Agrega una trama en tu idiomaMulti-character study of various people, a prostitute, a waitress, a lawyer, a gay actor, whose lives criss-cross each during three days in their lives in Los Angeles.Multi-character study of various people, a prostitute, a waitress, a lawyer, a gay actor, whose lives criss-cross each during three days in their lives in Los Angeles.Multi-character study of various people, a prostitute, a waitress, a lawyer, a gay actor, whose lives criss-cross each during three days in their lives in Los Angeles.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
Pat Jankiewicz
- Jay
- (as Patrick Jankiewicz)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
I hope I'm not too late- I hope you haven't already rented this-
This movie was painful to watch. It goes on my list of the worst 20 films I've ever seen. Childishly bad writing, painfully bad acting by Chad Lowe and others, and a horrible waste of Swank. I was embarrassed for some of the good new talents in this movie that had to work with such horrible writing.
Some of the visuals, the locations, the framing of the scenes were actually very enjoyable- If I'm too late and you've already rented this, watch it on MUTE.
This movie was painful to watch. It goes on my list of the worst 20 films I've ever seen. Childishly bad writing, painfully bad acting by Chad Lowe and others, and a horrible waste of Swank. I was embarrassed for some of the good new talents in this movie that had to work with such horrible writing.
Some of the visuals, the locations, the framing of the scenes were actually very enjoyable- If I'm too late and you've already rented this, watch it on MUTE.
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.
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.
I keep this movie on Tivo and watch when I have insomnia. It is clear why it never got a proper release and if it did not have Hilary Swank in it, this would have remained in its rightful place......
The concept of the film has potential but has been executed significantly better in other films. The whole picture has an amateurish, student film quality about it; you understand what they are TRYING to do but between the glacial pace, turgid characters, on hold music soundtrack, and community theater overacting you never get invited into the world of the movie. The proper way to view this movie is to have it on in the background while filling out your tax forms.
The concept of the film has potential but has been executed significantly better in other films. The whole picture has an amateurish, student film quality about it; you understand what they are TRYING to do but between the glacial pace, turgid characters, on hold music soundtrack, and community theater overacting you never get invited into the world of the movie. The proper way to view this movie is to have it on in the background while filling out your tax forms.
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.
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.
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.
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.
¿Sabías que…?
- ErroresReflected in the tile wall of the restaurant bathroom during Julie/Richard conversation.
- ConexionesReferences Stille dage i Clichy (1970)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta