go to bed early, go out to eat , do anything but sit through this mess.
If your wish is to find a good, non-conventional romantic drama, try this one
inkblot1125 January 2008
Max (James Le Gros) and Elizabeth (Jennifer Beals) have been living together for some time. One day, Max offers Elizabeth a small jewelry box and she ecstatically believes he is proposing to her. However, inside the box is a glorified toothpick that Max contends will be a lucrative business idea. Elizabeth is deeply hurt and the couple begin pulling apart. Waiting to pounce on Max is a co-worker named Lena (Drew Barrymore), who lost her heart to him many moons ago at the introspective movie theater where they both toil. Elizabeth, too, finds solace with an attractive man, Henry (Jon Stewart) after meeting him late one night at a coffee shop. Yet, Max still obsesses about Elizabeth, seeing her face in all of the pot-boiling films he shows at the cinema. Is there a major breakup coming or a reconciliation? This is a wonderfully different romantic drama, with attractive players and an offbeat charm. Beals and Barrymore are both talented and very lovely in their roles, with Jennifer dressing simply but elegantly and Barrymore sporting one outrageous but arresting outfit after another. Le Gros is also fine as the mixed-up boyfriend while Stewart is a funny and handsome suitor for Beals. The scenery in and around Manhattan is nice and the production values very fine. Also interesting are the movie's technical attributes, which includes shooting scenes from different angles and substituting the faces of Beals and company in the old black and white films of long ago. Moreover, the script is quite inventive and original. In short, if your wish is for a nice romantic drama, with comedy and feeling, try this sweet but obscure film. After a viewing, you will definitely be thinking your made the right choice.
Booooooooring...
Starbuck-1319 March 2001
So this is supposed to be a comedy? Well, it is not funny! The film tries to give a very 90s style story shown from different viewpoints, but maybe the director should have left this to Tarantino who really can pull off such a stunt...
The movie is simply boring, not a single decent laugh and not a very thrilling love story as well. Jennifer Beals keeps on looking like the dogs she is treating in her job, main character James LeGros is a rather untalented actor and Drew Barrymore has a bad haircut.
Did I forget anything? If you are a fan of romantic comedy, go see "Four Weddings and a Funeral" or "The Wedding Singer" (which shows Drew Barrymores true talent). Or get ANY Cameron Diaz flick and you certainly will have better entertainment than with this snoozer...
The movie is simply boring, not a single decent laugh and not a very thrilling love story as well. Jennifer Beals keeps on looking like the dogs she is treating in her job, main character James LeGros is a rather untalented actor and Drew Barrymore has a bad haircut.
Did I forget anything? If you are a fan of romantic comedy, go see "Four Weddings and a Funeral" or "The Wedding Singer" (which shows Drew Barrymores true talent). Or get ANY Cameron Diaz flick and you certainly will have better entertainment than with this snoozer...
A Quirky Little Gem
Squrpleboy9 June 2003
WISHFUL THINKING is one of those wonderful, off-beat and so
over-looked little films that, when finally discovered, delivers a
really good watch.
Told in four parts, each one not so much the point-of-view of a
certain character, more the focus on that person, this lightly- complicated little comic-romance unfolds beautifully. Max (James
LeGros) is an imaginative character; he invents ginger-flavoured
toothpicks and hears inanimate objects talking to him, but also
has a dangerous distrust of his girlfriend, Elizabeth (Jennifer
Beals), who may or may not have given him good reason for his
growing suspicions, since he's made it apparent that he doesn't
seem to want to 'cement' their relationship with a proposal. Lena
(Drew Barrymore), is his colourful yet conniving co-worker,
somewhat enamoured of Max, and with a penchant for seeking
advice from a local tarot card reader. Max (Jon Stewart) is the
friend-of-a -friend who will somehow non-maliciously intertwine
himself into the lives of this great little set of quirky characters.
Richly told and visualized (very nice colour and B&W cinematography and some interesting shots), nice pacing, and
with a compelling enough plot to garner my interest the whole way
through. The film isn't a "laugh riot" by any means, and as far as
romance goes, I wouldn't want mine to unfold like those described
here, but it was still enough to keep me chuckling and hoping for
the best for all the characters. The most truly delicious element of
this film is in the acting though, to be sure. James LeGros (who I
was completely unfamiliar with) is both engaging and realistic,
someone I'll look for in other films. Drew Barrymore is nicely
subdued, despite the mess her character could have been (and
what I'd expected from her based on previous work). Jon Stewart
is good as always, turning in both ample laughs and a serious
side he deserves acknowledgement for. But the stand-out
performance comes from the hugely under-appreciated Jennifer
Beals; I don't want to say she steals this picture, because she has
the professionalism to keep her portrayal on par with the rest of
the cast, but she definitely gives the most even, realistic and
honest performance in the film; her every word and gesture is a gift
of honesty in character.
It seems sad to me that (at the time of this writing) director Adam
Park has not made another film, or that the film does not seem to
be too well liked. It truly is a nice piece, and a understated use of
some real talent. 7/10. Just good stuff!
over-looked little films that, when finally discovered, delivers a
really good watch.
Told in four parts, each one not so much the point-of-view of a
certain character, more the focus on that person, this lightly- complicated little comic-romance unfolds beautifully. Max (James
LeGros) is an imaginative character; he invents ginger-flavoured
toothpicks and hears inanimate objects talking to him, but also
has a dangerous distrust of his girlfriend, Elizabeth (Jennifer
Beals), who may or may not have given him good reason for his
growing suspicions, since he's made it apparent that he doesn't
seem to want to 'cement' their relationship with a proposal. Lena
(Drew Barrymore), is his colourful yet conniving co-worker,
somewhat enamoured of Max, and with a penchant for seeking
advice from a local tarot card reader. Max (Jon Stewart) is the
friend-of-a -friend who will somehow non-maliciously intertwine
himself into the lives of this great little set of quirky characters.
Richly told and visualized (very nice colour and B&W cinematography and some interesting shots), nice pacing, and
with a compelling enough plot to garner my interest the whole way
through. The film isn't a "laugh riot" by any means, and as far as
romance goes, I wouldn't want mine to unfold like those described
here, but it was still enough to keep me chuckling and hoping for
the best for all the characters. The most truly delicious element of
this film is in the acting though, to be sure. James LeGros (who I
was completely unfamiliar with) is both engaging and realistic,
someone I'll look for in other films. Drew Barrymore is nicely
subdued, despite the mess her character could have been (and
what I'd expected from her based on previous work). Jon Stewart
is good as always, turning in both ample laughs and a serious
side he deserves acknowledgement for. But the stand-out
performance comes from the hugely under-appreciated Jennifer
Beals; I don't want to say she steals this picture, because she has
the professionalism to keep her portrayal on par with the rest of
the cast, but she definitely gives the most even, realistic and
honest performance in the film; her every word and gesture is a gift
of honesty in character.
It seems sad to me that (at the time of this writing) director Adam
Park has not made another film, or that the film does not seem to
be too well liked. It truly is a nice piece, and a understated use of
some real talent. 7/10. Just good stuff!
Title says it all
kevinl-8729 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
OK, I had high hopes for this film. I thought the "He Said, She Said" type story would be cute. There were definite quirky things in the film that I thought would be developed better, but sadly no...
It seemed like they spent time on the first three "chapters", got tired and gave up. Definitely had some promise that did not deliver. So what exactly do I mean? What was up with the blue door? From Max's perspective, when he broke into the apartment the door was blue, but from Elizabeth's perspective it was yellow? What was up with the spoon? Short story at the beginning but it was not really connected that much.
Another thing, most movies that begin with "Two Years Earlier" give you some perspective as to when you are back in the present time. I guess when he was shaving it was assumed that you were somewhere near the beginning of the movie.
I guess that was the real problem I had with the movie. It was more of a lot of disconnected ideas mixed up into one plot. It just seemed like a so much potential, but such a waste. Maybe the director had a lot of great ideas from film school he wanted to apply to his first film.
It seemed like they spent time on the first three "chapters", got tired and gave up. Definitely had some promise that did not deliver. So what exactly do I mean? What was up with the blue door? From Max's perspective, when he broke into the apartment the door was blue, but from Elizabeth's perspective it was yellow? What was up with the spoon? Short story at the beginning but it was not really connected that much.
Another thing, most movies that begin with "Two Years Earlier" give you some perspective as to when you are back in the present time. I guess when he was shaving it was assumed that you were somewhere near the beginning of the movie.
I guess that was the real problem I had with the movie. It was more of a lot of disconnected ideas mixed up into one plot. It just seemed like a so much potential, but such a waste. Maybe the director had a lot of great ideas from film school he wanted to apply to his first film.
Underrated romantic comedy
thefan-23 July 1999
This entertaining comedy replays its episodes from different characters' points of view, and also as scenes from 1940s black and white films. (One of the characters is a projectionist in an art house.) Through all the fun, there runs a Shakespearean comedy plot in which characters who are paired up with the wrong partners go through a series of misadventures to end up, at last, with the right one. John Stewart is very funny, in a John Stewartish way, and Drew Barrymore is luminous and funny, as always. It's a bit talky in places, but stay with it -- it'll reward your attention.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
steveski28 June 1999
This has to be one of the most boring movies I have ever seen. When my wife saw this in the video store, I said Ok since it said romantic Comedy. Comedy???? we didn't laugh once. We couldn't wait for it to be over. The only reason we didn't hit stop is because we paid 3.15 for it. You wonder why this never made it to the movies, one word: BORING......
Not Bad
nickcosto29 January 2000
I just saw the movie on cable and I had a pleasant time. No it is not a movie I would go out of my way to watch again, but definitely not the worst in my list. True, the plot was very common and only the narration was short of inventive, but all in all not a bad movie. It is just that labeling it "romantic comedy" is misleading, it might be light but not a comedy. What prompted me to write about it was Jennifer Beals whom I think stole the show. I hadn't seen her since Flashdance (yuck) and I think she matured nicely. I might look for other recent movies that she played in.
Annoying, shallow, and pointless. Skip it.
deverman21 September 1999
What in the world was this? The story line is mundane, the characters are not believable, the attempts at artistic visuals effect pathetic and contrived. Although I expected to enjoy Drew Barrymore and Jennifer Beals, I found nothing to enjoy in this film.
keep a bucket beside you...
scabpicker26 August 2005
...because this movie will make you barf until you bleed. I caught maybe the last half hour of it on TV last night and cannot imagine how broke poor Jon Stewart must have been to accept a role in this movie- my heart goes out to him. And how did they manage to make someone as hot as Jennifer Beals look like a dumpy bag lady? I don't know what the actual plot line was supposed to be, something about affairs and other melodrama I don't care for when so poorly executed. I've seen high school a/v nerds exhibit better judgment over use of visual effects. At one point things turn black and white and deep meaning is supposed to be exhibited through lots of slo-mo. Pass on this one. You definitely have better things to be doing.
surprisingly good
Joro-35 March 2000
This movie turned out to be better than I expected. The plot is interesting and original (if such thing is possible at all in such romantic genre), the dialogue has some great moments, the directing and camera-work are good enough as well. Although the actors are such stars, I think that this movie deserved even better performances than they gave. Nonetheless, Wishful Thinking is quite pleasant movie. I rank it close below Living In Oblivion and Sliding Doors.
A different kind of plot
tpendleton26 July 1999
I saw this movie without anyone telling me about it or reading anything about it. It was much better than I expected. I thought it might be just another "chick flick" with a predictable story and ending. But it turned out to be a movie with a plot that is different and definitely entertaining. Lots of nice twists and surprises...especially how it ends. I don't remember seeing a movie before quite like this one. I would highly recommend it.
Beautiful in the right state of mind
ViciousGerbil22 September 2004
Okay, here's the deal. I recently saw this movie for the first time at 1 AM on NBC after Saturday Night Live. I was already tired and playing video games when I started listening to the start of this movie. I realized it was strange and crazy. I had to watch the whole thing, it just drew me in.
Given these conditions, I thought it was the best movie I have ever seen. Seriously, it was funny and heartfelt at the same time. It was artistic and clicked perfectly into the things I had recently been thinking about. It deals with perspective in a way that lays bare the absurd self-righteousness we all carry about; showing that we are all just confused adventurers in this awkward landscape of life controlled by chance. If you like strange films and ideas and also have a soft spot for romantic comedies, I think you'll love this film. But I'm really not sure because I was really tired.
Given these conditions, I thought it was the best movie I have ever seen. Seriously, it was funny and heartfelt at the same time. It was artistic and clicked perfectly into the things I had recently been thinking about. It deals with perspective in a way that lays bare the absurd self-righteousness we all carry about; showing that we are all just confused adventurers in this awkward landscape of life controlled by chance. If you like strange films and ideas and also have a soft spot for romantic comedies, I think you'll love this film. But I'm really not sure because I was really tired.
A unique love story that touches your heart and tickles your funny bone!
Ratgirl11621 September 2000
I know my one line summary was corny but I couldn't sum up my thoughts in one line. I originally saw this movie in order to see John Stewart and even though he's not the star of the movie, I enjoyed watching this movie and the other actors very much. It really compares what we "wish" for and how we deal with what reality brings to love and life. It had a very unique comical sense and plot. It's one of those movies that you'll be quoting for a while. I LOVED IT!!!
Lots of Sparks from Barrymore
whpratt118 February 2006
Enjoy most of Drew Barrymore's films and in this picture she takes a backseat in the very beginning of the film and you begin to wonder if she will appear. Drew plays (Lena) a girl who works at a movie theater and wears wild, way out clothes, but is pretty darn smart and crafty; especially when it comes to a man she wants and desires for a soul mate! Jennifer Beals, (Elizabeth),"Break a Leg",'05 shares her pad with a guy she thinks she loves and things start to change rather quickly. This guy is a movie projectionist (Years ago) who also invented a small floss device for the teeth which tastes like ginger and the people in Japan are nuts about this item. Lots of funny situations and great acting on the part of Jennifer Beals and Drew Barrymore.
Entertaining romantic comedy among several misunderstandings.
TxMike25 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Is this movie about Max, or is it about Elizabeth, or is it about Lena? I suppose it is about each of them, almost equally, but not really in a "love triangle" kind of way, although it seems headed in that direction at times, in this comedy set in New York.
James LeGros is Max, wants to be a writer but works as a projectionist in an obscure theater showing old B&W movies. Max is mixed up, he has a good heart, but is pretty focused on himself. He rescues a dog being abused, steals it away and finds a vet clinic, and is chased down and beaten by the owner, now angry at Max.
But some good fortune does come his way, as Jennifer Beals playing Elizabeth works at the clinic and admires what Max did. They meet, date, and soon are living together. Elizabeth eventually brings up the "M-word" but Max hesitates. Elizabeth is disappointed.
Meanwhile Drew Barrymore as Lena, who sells tickets at the B&W theater has her eye on Max for herself. Lena isn't so scrupulous, she is willing to force the issue, even if it entails making up stories to drive a wedge in there and pry Max loose for herself.
Today we know him mainly for his TV show, but Jon Stewart has a key role as Henry, someone who comes along when Elizabeth is turning sour at Max's selfishness then jealousy, constantly asking her if she is starting to see others. Henry has a fresh perspective, he knows how to live and laugh and have fun, things Max seems to have lost.
So, while Max thinks Eric Thal as Jack is the guy Elizabeth has her eye on, and Lena is helping that perception along, Henry really is the one sneaking in and gaining Elizabeth's favor. But in the end, Lena and Max seem pretty good for each other, both flawed but in ways that they both can relate to.
Saw it via Netflix streaming movies, my wife and I were entertained, although it is not a great movie.
James LeGros is Max, wants to be a writer but works as a projectionist in an obscure theater showing old B&W movies. Max is mixed up, he has a good heart, but is pretty focused on himself. He rescues a dog being abused, steals it away and finds a vet clinic, and is chased down and beaten by the owner, now angry at Max.
But some good fortune does come his way, as Jennifer Beals playing Elizabeth works at the clinic and admires what Max did. They meet, date, and soon are living together. Elizabeth eventually brings up the "M-word" but Max hesitates. Elizabeth is disappointed.
Meanwhile Drew Barrymore as Lena, who sells tickets at the B&W theater has her eye on Max for herself. Lena isn't so scrupulous, she is willing to force the issue, even if it entails making up stories to drive a wedge in there and pry Max loose for herself.
Today we know him mainly for his TV show, but Jon Stewart has a key role as Henry, someone who comes along when Elizabeth is turning sour at Max's selfishness then jealousy, constantly asking her if she is starting to see others. Henry has a fresh perspective, he knows how to live and laugh and have fun, things Max seems to have lost.
So, while Max thinks Eric Thal as Jack is the guy Elizabeth has her eye on, and Lena is helping that perception along, Henry really is the one sneaking in and gaining Elizabeth's favor. But in the end, Lena and Max seem pretty good for each other, both flawed but in ways that they both can relate to.
Saw it via Netflix streaming movies, my wife and I were entertained, although it is not a great movie.
Adult Dawson's Creek, only more whiny and more annoying
CiciB21 August 1999
Good God all mighty someone please save me from this movie. I saw the preview and it looked reasonably comedic. As it turned out those few moments were the only ones that were funny AT ALL! This movie depicts a group of struggling twenty-somethings in their quest to find/understand love. My oh my what an original theme. It relieves the same events over and over, each time a different character is the 'narrator'. I couldn't stand this movie long enough to finish it so please don't ask me how it ends. I'm giving it two enthusiastic thumbs down.
straight to video, and deserves it
LushZero16 September 1999
with several stars, why did this sit on the miramax shelf for two years and then went straight to video? cause it sucks. even then, i was disappointed. the characters aren't interesting, the theme and structure have been done better in other movies. two good things about it, it's less than 90 minutes long, and jon stewart has some good funny lines in it. it's as bad, if not worse, than sliding doors. watch next stop wonderland, run lola run or chungking express instead.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
