Just a Kiss

JUST A KISS

"Rocky" and "Good Will Hunting" are the best of examples of what happens when out-of-work actors write.

In these situations, they can write themselves work. And with some talent, some and a little luck, these unemployable actors are never unemployed again.

Nervous nebbish actor Patrick Breen wrote this experimental Off-Off broadway play "Just A Kiss" about how one single event can completely can change not just the lives of the kissers and their significant others, but people outside their little circles.

A whole chain reaction. One kiss. Between two people who shouldn't be kissing. And then hell breaks loose. Not just the kissers and their significant others. But people outside the circle as well.

A promising idea even though we have seen it before. One person and one desicion. That's all it takes.

Oddball character actor Fisher Stevens is a friend and collaborator of Breen's and makes his directorial debut with this experimental film and the often-dubbed "character actor" does some experimental character direction here with this one.

Perhaps the film is trying to be too many things at once.

Maybe the real problem with "Just A Kiss" is it takes too many targets. Social commentary on love, life and relationships (especially in NYC). A black comedy. An experiment. A drama. A dramedy, perhaps? And if that's not enough, the movie tries too hard to be "hip" and "stylish" and "ground-breaking" with it's technique.

"JAK," which could probably be best described as an "Anti-romantic comedy." What bothers me the most is that it's not a succesful one. But boy, it sure could have been.

Dag (named after a former U.N. secreatry, who's a real dog) is a commercial director who's dating Halley (a woman who saved his life) and living with her.

He's unfaithful quite frequently and seems to be prone to having flings with some of Manhattan's more mentally ill chicks. It's a shame Dag can't be faithful to Halley because she's the sanest woman he can come across.

Maybe it could have had it been... less ambitious? That's not the right attitude. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Should we HATE everybody for trying?

His friend Peter, a commercial actor (who also wrote this film) is having relationship trouble with his mentally unbalanced ballerina girlfriend who has a steady habit of cheating on him with everybody, she also has a married man named Andre (Taye Diggs) who comes over to sleep with her regularly and HE winds up having sex with Halley and bcomes her boyfriend. Peter has a quick one with Colleen, Andre's wife.

And... people start dropping and dying pretty quickly. Couples couple up with other people and the body count rises as people kill themselves or each other.

But now the problems with the movie: A lot has been made about the film's use of rotoscoping. An animation technique that was a favorite (and perhaps partially invented) of X-rated adult animation pioneer Ralph Bakshi. His "adult" cartoons often blended animation with live-action. This movie does the same.

Except with a live-action cast who only "occassionally" animate and do things that are glossed with cartoon frosting.

Why does this movie employ rotomation? Perhaps because the characters are cartoon characters themselves. They're so overplayed in a big, broad slapstick sort of way. Imagine Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny sitting around doing Neil LaBute or Todd Solondz material. It can be cute. For a few seconds. Maybe it's a metephor. Maybe it's supposed to mean this movie is more of a metephor than commentary. Or maybe it's just supposed to be stylish and hip.

But it just doesn't work here, pure and simple.

That is not to say ALL the rotoscoping in the movie is a bad idea. The intro in the title sequence is pretty great. But it just makes the rest of the badness so much more clear.

We hear Dag telling a story where he and Peter are in the back of a cab and speeding through NYC. We see rotomation at work outside illuminating the already-lit Manhattan after-hours club scene. Inside, everything is hopping... and litterally glowing. So are a lot of the people. A woman with a slavic accent screams at a man in a Porsche and makes death threats.

Dag moves towards her as the Porsche drives away. Onlookers think it's a bad idea. Who cares? She's vunerable.

They have passionante animal sex (complete with rotomation highlighting visuals). The morning after they wake up. She turns out to not have an accent. She's American. She sobs, I'm engaged! Dag just decides they should just forget last night, get her things and show her out the door.

Oh, she's crazy. Right before she takes that step out, she smiles and says (in a NEW accent), "She does this kind of s*** all the time." And we see her eye turn a frightening color. She's got multiple-crazy. This is a nice touch. Good little montage there, Steve.

But unfortunatly, this isn't a movie where they're satisfied with the little touches.

I love how diabolical the soundtrack is. This music is truly inspired. And kind of fitting for this movie, I guess. The thing how the movie is that it's so promising, it plays out like a notebook of theories and ideas by a first-year philsophy major.

The cast is great and than more able to play these characters. But the movie is directed like it's farce and slapstick when it's supposed to be serious. It moves at the pace and is styled like an MTV music video--which is all wrong for this material.

One bright spark is Marisa Tomei. Ever since "My Cousin Vinny," she's been typecast into playing that one role. The sexy, sassy and quick-tempered girlfriend who's kind of the whole point-of-sanity for her hair-trigger, on-the-edge boyfriend.

She got the Oscar for the role. Ever since, she has never been allowed to play another role. But in this movie, she has been granted the opportunity.

She plays a mentally unstable and potentially homicidal waitress. She makes small talk with Dag, plays his confidant. She reads fortunes in rings left by cold beer bottles. She reads his. He needs a one-night stand to help him to forget. She throws herself at him. "Leave your number." He does. This only makes things worse in a way I can't quite reveal here.

There's one potentially funny "Seinfeld-ian" moment as Peter makes a cellular call on a plane right before landing. The radio transmission interfears with the control tower. The plane breaks in half and passengers die. Now that really made me laugh.

The tourist class (business and coach) all die horribly whereas the first class skitter across the runway and land safely close to the gates. No here is an inspired bit. With a director able to juggle multiple tones a little better, this could've been a success.

But the actual final product plays out like an exercise or a list or experimentation of different cinematic styles. Which, actually, I guess, it is. Steven has always been a character actor, and now he's a character director. Let's hop his next character is at least somewhat better.

Lets also hope their next collaboration is better. Hell, it'll be easy to top this one. "Just A Kiss"... just doesn't work.

Better luck next time, guys.

Commercial director Dag (Ron Eldard) is a former womanizer. He's dating Halley (Kyra Sedgwick) and their best friend is Peter (Patrick Breen). Peter is dating flighty lead dancing Rebecca (Marley Shelton) who lives under her domineering director mother. One day, Rebecca reveals that she and Dag had a fling while she was touring in Europe. Dag, Halley, and Peter all break up as they find other relationships. Dag flirts with unstable waitress Paula (Marisa Tomei) who is in love Peter's commercial as a peanut butter mascot eagle. Halley has a fling with Andre (Taye Diggs) while staying at Rebecca's apartment. Peter meets Colleen (Sarita Choudhury) and then their plane crashes.

It's always fascinating to see these established actors in their earlier less-known work. Suddenly, Peter Dinklage shows up in a weird one-off role. Tomei is playing a psycho. There is a lot of wackiness but it doesn't strike my fancy. It's harder to laugh when the lead annoys me and Dag annoys me. I'm not a fan Eldard although he's usually pretty good as the annoying sidekick or the pathetic villain. It's not good when he's the lead. I also find the animated flashes really bad and unnecessary. I'm only interested in Halley and Peter but even there, the interest fades rather quickly. Peter pulling down his pants is a great move but his character turns bland. I love Sedgwick but when she lets in Andre, I just don't think that any New Yorker would do that without at least calling Rebecca. In the end, none of these characters intrigue me and other than the pants drop, none of it struck me as being funny.

This movie was a moviestar-filled indie film about relationships and what might have happened had they chosen to take things differently with the people nearest to them. This plot is very overused so naturally to change the movie and make it unique, they add digital effects over the video to make it more artsy.

I liked the effects and the different characters were always getting themselves into crazy situations involving neverending change, but the way this was directed was so unbelievable and chaotic that the audience, in my opinion, doesn't have time to understand how to react to the changes that are made. This movie is more depressing than happy or even "real."

This obviously is supposed to be a black comedy based around the emotion of love and its many forms and prices of being in love. I gave it a 5/10 stars because although it had nice stylistic touches to keep you watching, there was very little payoff to watching through to the credits.

I took this movie because my wife wanted a romantic comedy. It is slightly comedy as well as romantic, but IT IS NOT a romantic comedy. What it is is one of those situational movies which exploit the butterfly effect in relationships and in the end everybody ends up knowing everybody and having a connection to them and facing consequences for the things they did in the first start of the movie.

The graphical effects are nice sometimes, but completely unnecessary. After I watched about 80% of the film I have already decided that it is better than a romantic comedy, as I wasn't bored out of my socks, but worse than any other type of movie. I've already labeled it average and I was waiting for the end. The end, though, transformed into a short "what if" mini-movie that canceled all the bad effects of the first part of the film. I didn't like that, really.

So, in conclusion, while it was a rather original take on an old story, it failed to deliver entertainment or at least the discovery of one's true hidden feelings as some of these romantic experiments end up doing. You just watch the movie, completely disconnected and vaguely aware of the emotions of the characters, then it ends.

Great movie! It starts out with two people about to kiss in a hotel room, with both of them admitting that this is going to be a big mistake. Buit they go ahead and do it anyway. After that, the rest of the movie deals with the implications of that kiss. But the way it is all presented is quite fun. There are the somewhat annoying uses of cartooning effects over the real actors. But the most enjoyable part was the way they played with the timeline. At any given time, you aren't really sure if you're in the present or the past. The first few times take you by surprise.

Not your typical love story, for sure. I thought the actors were fine, everyone lies, noone is perfect, which is the way life is. Just more so. As Sid Ceasar said, "Comedy has to be based on truth. You take the truth and you put a little curlicue at the end." And that's what they did with this movie.

A good 7.5 (8 on IMDB).