Corpos em Movimento

Bodies, Rest and Motion is an entertaining, well shot, well acted and well written film. Yes, as the title suggests, it is "philosophical", but it is certainly not dry or pretentious. The twists and turns used to sneak the "philosophy" into the mouths of the characters are fantastically clever. (Reminds me of Mamet.) However, this dialog is so well written that it fits perfectly into the mouths of these characters. This film can be watched two ways: as a slacker diary similar to Dazed and Confused, Clerks or Mall Rats or as a language-driven meditation on love, fidelity and ambition (lack thereof).

I've read reviews that call this film pretentious. I suspect that those reviewers don't appreciate that film can be linguistically creative and intellectually stimulating while still being fun. However, I feel that one of the reasons that this film was overlooked was that it was classified as a romantic comedy. Do not go into this film looking for "You've Got Mail" or "Down with Love". Also, don't go into this film looking for a hero to cheer for (though you might just find one).

Judge for yourself: Would Eric Stolz, Phoebe Cates, Tim Roth and Bridgett Fonda lend their colossal talents to pretentious garbage? If you're a writer, screenwriter or poet, then snag a copy of the script. Like Mamet's work, this script is well worth the read just to savor the writer's talent for making seemingly mundane dialog speak volumes.

This is a very under-rated and under-appreciated film!

I stumbled across this little piece of fluff on IFC television last night. It had a cast worth checking, so in spite of IFC's unhopeful two star rating, I settled in to watch. What an odd little film.

The actor's performances were good -- very natural in terms of their interactions and relationships. The pace was a tad slow -- while I don't think movies need fist fights and explosions to create pace, a dialog-intensive film needs to beware of ......................... long..................................pauses. Still, that is a minor criticism in my view. If that was the only flaw in the film, I could and would have given it a higher rating because for the most part the actors handled those dialogic gaps pretty well.

The worse problem with this film was its failure in my view to address the fundamental "So what?" question. I was never given any reason to care a whit about any of these characters, with the limited exception of Beth (Bridget Fonda) whom I was hoping would get the hell out of Enfield. After she left, I rooted for her not be found by the pseudo-intellectual painter, Sid. Beth had made a couple of very bad choices, with the amoral Nick (Tim Roth) and the vacuous pop-psychologist, Sid, so I was rooting for her to stick to her guns, enjoy the moments of pleasure she had with Sid, and get away before her brain turned entirely to mush. Either Nick or Sid would have destroyed her: Nick with his amoral outlook and lack of direction; Sid with his pretensions of profundity that he used to shield his fundamental lack of imagination and ambition.

Still, I didn't care a helluva lot about Beth either. She made the right decision (finally), but her escape was not a complete triumph because for all we know she fell into yet another destructive relationship with some other needy weirdo two towns over.

All of these characters, in the end, were drifting along in pointless situations. With a film so lacking in plot, brevity was important and, thankfully, present. If this movie had pushed toward the two-hour mark, it would have been an utter waste of time unless the time had been used to give the viewer a reason to care about this crew of self-indulgent dim-wits.

Nick is a TV salesman who is discontented with his life with Beth and plans for them to move towns. Carol is Nick's friend and former lover who lives next door and Sid is a painter who has a crush on Beth. This film follows the movement of these generation X'ers as they affect each other's lives.

Done at the same time as gen X movies were in vogue and on the back of Tarantino fever – Roth and Stoltz both benefiting from his success. This claims to have a story but it hides it beneath layer and layer of pretension, making it hard to get involved in. The story does have some clever parallels between the character's lives and Newton's rule that a body remains stationary until affected by another. However the characters are unrealistic and selfish – making it hard to care about them.

The film is actually really dull – it's only 90 minutes long but it felt like a 3 hour epic. The story is really meaningless despite thinking that shots of cacti and using African music will somehow make this deeply profound!

Roth, Fonda, Stoltz and Cates have al been good at least once. Here they're all hampered by bad characters and pretentious dialogue.

Overall, meaningless, self-absorbed, pretentious and, worst of all, deadly dull. What a major disappointment.

This movie is in a category I like to call time and place. It has a very powerful resonance with someone who is experiencing a similar dilemma. For me I originally watched it when it came out and thought the dialogue was well-paced and witty and the acting from Fonda, Roth, and Cates was superb. I recently watched the film again, because I had somewhat grown into its situation. Needless to say it was nearly poetic in a way. That western landscape and feeling of restlessness... My only major complaint was the scoring was a little tedious at times.

A film which manages to perfectly sum up the dilemma encompassed by the so-called Generation X: a generation that has never had it better, and has it all for the taking - if only they could figure out just what 'it' is.

Nick (Tim Roth) carries the momentum of this notion, claiming that what he wants "isn't in here, and it isn't out there...", yet he regardless embarks on a voyage to Butte, Montana which is rumoured to be the City of the Future: "I read that a while ago, so the future's probably already there".

Much of the film is concentrated on the aftermath of his departure, and in particular his decision to leave his girlfriend Beth (Bridget Fonda)behind in Arizona. Beth now must reach a similar decision in Nick's absence, finally deciding what 'she' wants as opposed to the wants of those around her (namely Nick). Also involved in this tangle of relationships are Nick's ex-lover and Beth's best friend (Phoebe Cates), and a painter (Eric Stoltz) whose introduction to the situation further complicates Beth's thinking.

The film, like Glengarry Glenn Ross, is based on a stage play and this is evident in the minimum of locations employed and heavy emphasis on dialogue. However, this is really quite satisfying as characters are allowed to express and develop far much more than is customary in other such, so-called 'soul-searching' films.

Stand-out performances from Fonda and Roth, and an intelligent script.