42 reviews
I saw this movie at a screening during the South by Southwest Film Festival in Austin.
The editing was cutting-edge, the cast was full of great actors who played their parts expertly, there were some great lines, great cinematography, the sets and scenery were perfect, the cameos were good...but somehow, it still doesn't work. I don't know what happened or where it went wrong, but it will leave you questioning what you just saw and if you missed some critical part of the movie that would make it make sense. But you didn't. Towards the end, it just becomes too convoluted to work. And having had many discussions with other film-goers from the festival, I can tell you with certainty that I was not the only one who felt that way.
The editing was cutting-edge, the cast was full of great actors who played their parts expertly, there were some great lines, great cinematography, the sets and scenery were perfect, the cameos were good...but somehow, it still doesn't work. I don't know what happened or where it went wrong, but it will leave you questioning what you just saw and if you missed some critical part of the movie that would make it make sense. But you didn't. Towards the end, it just becomes too convoluted to work. And having had many discussions with other film-goers from the festival, I can tell you with certainty that I was not the only one who felt that way.
I saw this film at the 2003 Toronto International Film Festival.
Giovanni Ribisi is a movie star living what I hope is a caricature of a movie star's life (although in Hollywood, there seems to be no such thing as a caricature). He's becoming paranoid, seeing stalkers everywhere and suspecting his movie-star wife of infidelity (with Elvis Costello, no less). Then he meets a fan who seems so normal, and proceeds to screw up this man's life, all the while descending into some sort of madness, and flashing back to a time in his life when he seemed to have normalcy and real love. This film is a bit of a mess, actually. Lots of flashbacks and movie stars portraying movie stars portraying movie stars. It got a bit too "meta" at times, and the narrative was muddled. There was also an ambiguity about the whole fame thing, which is not very new, and frankly, hard for an audience to sympathize with.
I love movies and hate the movie business. So, apparently, does Adam Goldberg. So how come I didn't like this more?
(7/10)
P.S. Before the screening, I saw Giovanni Ribisi walking down the lineup filming the crowd with his camcorder. In addition to Ribisi and director Adam Goldberg, Franka Potente, Christina Ricci, and Shalom Harlow were also at the screening. Of course, after seeing the caustic way in which fans (and stars) are portrayed in the film, it would be just about impossible to say anything to any of them, even if you could get close.
Giovanni Ribisi is a movie star living what I hope is a caricature of a movie star's life (although in Hollywood, there seems to be no such thing as a caricature). He's becoming paranoid, seeing stalkers everywhere and suspecting his movie-star wife of infidelity (with Elvis Costello, no less). Then he meets a fan who seems so normal, and proceeds to screw up this man's life, all the while descending into some sort of madness, and flashing back to a time in his life when he seemed to have normalcy and real love. This film is a bit of a mess, actually. Lots of flashbacks and movie stars portraying movie stars portraying movie stars. It got a bit too "meta" at times, and the narrative was muddled. There was also an ambiguity about the whole fame thing, which is not very new, and frankly, hard for an audience to sympathize with.
I love movies and hate the movie business. So, apparently, does Adam Goldberg. So how come I didn't like this more?
(7/10)
P.S. Before the screening, I saw Giovanni Ribisi walking down the lineup filming the crowd with his camcorder. In addition to Ribisi and director Adam Goldberg, Franka Potente, Christina Ricci, and Shalom Harlow were also at the screening. Of course, after seeing the caustic way in which fans (and stars) are portrayed in the film, it would be just about impossible to say anything to any of them, even if you could get close.
- tungi_kana
- Apr 14, 2006
- Permalink
I saw I Love Your Work at the 2003 Toronto International Film Festival. The film has a great cast and each one does some solid acting. The plot follows an actor who slowly spirals into madness because he cannot deal with his celebrity status. Ribisi and Pontente are especially good as a Hollywood couple, but the film drags on a bit too long and we never get a good understanding of the main characters and the motivation behind their decisions. Judging by the the discussions I heard at the end of the film, I was not the only person who felt this way. Aside from the acting of the two main stars, I Love Your Work is not that noteworthy.
I was interested in seeing this picture after reading a short synopsis, which, unfortunately, was better than the film. The film has a nice cast of actors but is slow moving and does not build much momentum nor does it build any tension. The film does not set up the leads mental breakdown very well, as there is not much done to explain the pressures that are making him crack. He ultimately just seems to be a person who is ill or weak, rather than someone who broke under extreme pressure (which I think was the intention).
Watching this on DVD the sound quality was poor with low volume (had to crank the volume up higher than normal, just to hear it). Music did not aide this movie in building any emotional response. Although I wouldn't go as far to say it was a very bad film, it just was not very good. Unltimately, the failure would fall on Adam Goldberg who was writer, director & producer. Adam is a good actor, but may have possibly wore too many hats on this project.
Watching this on DVD the sound quality was poor with low volume (had to crank the volume up higher than normal, just to hear it). Music did not aide this movie in building any emotional response. Although I wouldn't go as far to say it was a very bad film, it just was not very good. Unltimately, the failure would fall on Adam Goldberg who was writer, director & producer. Adam is a good actor, but may have possibly wore too many hats on this project.
- prodbabies
- May 4, 2006
- Permalink
An overly ambitious project for this inexperienced director, difficult to follow with awkward plot changes, poorly defined dream sequences and flash forwards leaving large gaps and a very confused audience. - Even among experienced film festival viewers
Very good performance by Franka Potente however
Very good performance by Franka Potente however
It seems people either love or hate this movie.
I think novels, movies, and art do not have to follow an "essay" format. There's no requirement that a hypothesis must be proffered and clearly and logically proved within the movie/book. The goal may be to make people think, to raise questions without giving easy answers, and to do so in a framework that incites both feeling and thought simultaneously.
Hrm, I don't think I'm writing this in a way that really gets my thoughts across, but there you have it.
I enjoyed the movie. It was thought provoking without being highbrow. There was no "moral story" laid out or beaten into you.
I'd recommend this movie for people who like mystery, thought, and don't necessarily require a definite answer/conclusion to enjoy a film. The acting was super, and the movie flowed well.
:) Alma
I think novels, movies, and art do not have to follow an "essay" format. There's no requirement that a hypothesis must be proffered and clearly and logically proved within the movie/book. The goal may be to make people think, to raise questions without giving easy answers, and to do so in a framework that incites both feeling and thought simultaneously.
Hrm, I don't think I'm writing this in a way that really gets my thoughts across, but there you have it.
I enjoyed the movie. It was thought provoking without being highbrow. There was no "moral story" laid out or beaten into you.
I'd recommend this movie for people who like mystery, thought, and don't necessarily require a definite answer/conclusion to enjoy a film. The acting was super, and the movie flowed well.
:) Alma
- AlmaCuerpocaliente
- Jul 2, 2006
- Permalink
This film is what I fear a complete "own opinion" seeking movie. In my humble opinion the movie tries to hard to be and give you that "Arty" feeling. In the beginning it all seems to turn out to be nice and successful although it will turn out after about 30 min into "boring" and "too much" of it! A kinda OD effect. The over and over arty editing, special camera tricks and angles are slow and keep away the "drive", "speed", "tempo" a movie needs to keep your thoughts an interest locked onto the screen. All these special arty things don't do any credit onto the movie but have more the opposite effect which will arise. In my opinion though it's such a movie that needs each and everyone personal individual opinion. Some will love it and some will hate it. Best thing to do is have a go and make up your own idea. I know this isn't much of a help but that's just the way it is. I hate the movie but I can't assure that somebody else possible likes it. I wouldn't recommend the movie, that's the only thing I know for sure. For me the movie wasn't a huge success, I even hit the skip forward button after about 45 min to shorten the suffer of a slow movie before it becomes utterly boring and annoying. It's a pity after all of the fact that one of my fav "new generation" actresses plays into this flick. "Christina Ricci" she's one of those actresses who has a strong personality and knows how to cash in this ability. She has the power and knowledge just that perfect of how to carry her character as a complete movie! Even with all this credit onto her résumé she couldn't prevent that she looses total control on her character as the film itself in this case. A good attempt of the director as the actors but for me personal? "NOPE"!
4 outa 10 Dario/
4 outa 10 Dario/
- Dario_the_2nd
- Jan 24, 2005
- Permalink
I was hooked into this movie after watching it for 5 minutes. Goldberg captures the movie- obsessed college kid existence very well (or at least, the whimsical movie-inspired lives that film students aspire to) with respect to Gray's past. Ribisi gives a gripping performance here, he's riveting as the insulated film star with artistic aspirations who slowly looses his grip on reality. What surprised me is Goldberg's talent as a director. He's really really good, got a great visual sense, but the overall structure of this movie reminded me of Mulholland Drive, similar to that movie, I left this one a bit confused. (though less so than MD, and with much more good will). Goldberg sends up the 400 blows, and a Jaques Demy musical, as well as self-conscious arty films, in the film within a film within a hallucination structure. Jason Lee is great & and creepy performance as a stalker. Franka Potente is funny, and it's great seeing her in a bigger role again. Elvis Costello has a hilarious cameo. I'd strongly recommend this, but you may want to see it a couple of times. It's a cool experiment, and I liked all the smoking, decor, and camera product placement.
The story follows the deteriorating mental state of movie star Gray Evans (Giovanni Ribisi). He's married to a movie star (Potente) but he essentially married her because he saw her in a movie (a french new wave musical) and is tortured by the fact that she clearly can't live up to the perfections of that character. So he stalked his own wife. And Jason Lee is stalking him. Gray's paranoia increases to the point that he imagines everyone in the world staring, speaking, trying to touch him and in this distressed state he seeks refuge in, of all places, a video store.
Here he meets a young video store clerk and his girlfriend, John and Jane (Joshua Jackson and Marisa Coughlan). They represent to him an ideal, the life he once had before fame. Where love was real and a commitment meant something. What does he do with this new found inspiration? He stalks them of course, buying the apartment opposite them and monitoring their every move. In the process he infects their relationship with his misery, resulting in their own break up. Using a little more of his own psychotic logic, Gray jumps in to save the day, solving the problem by beating the crap out of Jackson. Thus freeing himself from his demons, Gray is then able to move on to a happier place, the great movie theater in the sky...
Goldberg may be accused of solipsism. This is a movie about an actor, directed by an actor. And why not, aren't you supposed to write what you know? The main character is utterly self indulgent, he has a potentially great life but seems to be caught up in his own 'poor me' world. Bummer, successful movie star, married to another movie star, just how bad can life get?! Buy then again, who were the Montagues and the Capulets other than wealthy, self indulgent individuals? The same character flaw applies here as in Romeo and Juliet. The central character is not a philanthropist, he thinks of no-one other than himself and for that he pays the ultimate price. That's what makes this movie a modern day tragedy, a cautionary tale.
Sure, it speaks to actors more strongly than anyone else but there's a message in it for everyone. The grass is always greener.
Richly textured and layered, the film shows many influences from David Lynch to David Fincher. Goldberg gets magnificent perfomances from an astonishing cast. Ribisi is dazzling in his misery, Jared Harris and Eric Siegel hilarious, and Marisa Coughlan puts up an incredibly mature performance in a role that she could have coasted through. The cinematography is excellent, giving the film a look way more impressive than the budget.
This is the kind of movie that if you get it and it touches you, you won't want to stop watching it.
Here he meets a young video store clerk and his girlfriend, John and Jane (Joshua Jackson and Marisa Coughlan). They represent to him an ideal, the life he once had before fame. Where love was real and a commitment meant something. What does he do with this new found inspiration? He stalks them of course, buying the apartment opposite them and monitoring their every move. In the process he infects their relationship with his misery, resulting in their own break up. Using a little more of his own psychotic logic, Gray jumps in to save the day, solving the problem by beating the crap out of Jackson. Thus freeing himself from his demons, Gray is then able to move on to a happier place, the great movie theater in the sky...
Goldberg may be accused of solipsism. This is a movie about an actor, directed by an actor. And why not, aren't you supposed to write what you know? The main character is utterly self indulgent, he has a potentially great life but seems to be caught up in his own 'poor me' world. Bummer, successful movie star, married to another movie star, just how bad can life get?! Buy then again, who were the Montagues and the Capulets other than wealthy, self indulgent individuals? The same character flaw applies here as in Romeo and Juliet. The central character is not a philanthropist, he thinks of no-one other than himself and for that he pays the ultimate price. That's what makes this movie a modern day tragedy, a cautionary tale.
Sure, it speaks to actors more strongly than anyone else but there's a message in it for everyone. The grass is always greener.
Richly textured and layered, the film shows many influences from David Lynch to David Fincher. Goldberg gets magnificent perfomances from an astonishing cast. Ribisi is dazzling in his misery, Jared Harris and Eric Siegel hilarious, and Marisa Coughlan puts up an incredibly mature performance in a role that she could have coasted through. The cinematography is excellent, giving the film a look way more impressive than the budget.
This is the kind of movie that if you get it and it touches you, you won't want to stop watching it.
- indiephile2
- Sep 14, 2003
- Permalink
I'll admit that this film has great style, and the director Adam Goldberg is clearly talented - I like his work as an actor, as well- but I LOVE YOUR WORK falls short of what I like in a film. My friends who saw it with me at the festival enjoyed it, some more than others, and it's admittedly dark and complex- but at times I checked out of the story because I just didn't care that much about Giovanni Ribisis character. That's not to say that he doesn't do great work- that's what's hard about this film, it's obvious that everyone is talented and trying really hard, so you almost WANT it to succeed- but I left the theater feeling kind of ho-hum about it. Franke Potente is almost unrecognizable, and does fine work, as does Jared Harris, Judy Greer, and the whole cast.
But the story wasn't very strong or interesting, unless you're a put upon famous actor in Hollywood. The camera-work was lovely, the music was just okay and not very memorable, but overall I was left with the feeling that Adam Goldberg is quite talented but needs a great script to really soar.
But the story wasn't very strong or interesting, unless you're a put upon famous actor in Hollywood. The camera-work was lovely, the music was just okay and not very memorable, but overall I was left with the feeling that Adam Goldberg is quite talented but needs a great script to really soar.
- Juliette2005
- Oct 10, 2005
- Permalink
I wouldn't call "I Love Your Work" terrible, but I would agree that it doesn't really go anywhere. Portraying director Gray Evans (Giovanni Ribisi) descending into madness and desperation, I guess that the movie is supposed to be a look at the unpleasant situations inherent in the Hollywood lifestyle, but the whole thing is too confusing to logically make that point. Ribisi, plus Christina Ricci, Jason Lee, Franka Potente and Vince Vaughn (and even Elvis Costello as himself) do the best that they can, but there's not really enough to work with. For a better look at the vicissitudes of the celebrity life, check out Carl Reiner's "The Comic", starring Dick Van Dyke.
- lee_eisenberg
- Jun 12, 2006
- Permalink
This film was absolute, grade-A garbage. Adam Goldberg's celebrity friends should hold an intervention to prevent him from directing again (instead of making freaking' cameos in his movies!). Goldberg's artistic pretensions are what really wreck this film. There have been much better films that tackle this subject matter including the obvious example, "The King of Comedy." Goldberg's variation on the theme is an utter bore. An exploitation movie like "Paparazzi" is 100 times better than this pathetic plea to be "taken seriously." Tomorrow I hope to be able to convince my video rental clerk that the DVD was so bad he should provide me with credit. So, to recap. This movie is Hideous. Terrible. Rotten. Dreck. Ooze... Fubar!
- arunsash1978
- Aug 12, 2006
- Permalink
This film is ridiculously terrible. The one other comment left here pretty much sums it up. I like Giovanni Ribisi and thought the film looked interesting enough. The worst part about my experience with this film is that I had to campaign hard to win the "who's picking the movie" debate with my girlfriend, and not only was it just bad, it was awful. I won't restate what Juliet2005 said about it since she hit the nail on the head when it came to an unfocused plot and frustratingly meaningless diversions.
What a disappointment for what was really a decent looking cast list. There's a cameo by Elvis Costello that kind of brought my attention back, but that ended up being weird. I enjoyed the music throughout the film, and as the other review said, the camera work was nice. But, come one, what's up with the plot?!
Fail.
What a disappointment for what was really a decent looking cast list. There's a cameo by Elvis Costello that kind of brought my attention back, but that ended up being weird. I enjoyed the music throughout the film, and as the other review said, the camera work was nice. But, come one, what's up with the plot?!
Fail.
- kindgroove
- May 21, 2006
- Permalink
Usually when I finish watching a movie I go to it's Imdb page to give my rating and search for some insightful Trivia. And usually I imagine the rating of the movie in my head and sometimes I'm surprised it's too low or too high, but am never too far from This time I was shocked with how high I thought of the movie and how low it's evaluation was.
I enjoyed this movie a lot, has great acting (Giovanni Ribsi very underrated actor) and funny cameos - Vince Vaughn, Elvis Costello, a great story and great stylist and personal touches.
I think this movie should be rewatched and introduced to new audiences, it depicts well hollywood celebrities lifes, has a nice touch at the end and makes you feel empathy for the main character.
It clearly is inspired in the director's life, as must movies - photography, being an actor but wanting to direct, lack of personal space from audiences - and uses some cliches that you'll find in many movies depicting life of movie actors and their paranoia etc, but I think it's a great american movie, which talks about Hollywood without being Hollywood and has depth.
I think you should definetely check this movie and you will not be disappointed.
I enjoyed this movie a lot, has great acting (Giovanni Ribsi very underrated actor) and funny cameos - Vince Vaughn, Elvis Costello, a great story and great stylist and personal touches.
I think this movie should be rewatched and introduced to new audiences, it depicts well hollywood celebrities lifes, has a nice touch at the end and makes you feel empathy for the main character.
It clearly is inspired in the director's life, as must movies - photography, being an actor but wanting to direct, lack of personal space from audiences - and uses some cliches that you'll find in many movies depicting life of movie actors and their paranoia etc, but I think it's a great american movie, which talks about Hollywood without being Hollywood and has depth.
I think you should definetely check this movie and you will not be disappointed.
- zehunter_9
- Sep 10, 2023
- Permalink
- john-felix
- Jul 10, 2006
- Permalink
This is what happens when a bunch of scientologists get together and make a movie. NEWSFLASH: You guys aren't a smart and talented as you have been told.
- raiderdan-48491
- May 8, 2021
- Permalink
Gray Evans (Giovanni Ribisi) is an internationally acclaimed movie star, and so is his beautiful wife Mia Lang (Franka Potente). In a wild ecstasy of fame and alcohol, he is getting more and more unable to differentiate between fans and stalkers. His marriage starts to suffer from his obsessions. In a video store, he meets John (Joshua Jackson) and his attractive girlfriend Jane (Christina Ricci) with whom he falls in love. But she seems to be unreachable for him, because John and Jane are a happy couple. Gray even engages a detective to observe days long each step of the life of John and Jane, pretending their were stalkers. The detective delivers Gray binders of photographs, transcriptions of what they speak in their apartment and what they eat for dinner.
But this highly underrated movie is not about the film star's dream of possessing the girlfriend of someone else. It is not simply a movie about the difference of having what you want versus wanting what you have either. It goes much deeper. The film deals with the dissolving of the borders between Grey's wife Mia and John's girlfriend Jane on the one side and of Grey himself and John on the other side. It also deals with a very special kind of "imitation of life": Grey controls the life of John and Jane in order to be a part of their life, hence imitating it, fully unaware of the fact that their life is not his own. In Grey's fantasy, Mia and Jane fall together, he turns two women into one who has both the qualities of Mia and of Jane.
From the standpoint of metaphysics, the borders between subject and object are transgressed. Therefore, the logic of the story of "I love your work" does not follow classical Aristotelian logic, in which this border can only be crossed by death. One remembers R.W. Fassbinder's "Despair A Trip into the Light", where the protagonist Hermann Hermann also abolishes the borders between him as subject and the fair-grounder Felix Weber as object. Like Hermann, Gray, too, looks at himself having exchanged his position with the position of John and having become Jane's boyfriend, so he changes the subject-object relation twice and abolishes in the end the individuality of Mia and Jane by merging them into one fictive personality. Like Fassbinder's "Despair", also "I love your work" is a trip into the light but while Fassbinder's movie ends with showing the insanity of the protagonist in a bright alpine village, where he assumes to be a movie star, the protagonist in Adam Goldberg's movie is in fact a movie star. Like in "Despair", at the end, the police arrest the protagonist, but in Goldberg's movie it is not the sunlight in which Gray's trip into insanity ends, but the floodlights on the roofs of dozens of police cars.
Rating: 10 points.
But this highly underrated movie is not about the film star's dream of possessing the girlfriend of someone else. It is not simply a movie about the difference of having what you want versus wanting what you have either. It goes much deeper. The film deals with the dissolving of the borders between Grey's wife Mia and John's girlfriend Jane on the one side and of Grey himself and John on the other side. It also deals with a very special kind of "imitation of life": Grey controls the life of John and Jane in order to be a part of their life, hence imitating it, fully unaware of the fact that their life is not his own. In Grey's fantasy, Mia and Jane fall together, he turns two women into one who has both the qualities of Mia and of Jane.
From the standpoint of metaphysics, the borders between subject and object are transgressed. Therefore, the logic of the story of "I love your work" does not follow classical Aristotelian logic, in which this border can only be crossed by death. One remembers R.W. Fassbinder's "Despair A Trip into the Light", where the protagonist Hermann Hermann also abolishes the borders between him as subject and the fair-grounder Felix Weber as object. Like Hermann, Gray, too, looks at himself having exchanged his position with the position of John and having become Jane's boyfriend, so he changes the subject-object relation twice and abolishes in the end the individuality of Mia and Jane by merging them into one fictive personality. Like Fassbinder's "Despair", also "I love your work" is a trip into the light but while Fassbinder's movie ends with showing the insanity of the protagonist in a bright alpine village, where he assumes to be a movie star, the protagonist in Adam Goldberg's movie is in fact a movie star. Like in "Despair", at the end, the police arrest the protagonist, but in Goldberg's movie it is not the sunlight in which Gray's trip into insanity ends, but the floodlights on the roofs of dozens of police cars.
Rating: 10 points.
Clocking in at just under two hours, I LOVE YOUR WORK leaves the viewer feeling as though from the opening sequence that stones have been tied to your feet and your body thrown into the very deep and dank water to slowly settle into the mud at the bottom. Sound dreary? Then avoid this little mess of a film.
It is hard to believe that Adrian Butchart who is giving us the radiant GOAL! THE DREAM BEGINS trilogy could help write this script: one wonders if writer/director Adam Goldberg didn't just bring him in for help. The story is tired (small time guy gives up love for a career as a movie star with all the accessories of money, fame, celeb status, gorgeous wife, etc. only to find life in its simpler fashion was preferable) and the choices of casting this very dark and dreary tale are inappropriate. Giovanni Ribisi, superb an actor though he most assuredly is, simply is not credible as a movie star sex symbol whose stardom is accompanied by alcoholism, self hate, paranoia, fragmented thinking, and bad decisions. The only time we see anything vaguely suggestive of his ability to create a role is in the many flashback scenes (with girlfriend Christina Ricci): his on screen chemistry with his famous wife Mia (the enormously talented Franka Potenta who here is wasted in a mannequin's role) is nil, and his interplay with such actors as Vince Vaughn, Marisa Coughlan, Judy Greer, Shalom Harlow, Joshua Jackson, Jason Lee, and Elvis Costello is unilateral.
Goldberg films this boring redundant tale using all manner of artsy camera tricks that only serve to make the tedium increase. With a cast like this the product had promise. Goldberg needs some time to think about this phase of his career. Grady Harp
It is hard to believe that Adrian Butchart who is giving us the radiant GOAL! THE DREAM BEGINS trilogy could help write this script: one wonders if writer/director Adam Goldberg didn't just bring him in for help. The story is tired (small time guy gives up love for a career as a movie star with all the accessories of money, fame, celeb status, gorgeous wife, etc. only to find life in its simpler fashion was preferable) and the choices of casting this very dark and dreary tale are inappropriate. Giovanni Ribisi, superb an actor though he most assuredly is, simply is not credible as a movie star sex symbol whose stardom is accompanied by alcoholism, self hate, paranoia, fragmented thinking, and bad decisions. The only time we see anything vaguely suggestive of his ability to create a role is in the many flashback scenes (with girlfriend Christina Ricci): his on screen chemistry with his famous wife Mia (the enormously talented Franka Potenta who here is wasted in a mannequin's role) is nil, and his interplay with such actors as Vince Vaughn, Marisa Coughlan, Judy Greer, Shalom Harlow, Joshua Jackson, Jason Lee, and Elvis Costello is unilateral.
Goldberg films this boring redundant tale using all manner of artsy camera tricks that only serve to make the tedium increase. With a cast like this the product had promise. Goldberg needs some time to think about this phase of his career. Grady Harp
i had high hopes for this movie, seeing that I liked Giovanni Ribisi on My Name is Earl, and i like Jason lee. i watched this movie and any hope i had for it was destroyed halfway through. there was hardly any plot progression throughout the entire movie and it was so odd that i felt i needed to pick up the cliff's notes to understand it. the story twisted and turned and included things that were kind of stupid and introduced subplots which were not later revisited and explained. in fact, very little was explained in this movie. i did however enjoy Jason lee's role, albeit very small. he brought a certain realism to stalkers' obsessions. whatever other deep themes were waiting to capture my attention didn't, and the rest of the movie just plain sucked.