Quid Pro Quo

QUID PRO QUO shows us that no matter how entrenched we are in our world view, there are always people who feel, with equal intensity, the exact opposite. Who would trade mobility for a wheelchair? Meet the characters in this film. QUID PRO QUO examines a psycho-sexual subgroup who feel that they are normal, but "trapped in a walking person's body". We are introduced to a paraplegic radio talk show host who meets a young woman who yearns to be disabled. This part is played by the radiantly crazy Vera Farmiga who rolls over Nick Stahl's staid NPR persona with willful glee. Farmiga injects a recklessly erotic element to this otherwise plodding script. She throws down a little MURDERBALL into this decidedly odd and weird universe, and as to why she is up to all of this? It becomes the strange trick-ending to this odd bit of fantasy. If you liked David Cronenberg's film, CRASH, you might enjoy this movie's nutty vibe.

This was probably the worst movie I have seen since The Arrival. And one of the worst films I have ever seen in my life. Having been suckered into renting this horrific piece of garbage, i left the movie experience feeling ill- literally. Horrible screen writing, atrocious acting, contrived bullshit plots, and unbelievable characters. Magic Shoes? Ginger Jake? Am I expected to believe that somebody who has been in a wheelchair for 20 years could just get up and start walking. Somehow I don't think the human body works that way. If they wanted to make a sci-fi movie maybe they should have contacted Spielberg. How could Vera Farmiga go from being in The Departed to being in this horrendous crap pile of a movie. She should shoot her agent. And anyone who liked this film should shoot themselves.

I saw this film on the closing night of Sundance, mostly because all the other films I wanted to see were sold out. I'm glad I went. Nick Stahl and Vera Farmiga dance adeptly around and through the film's premise, which is coaxed pleasantly out of a screenplay that writer-director Carlos Brooks has polished over seven years.

Stahl plays a public radio reporter confined to a wheelchair since a childhood accident. While following a lead in a bizarre story, he meets Fiona (Farmiga), a mysterious woman who leads him into a reclusive subculture. At first, microphone in hand, he wants the story. But then a trip to a second-hand store for some shoes convinces him the story isn't what he thought it was.

The Sundance catalogue billed it as a "psychological thriller," but in my opinion that misses the mark. Yes, we're introduced to some oddly quirky characters along the way. But Brooks bills is as a detective story, and that's how I think it's best approached. It's an exercise in restrained exposition that keeps the viewer guessing right up until the film's final scenes.

As with most independent films, this one makes good use of small-scale locations and intimate moments. Even the Manhattan exteriors favor enclosed sidewalks and narrow passages. The cinematography, done on high-definition video, is crisply executed and richly textured with subtle but effective details. (The lustrous wallpaper in Fiona's apartment actually has its own screen credit.) The camera spends a great deal of time at the eye level of a wheelchair occupant, emphasizing the point of view and expanding the small spaces in which many of the film's scenes take place.

Stahl and Farmiga drive a substantial portion of the film by themselves. Brooks admits that the their story took over the film as he shot and edited it. As a result the supporting ensemble retreats to the distance, a position from which performances from James Frain (as Stahl's mentor) and Michal Leamer (Fiona's mother) can give brief but memorable performances.

Vera Farmiga creates a complex character whom you can't help loving, hating, and fearing all at the same time. Nick Stahl's performance stays even and understated until his veneer breaks apart and the detective story comes full circle.

The only negative aspect to the film is the frank treatment of the subculture that frames the principal characters, not because the treatment is unfair or poorly executed, but because it's likely to take the average viewer by surprise. Look for wide release in May 2008.

Movie about an odd, underground segment, the intellectually passive version of Cronenberg's Crash. People who want to be crippled from the waste down and confined to a wheelchair.

It is more than that. It's set within a mystery as to whether a radio reporter is getting lured into a trap or fake story. And unlike Crash, there's no drug connection. It's more psychological, but equally dark, simply without the ambiance and style that Crash had.

The downside is that some of it seems too setup and the story under-developed. The result is that it seems less like a theater film and more like a TV movie, but worth watching.

This film is about a paralysed radio presenter who meets a woman who wants to be paralysed, with unexpected psychological results to both of them.

The initial hour of "Quid Pro Quo" is disguised as a fetishistic film about a woman who gets sexual excitement by living a paralysed life. it is a bizarre and incomprehensible topic which is likely to put people off. After looking beyond that, the film offers little to engage viewers. There is little to make people want to know what will happen to the characters.

The last ten minutes improve substantially, as the sudden plot twist shifts the focus from a fetishistic emphasis to a moving drama about guilt and conscience. If "Quid Pro Quo" could expand on the guilt and conscience theme, and tone down on the fetishistic theme, then it would be likely to have more success.