Some Girl (1998) User Reviews

Marissa Ribisi shows her versatile talents

[rosscinema · 6/10 · 24 December 2003]

The story for this film is very familiar and even the cast is who you would expect to see in an independent effort but what stands out is the believable performances and the writing of Marissa Ribisi. Story takes place in Los Angeles and is about a bunch of twentysomething people who are unable to find the right person to have a relationship with. Claire (Ribisi) has just been dumped by her boyfriend and she complains that men don't know how to commit. She hangs out with her friends and her brother Jason (Giovanni Ribisi) in a local bar and they all like to talk about sex and companionship. April (Juliette Lewis) is a slut and sleeps with every man she comes into contact with much to the chagrin of Neal (Michael Rapaport) who is the bartender and in love with her. Jason is in love with Jenn (Pamela Segall) but she doesn't care for him at all. One day at a newsstand Claire meets Chad (Jeremy Sisto) who is a wannabe actor and he manages to ask her out on a date.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Claire and Chad go out maybe twice and then have sex and when she leaves to go home he says "I love you". But after that Claire has a hard time getting back with him and every time she finds him he says he is busy. Claire gets angry and goes to his house where she discovers him in bed with another woman. Claire is confused as to what went wrong and two days later April admits to her that she was the one in bed with Chad.

This film was directed by Rory Kelly and even though the budget is probably minuscule it still has a sense of vision as to what the mood of the characters should be. In essence, this works best as a character study. Each of the characters are well defined and drawn and the credit should go to Marissa Ribisi who wrote the script. Story is predictable and the ending is too ambiguous but each of the characters have at least one good scene. Giovanni Ribisi as Jason has a couple of good scenes and arguably the best is when he tells off April in the bar. Lewis as April is very effective especially towards the end when she tells Neal how she really feels about him. But their is no argument about who owns this film. Marissa Ribisi is terrific and she shows that she can carry a film herself. Along with her red hair and delicate features she has the face of an angel. Her script has flaws but what is noticeable is the sincerity in the words that each character utters during the course of the film. Her script does a splendid job of showing how some of these characters want to date real and honest people but they just seem unable to. Some of it is their fault in the types they select to date, but with others they seem to be a victim of a very shallow generation. I do hope that Ribisi continues to write because she definitely understands the aggravation of dating in this day and age. She has a very good scene with Lewis in the bathroom of the bar where she is crying and asking about what its like to have someone who's really in love with you. This scene and the performance of Ribisi rings true and I think it perfectly describes what this film is really about. Marissa, keep on writing!

Watchable 90's dating flick

[rob-236 · 6/10 · 10 December 2003]

Good cast - good effort. This drama chronicles the perils of dating in the 90's, and it does it with average results.

The characters are good, and the story is watchable but suffers from a slow pace at times and its sometimes a little too depressing.

Marissa Ribisi - (Dazed and Confused) - who also co wrote the script, and her real life brother Giovanni (Gone in 60 seconds) give the best performances.

All in all, passes the time, although I can't help but think that in a few months I probably wont remember anything about it - still its worth the £1 I bought it for!!

If you're anything like me

[skyblue_fairy1 · 7/10 · 12 July 2019]

If you're anything like me, you will get your heart broken by Chad. No one warned me. I feel it is my civic duty to warn those who follow.

This was a great Movie

[vivalakota · 4 October 2004]

This movie is is a great movie. Not only is the cast great, but it's a well thought out movie that is so much like real life. Juliette Lewis did a wonderful job on her part as well as Marissa Ribisi, and Jeremy Sisto. I can watch this movie over and over and not get tired of it. In the movie Claire has trouble with a relationship and meets a guy named Chad at a Magazine stand. They see each other for a while. April has trouble bein in a relationship because she thinks she has a secret of being a Hooker. Her friends don't like her ways but love her anyway. It's just a really good movie to watch and I'm not going to spoil it for anyone. I recommend this movie to all audiences.

Totally Appalling in every regard

[Britney-Keira · 1/10 · 26 September 2005]

This movie is simply awful, it is appalling in almost every regard.

It is sanctimonious, it is self-serving, it has some of the most annoying, self indulgent, non-sympathetic characters drawn in two dimensional fashion, it is ugly and uninteresting. The good thing about it was that it was very short in length and so spared the viewer from too much agony. From the very opening of this movie to the very close the viewer is not drawn to have any empathy for any of the characters involved, they are all to self centered and they learn nothing through the movie, in fact their selfish ways are validated and they have no redemption, they just go on doing the same old. Clearly this movie is written by someone young without experience in life, or someone who just has no idea. Do yourselves a favour, avoid this film.

ribisi twins ...

[ksf-2 · 6/10 · 16 April 2020]

Stars twins Giovani and Marissa Ribisi, Michael Rapaport, Juliette Lewis, Glenn Quinn, Trevor Goddard. Living and dating in the 1990s. Written by Marissa Ribisi, and produced by Gay Ribisi (their mom), so it's a family production. Highlights the coming-of-age dating challenges. falling in and out of love. if you liked Mystic Pizzer, you'll like this one. although they say and do much more raw, adult things in this one. pretty good. Sadly, both Goddard and Quinn OD'd, and are with us no more. Directed by Rory Kelly... not much info out there on him. This one is pretty okay. not shown very often.

A good film if you're drunk.

[=G= · 3/10 · 3 September 2000]

You have a choice. You can stick your finger down your throat or watch this pathetic attempt at comedy/drama about young adults in search of relationships. In all fairness to the actors who doggedly go through the paces of trying to bring something meaningful to a thoroughly inane script, the film fails because the characters are shallow, two dimensional, plastic replicas of people for whom we're made to feel nothing. The film ricochets off humor, bends around reality, and ignores pathos. It's shallow, hollow, empty, and is about as satisfying as tofu.

Terrific movie, welcome back Juliette!!

[MadRaina · 10/10 · 31 December 1999]

What a great movie to introduce Juliette lewis back into hollywood. I love seeing her do an independent film. It just shows how she has a wide variety of things she will do, and that shes not an actress for money or praise. Marissa Ribisi was magnificent as well as the rest of the cast. The entire movie is pure genius, its not over the top at all, its completely realistic. There are two gripping scenes that stand out to me:

***spoilers***

Theres this scene with juliette and Micheal Rapaport(april and neil) sitting in his car. She finnaly explains to him how she really feels and what she sees in him, and that she's sorry for being so "slutty." Juliette delivers this scene with such raw emotion that everytime I watch it I tear up myself.

The other extemely powerful scene is when Marissa Ribisi(claire) is "freaking out" in her room after she has just discovered her boyfriend has cheated on her. If you have ever been dumped or cheated on or hurt by anyone, you will feel a great rush of emotions when seeing this scene.

Another amusing thing is how Giovanni Ribisi and Juliette's characters act towards each other. If you have ever seen "The Other Sister" you will see what I mean. The two characters despise each other in "Some Girl" (Juliette actually bangs Giovanni in the head) and in "The Other Sister" Juliette and Giovanni's characters are deeply in love and end up getting married.

***end spoiler***

All in all, this movie is simply great, but will probobly never be hailed as a classic, or get any awards. Though in my mind, it already has.

Urban anthropology of the "leading edge" of the 90's dating game.

[djexplorer · 23 July 2001]

"Some Girl" is interesting primarily as a piece of urban anthropology which delves into young female dating despair amidst late 90's West LA plenty, of all sorts. It also seems to me to really be about female downward mobility, by a route more usual in real life but less movie cliched than the full fledged drug addiction, leading perhaps to prostitution, chestnuts of yore. None of these girls are going to either themselves, or by marriage "success", earn the sorts of incomes their parents did. Not even close. Dissolution.

It tracks a few weeks of the "dating" lives of four late 20's upper family income girlfriends from a quasi hip strata of west LA. What they have in common is a battle weary and cynical participation in a relationship scene where low meaning sex is plentiful for reasonably attractive girls (like themselves) and a smaller number of in the scene and very attractive (or skillzed) guys, and taken as the background given. But where lasting emotional connection, much less love, is very, very elusive -- or non-existent. Sex with and mostly without lasting personal connection. But utterly without real romance. Meanwhile large numbers of guys who don't have player status and who aren't getting any, litter the landscape as a sex needy silent chorus, from the nerdy wannabe younger brother of Claire (Marissa Ribisi), who at least has future possibilities if among other things he'd lose the glasses (and get a few notches in his belt), to Jason's (Giovanni Ribisi) four house mates, who have apparently largely given up, and spend their time endlessly playing scrabble as mating games unfold around them. All of this is quite realistic, at least as a portrait of the two poles. (Meanwhile, in the middle, there are a lot of couples that have already paired off, married or most likely not at this late 20's age in the leading urban areas. But they aren't the subject here.)

Counter the usual stereotypes, here it is the girls who are easily the most messed up among the ones focused on -- with the partial exception of Neal (Michael Rapaport), April's nice guy and doormat boyfriend, who has a severe case of masochistic clinging and an utter inability to play the game. One can imagine though that there is hope for him with the right stable relationship sort of girl -- ironically, someone somewhat like Claire, if a bit lower voltage and with more of a take charge personality. In fact the film frequently draws subtle parallels between Neal's and Claire's positions with those they are seeing -- the situations aren't exactly the same certainly, but there are also many similarities. Of course neither sees this whatsoever.

Though the friendship of four girlfriend players (who boast among themselves and for all who care to overhear about the oral skillz) is the near background, the film focuses on Claire, and as well the sort of sex she has decided she doesn't want (any longer), illustrated by her friend April (Juliette Lewis). April is a full-fledged slut if ever there was one. In fact her character serves as a current pop culture archetype. The only possible missing requisite is a fondness for stranger gang bangs, though one could hardly rule that out. Mostly she doesn't seem ambitious enough to organize them herself. Her normal operating routine, most nights a week, is to wake up the next morning in some new house she doesn't recognize, stumble to the curb so as not to have to deal with whoever she discovers is lying next to her (and we almost never see these he's), and call one of her girl friends or her doormat boyfriend (!) to come pick her up. "Don't ask", she always says. So much for the background.

Claire, whose wildly red and wildly curly hair, framing alabaster skin, make her easily the most interesting looking and exotically attractive of the four friends (if you can overlook her increasingly beaten looking eyes), has settled into a pattern of serial short term relationships, which invariably break her heart. This, she quickly spills to Jason, is because within a couple of weeks they either stop calling her, or she discovers they are real jerks. Either way, another broken heart. (A bit easy in the heart department, per chance?) She doesn't want to get it wrong again this time, she plaintively tells him. "OK, we'll take it slow" he reassures her. Actually, he tries to, within the ready sex ethos they are living in. It soon becomes apparent that she is the one who can't. What she always does wrong becomes glaringly apparent, for those with eyes to see and enough knowledge to understand. The problem isn't really sex too soon. The problem is clinging dependence too soon -- and too much.

Claire begins as a winningly vulnerable and open character, and initially I had real hopes for her, and for her with Jason. She may not be good at the game, but she sure seemed to have an open and beautiful heart. She believes in devoted love. Their relationship begins promisingly enough. Their magazine rack scene together is sweet. He too is a romantic, looking for emotional connection far more than sex (which he takes for granted, as do all the players, especially the girls). He picks Claire up at a magazine stand in a way that at first appears to be simple understated confidence, combined with disarmingly dispensing with line routines. He sees her, and as he pretty much just says, is intrigued by the contrast of her flaming hair against her pale white skin, as she is more than used to hearing. (He is also attracted to her subtle but evidently submissive demeanor, though that is something he acts upon, rather than expresses.) He manages to disarm Claire's reasonably robust shields against pretty boy pickups, by calm, not going anywhere, persistence and innocent charm. It's also the last time she manages to try to resist him.

By the first scene of their ensuing next day date, I was clued to him being a master pickup artist. His not specifying on his call where they would go on their first date was a clue to his having already scoped a good part of her nature, but wasn't conclusive. He first brings her to a laundromat where he casually folds the clothes he had previously left, while soothingly reassuring her, asking her if she's upset. "Well" she says smiling uncertainly, "what's next -- the supermarket?". "No" he reassures her, "although I'd like to do that with you too. I had something more like a nice restaurant in mind." Then I knew. Pure seduction genius, for someone like Claire (and a lot of women). (It's about being together, not about him having to prove his worthiness to her.) He has her totally on the way by then, of course. Back at his room, after he's lit the two candles and turned on the opera aria, he says softly after stroking her: "I don't want to f*** you tonight Claire". This is followed of course by her hiding her crest fallen disappointment, her shields of "of course" and "I brought my car" coming up as she bravely tries to mask that and HOPES he's just going TOO slow, as he said he would, but will want to the next time. All this we can see in Marissa Ribissi's wonderfully expressive sad but bravely smiling face. After a pause, and after gently stroking her arm and the side of her face again, Jason follows that with: "No Claire. No. ... I want to make love to you tonight, really make love". Of course it's her coupe de grace. Not for her sex -- that was long a sure thing. For her heart -- for emotionally deeply connected first sex. She is totally, totally gone by then, or anyway by the time he follows through. You can bet they made beautiful music together.

That's the sort of thing a whole lot of women want the first time with someone, almost all women (with whatever lead in approach works for them), but lots of guys seem to either not want, or be unable to pull off with someone they aren't already head over heals in love with. He's a master, natural or otherwise -- if we overlook his cliched "just released from college" room props, which are after all good enough in this context.

Still though, I wasn't counting out a relationship between them at this stage. He really is the romantic type. Relationships and the heart are what he is after. We never actually learn enough about him to know if he feels compelled to endlessly move on to new full mind and body seductions, or whether he is just looking for the right one, but doing it skillfully. We do learn that he's the sort of guy who's got it down so well that he doesn't have to spend much time in the desert between relationships. Choices he's got. More than anyone else in the film. This too is realistic, though he represents the top of the male magnetic pyramid. (The ones with by far the least choices are the sex needy guys, rather than any girrls, which the film uses only as background noise, and most young female viewers are unlikely to even really notice -- or dismiss simply as losers.)

frustratingly beautiful!

[Laurie-10 · 10/10 · 9 October 1999]

okay, i'll admit i only rented this movie because i have a fascination with giovanni ribisi, but i ended up liking it more than i expected. I NEVER WANT TO BE 20 AN DATING NOW!!! this movie was all so real and funny and smart and, i thought, sad. the cast is superb and the characters are realistic: the "loose" friend, the nerdy brother, the jerk boyfriend. the list is endless! 9/10, HIGHLY recommended!

Some solid performances, light on character development

[denn1 · 13 August 2000]

Let me begin by saying that maybe I'm too old (37) to be part of this movie's intended demographic. That being said – It's also the case that I usually enjoy these ensemble-cast stories.

In this case the premise (some early twenty-somethings struggling with their relationships, or lack thereof) is valid and enjoyable, with some outstanding performances by Marissa Ribisi (Claire), Giovanni Ribisi (Jason), and Juliette Lewis (April). Unfortunately the remainder of the cast of characters suffers from such lack of development that I often felt they were more of a distraction to the plot than an addition.

Marissa Ribisi is stunningly beautiful with her porcelain skin and blazing red hair. She also gives a wonderful performance, demonstrating her wide range of talents, even pulling off a believable drunk (no easy feat). Juliette Lewis gives a strong performance, of course, to a character that remains fairly one dimensional until near the movie's conclusion. Giovanni Ribisi gives a star performance in a supporting role as the quirky brother to the main character.

The production values are outstanding, with some great cinematography and a well-chosen soundtrack. Overall this film serves to further expose Marissa Ribisi's talents in what appears to have been her first starring role.

A masterpiece, welcome back Juliette.

[MadRaina · 10/10 · 2 January 2000]

What a terrific movie to introduce Juliette Lewis back onto the screen. Truely one of Her great performances. The movie itself is one of the best I have ever seen. Its almost too real and too good, theres never a dull moment. Marissa Ribisi is also outstanding as Claire. Why this movie wasnt realeased into theaters isnt a mystery though. Its simply too good for the general public to appreciate. Theres no blood or naked girls, or explosions or over the top special effects, theres just a great story, a perfect cast, and characters you feel for and understand. If you like quality movies, not the glamed up garbage that we've seen lately, Really good movies with stories and characters that make you wish it wouldnt end, Find this somehow, and appreciate it for what it is: A Masterpiece

Exactly as in real life!!!

[andie-8 · 12 August 1999]

Wow! I am so impressed by this movie! I really recognized myself in it. It really shows how most girls thinks and what we have to go thru today. About trying to find the love of your life, and about unanswered love. It's hard to describe this movie, but I promise you, you WILL recognize yourself.

beautifully frustrating and realistic

[Laurie-10 · 10/10 · 2 October 1999]

i was pretty apprehensive when SOME GIRL first started with claire running down the street with angel wings on. i though it was gonna be some weird movie with parallel universes or meaning (don't ask, it was 1 in the morning, i wasn't thinking too straight). besides i only rented it to see giovanni ribisi, because he is the bestest and cutest actor ever. anyhow, when the movie got rolling, i really got into it. for once, i didn't rewind the movie to see giovanni again, nor did i grow impatient waiting for him to come back on screen. i became so wrapped up in the movie that i started yelling at my tv! everyone seemed so ignorant and confused about love, but in a truthful, inspiring, realistic way. and i wanted to kill chad even more than when he was in clueless and was a jerk to ty! i truly loved this movie and i highly recommend it!

well-casted, well-written, well-acted 9/10 laurie

Pay the shipping, and you have yourself a free movie

[V8_Jamez · 16 May 2003]

A terrible film, quite honestly. Dumb characters, crappy script, a story you could care less about.

But...I did like Giovanni Ribisi's character. Or maybe I just like him because of his past efforts like "Boiler Room" and "Saving Private Ryan". Anyhow, who produced this crap? Oh yeah...Marrissa and Giovanni Ribisi's dad apparently. Of all the scripts that don't get made, hard to believe this wasn't one of them.

And finally, a movie in which I don't like Juliett Lewis' acting or character. Now that takes some doing.

This VHS tape will be collecting dust in my collection never to be seen again. What a waste.

'Some Girl' is a ribald, bargain bin Rom-Com treasure.

[Weirdling_Wolf · 8/10 · 24 July 2021]

'Some Girl' is a frequently ribald, fitfully amusing Gen-X Rom-Com concerning the increasingly volatile relationships of an especially boozy clique of libidinous 20-something's as they ungraciously trawled various insalubrious nightspots and boorishly contemplated their no doubt recently pieced navels! One member of this frequently ethanol-raddled group, the sweetly guileless, poetry writing redhead Claire (Marissa Ribisi) soon falls precipitously for smooth-talking shtick merchant Chad (Jeremy Sisto), a blandly good-looking, palpably disingenuous, low-rent Lothario whose well-practised patter and glib charm also found considerable favour with one of her closest friends, the unrepentantly promiscuous April, being played with singular brio by the mercurially talented Juliette Lewis.

The stark discovery that new beau Chad is monumentally shady sends poor Claire deep into an increasingly hysterical, bad-hair sporting spiral of alcohol-fuelled despond, along with her colourful existential crisis, the no less fractious relationships of her hedonistic friends makes 'Some Girl' a boisterously entertaining ensemble piece, while narratively slight, the performances are engaging, with a delightfully eccentric performance from Giovanni Ribisi as Jason, the perma-wounded clown in Buddy Holly Spectacles who hungrily steals every scene that he is in, and for all his hyperbolic quirkiness appears to be the most emotionally stable of this trash-talking troupe of dipso malcontents, and promiscuous neurotics who all seem destined for far lesser things. Reality Bites indeed, even with its uneven tone, curiously unexciting soundtrack, 'Some Girl' is a modest, bargain bin treasure, and upon closer reflection, it is Michael Rappaport's earnest Neal that, perhaps, comes across as the most grounded character, but his bizarrely unconditional love for his serially unfaithful girlfriend April (Juliette Lewis) remains a quite baffling prospect to this particular viewer long after the credits have rolled.

Almost, but not quite.

[sunflowr · 6 September 2000]

I think I missed something here.

The plotline of the movie was tried & true, I guess that's why we have another one. The characters all seemed to muddle along...I kind of wanted them to show off their weirdness a little more. The best scene was when the brother (Jason?) tells off April in the club -- very well done!

But I still have a few questions.. That bruise on April's head...I thought that was Karposi Sarcoma (sp?), one of the precursors of the AIDS virus. It would make sense.

At what point did Chad fall out of love w/ Claire? I feel like I missed something...though I rewound that part of the movie a few times.

The ending was predictable..but was anyone in the house?

I agree w/ one of the reviewers on here, who said the movie should've been titled "Burned". I think the version I saw was called "Some Girls" but dont quote me on that -- I just set the VCR to tape after I read the description..

So who is the biggest user and heart breaker in this movie -- really?

[djexplorer · 23 July 2001]

Guess what girrls, it's right under your noses. And you haven't even seen it, most of you.

I find it amusing and a reflection of the heavy female slant of popular cultural ideology at the moment, that the commentators here focus on Claire's heartache in discovering her "boyfriend" graphically "cheating" on her -- while completely ignoring April's relationship with her boyfriend Neal. Claire and Chad had spent all of two evenings together and had sex once before that happened. OK, so it was meaningful sex. Chad had made no promises and done nothing to pledge monogamy. They were beginning to explore each other. They had connected. His statement "Claire, I love you", as she walked away from his house the morning after was clearly an expression of feeling and connection, rather than a commitment -- if she was able to understand him at all. As well we know, although Clare doesn't, that he was set up and probably didn't go out looking for it. Clare's hot hurt that Chad's having sex with someone else was "cheating' at that infant stage was about as unjustified as it's possible to be in the modern urban context -- and entirely a product of Claire's projections ahead of reality. In contrast, April privately and publicly humiliates her long term boyfriend just about maximally by spending more nights a week than not sleeping in some new pickup's home, only to extricate herself the next morning without waking up Mr. Strange, by calling any one of their mutual friends to come pick her up -- or for that matter her boyfriend himself. Meanwhile, Neal is reduced to supplicating her to stay with him "tonight, at least". When Neal succeeds for a while in extricating himself from this utter self-denigration by finding someone new -- she lures him back to her, by convincing him she sees and needs and truly appreciates (no kidding!) the real Neal, as no one else can.

This scene is even described by one girrrl reviewer thus: "Theres this scene with juliette and Micheal Rapaport(april and neil) sitting in his car. She finallyl explains to him how she really feels and what she sees in him, and that she's sorry for being so "slutty." Juliette delivers this scene with such raw emotion that every time I watch it I tear up myself." Yeah, well anyone who believed she was going to change much of anything because of that bit of emotional manipulation doesn't know much about people. She wasn't remotely close to changing -- which in any fundamental way is always dicey and at best a long road anyway. Try reversing the genders girrrls.

Finally, any guy who would marry an April is freaking totally out of his self-deluded mind, unless he gets off on thoroughly masochistic self-destruction, and wants that as the predominant and public theme of his personal life. She is a good definition by example of a total slut. And no, that judgment doesn't reflect a general prejudice against girrrls who like me have been with a whole lot and even scores of the opposite sex. I often prefer women with considerable experience of different men. Instead that judgment reflects the way that April habitually does her maximally casual sex, long after she's proven she can (to the limited extent that's ever much of an issue for girrrls), how little she really looks for anything else, and how she likes instead to relate to her steady "relationship interest" while she's doing her all consuming thing. Well, conceivably if she had followed her genuine total slut period by an extended period of abstinence, or a previous year or longer of monogamy with someone else -- to show me that what she was looking for really had changed. After all, cheating is as easy, and habitual, for a total slut like April as the nearest bar and an evening supposedly spent with her girlfriends -- any evening randomly chosen without effort or pre-planning. Although actually, her history of total slutting while simultaneously manipulating a man who was emotionally committed to her, would permanently disqualify her so far as I'm concerned.

As well, now that I'm on the subject, it's hardly an accomplishment for any reasonably attractive mid-thirties or younger woman to casually bed scores or hundreds of men -- even if she limits herself to attractive men. Most young women above dog status (bad fat) can if they want to, if they dispense with any sort of commitment or even a strong (if sometimes fast) emotional connection as pre-qualifiers. There's a vast sea of men out there, including attractive ones, who are interested in casual sex but can't get it at will just because they want it -- or can only get it by working really, really hard at it. It's only an accomplishment of sorts when men rather than women do something like that -- for the simple reason that only a small minority of men CAN, although the great majority of young men would love to be able to (sometimes desperately so). That in a nutshell is why women can be sluts and men really can't. (Although many men use the word unfairly, and with more than a little jealousy.) A slut is someone who habitually has careless, easy sex. It's not simply blind social prejudice, as the current feminist line would have it. It's the nature of the different "market conditions" for casual sex between the two sexes. For women, screwing lots of men very quickly and easily merely involves relaxing or abandoning requirements which most women enforce (most of the time) before sex. For men it requires being very unusually attractive, in one way or another.

As for my downward mobility premise -- consider who appears as the possible happy ending guy, who picks up our West LA (parents') upper class mansion dwelling late 20 something Some Girl, as the movie is ending. A nondescript in looks and personality, but moderately forceful, young member of the LAPD.

At what point did Chad fall out of love with Claire -- here's when ...

[djexplorer · 23 July 2001]

One commentator below asks: "At what point did Chad fall out of love w/ Claire? I feel like I missed something...though I rewound that part of the movie a few times."

To me that was glaringly obvious. When Claire went to his house after their second get together because he didn't follow his "I'll call you later" with a call later that night, or "even" by the next afternoon. She was worried because he had ended their perfectly warm chat in her living room without sex by saying he had to shoot a commercial the next day, and wanted to be fully rested and focused. Bad move Claire, made much worse by her failing to in any way dissipate the message of heavy neediness, after he explained he hadn't called yet "because Claire, I only got up about an hour ago." Her face and whole being conveyed a desperate longing for him -- after sex once, and two get-togethers. (Try reversing the shoe girrrls, when a guy is that far ahead of you. Kinda sends the message that he/she knows something you hadn't yet figured out about how much he/she is really worth to others, doesn't it?)

Actually, she started to be in trouble when she apologized for her brother being rude to Chad, and then backed down completely when he responded "was he"?, with a "Well … maybe not." The point isn't being more careful. The point is trying less hard to please. Guys of course fall into the same trap all the time, and if anything, quite a bit more often. (Of course that's what a lot of girrlz want -- with their safe, steady, settle down choice in a guy, anyway. But it's no way to sweep someone off her / his feet.)

The other possibility of course was that Chad was playing a serial seduction game from the get go -- of the full mind as well as body capture variety -- with no intention of it ever lasting regardless of how sypatico they turned out to be. I suspect however that he was always open to the possibility -- without coming close to feeling the sort of desperation that it had to be her, that she did. Other romance minded girls are real easy to find when you've got the looks, skillz and the sort of career that Chad has. (Hell, they're pretty easy to find as well when you've just got the magnetism and skillz, without looks, plus something going on career and future wise.)

Of course this is exactly the position which highly attractive girls with some ability to play the game are in -- and a far higher proportion of girls are in something like this position than guys are. (At least that is while both are in their twenties. It starts reversing fast for those still or once again single in their thirties.)

For those who might be inclined to agree with April's (of all people's) several times repeated warnings that "guys like Chad are the worst" (most dangerous), consider this. Is meaningless sex really better while you are looking for the one that will last? Isn't a much fuller connection, though painful to lose for the one who wanted it to continue, a much richer and more expanding experience -- and much more of a trial run at finding the lasting thing?

In the end a lot of the problem is the simple fact that Claire wasn't really in Chad's league (looks, personality or career wise) -- just as Neal, who might have otherwise been a personality natural for Claire, wasn't really in Claire's league. Yeah, Claire could have delayed the falling apart moment by playing the game smarter. But it would have come apart anyway so long as beneath it all she was so needy. She's not going to get a guy who isn't relationship desperate, probably because he isn't getting much sex (guys being different from girls), until she changes that -- though by the end of the movie it seemed an indelible part of her character to me. Frankly, I think marriage to her, though it might well start out full of passion, lovely romance, and beautiful mutual giving, would before long end up a nightmare. In fact the pyrotechnics at the end of the movie telescope that future likelihood.

She just doesn't have enough else going on in her life, or any apparent drive to make other things go on. She wants to live off her committed partner's vital life force. Her sort of full life (and not just bedroom and occasional emotional) submission may be initially seductive, but it tends to turn to poison -- pretty quickly in today's social climate. She seems the type who would always be consuming much energy jealously patrolling her partner's life with bee-bee guns and worse, and very possibly slipping into a bottle or something else as the poison grew stronger. She'd be enough to drive almost any guy to adultery -- while, ironically, monogamous romantic commitment is what she herself wants most.

A very approachable story, comfortable to watch

[annevejb · 1 August 2008]

Looking to reviews of this, a story about downward mobility fits rather well. Most stories about modern people are about the criminally insane, these are also downwardly mobile.

This is about people, mostly in their 20's, each in traps that they cannot face well or identify well. The story does not give solutions to this, just descriptions. Downwardly mobile each to their own hell.

Theirs is a world of love and sex separated out, duty can be an over-riding thing. Brotherhood.

Catholic springs to mind, but Italy is mentioned and no flavours of the church. This is secular.

It is also a very approachable story, comfortable to watch. A lot is highly enjoyable.

*

This comment is twinned with my comment re Thunderpants 2002.