Quiet Days in Hollywood

I can't believe that some people gave this movie a 10! I could barely stay awake while watching it and I had just woken up!

There didn't seem to be any distinct plot, the acting was horrible, and the dialogue was bland. I honestly don't know why this movie was ever made.

Matt Adler fans might be interested in this one, though he only appears as a very minor supporting character for three or four minutes total. But what the heck? It's one of the last films he's actually appeared in (because he's doing mostly adr loop credits these days).

In spite of that, however, this is one utterly dull movie. You have probably seen a zillion movies just like this one, a few separate stories which share interrelated characters (in one way or another). But, they're basically very short scenes of insignificant events between the characters (all connected through sex) in which they take the time to pontificate (both through action and dialog) to the point where your wondering if you're the only one who has no idea what they're saying or if you're the only one who doesn't care. While there were a few interesting things that occur in the movie (most all of them involving any of the scenes with Hillary Swanks character--since she was probably the most interesting, if not the most likable character in the whole mess), this is just about an hour and half of non-sequential nothing. It may work in some films (Tarrantino, borrowing from the anarchistic stylings of 70s french and Italian filmmakers was able to pull it off, among others), but this the way 'Quiet Days in Hollywood' worked out, it is one of the many that makes no sense, and rarely strives to do little more than waste time.

You can always count on some mercenary to take advantage of an actor's success by releasing one of his or her early roles in some worthless B movie. 'Quiet Days In Hollywood' is an abominable ensemble production produced in 1997 and never released in theaters in the United States (it saw a limited release in Germany). It was recently released to the video market with Hilary Swank as the marketing hook. Actually, despite the fact that her picture and name dominate the package, Swank has only two limited appearances in the film.

The film is a series of chain linked sex vignettes. Each character has sex with another character and then the second character moves on to the next vignette and has sex with another who moves on to another etc., until finally, the circle is complete and the last character has sex with the first character. The story has all the substance of a porn movie, with banal, profanity-riddled dialogue serving to bridge the gap between sex scenes. Since the sex scenes were mostly implied, even the prurient aspect was limited.

Hillary Swank plays a hooker on the streets of Hollywood. She is brash to the point of stupidity, taunting and insulting dangerous people as if she has some sort of death wish. Her performance here is very amateurish and unpolished. Natasha Gregson Wagner was the only other cast member worth mentioning. She gave a reasonably good performance as a woman in an open marriage having sex with one of her husband's employees (the husband knows).

There is not really much more to say about this sham. I rated it a 2/10. Don't get duped into seeing it as I did just because Swank is on the cover.

When I think the term "bad movie", I seem to think of Quiet Days in Hollywood first; it looming so large in my mind as to block out memory of all others. I know what you're thinking: It can't be that bad. Oh, yes, it be.

The movie is exceptionally bad in every film-making area. The acting isn't bad just because the writing is so bad. The acting is bad all on it's own, too. What story there is is an unnecessary story. If good direction is Sean Connery in a tuxedo, this direction is an obscene clown. The movie is embarrassing to watch for human beings. One wonders how it survived unhindered through human minds to it's current form.

All that said, Hilary Swank manages to be good. Talent can make such a difference. Otherwise, film teachers and students should use this movie as a template for what not to do.

This early Hilary Swank movie showcases Ms. Swank's charisma but little of her talent. She has a thankless role(the foul-mouthed but philosophical hooker with the ubiquitous heart of gold), but to her credit she speaks her ridiculous lines(I'm sure the German to English translation didn't help) without embarrassing herself.

Hilary is only in the first and last vignettes, and the first is a total waste; she's just not meant for this kind of role(but who would be). The later scene is the best part of this film and there's a moment where she jumps in the shower(no nudity shown) and exclaims "It's cold!" with a wonderful smile on her face that lightens the whole(rather depressing) affair up. Her repartee w/ Peter Dobson(and doesn't his voice sound EXACTLY like Martin Sheen's?) is natural and funny, if poorly written.

Natasha Gregson Wagner is similarly wasted(as she was in Another Day in Paradise(a very good movie BTW)).

The rest of the movie makes it painfully obvious that the director/writer has worn out his copies of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, esp. the diner scene with Chad Lowe.

A professional effort but it's only for Swank/NGW/Tarantino fans.