Une pause, quatre soupirs

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.

If you have an attention span of sit-com-length, this is not your movie. True, it's 90 minutes or so, but those moments are stretched- as they should be. Sid's character (the sage, of sorts) wants to stretch a moment, and that is what this movie seeks to do. For the most part, these characters are ordinary people- and the actors play them as such. The dialogue isn't expository, but it's real- the characters interact as any person would. There are no huge turning points, explosions, love-struck stares, and all the rest of the hollywood spin supposed to be "real." These are people who could live down the street.

The best part, though, was the cinematography- the camera work is beautiful. There are just enough jump cuts to get your attention, but for the most part, the camera frames these ordinary lives without intruding on them, all while capturing the oranges, reds, and warm whites of the Arizona landscape.

While the character of the painter is supposed to be a sage- offering wise comments about identity and humanity, I was relieved when his mistakes/flaws were finally revealed at the end. All-in-all, the symbols and stress points made for a thoughtful movie.

Despite the little attention this movie has gotten, and the varied, sporadic comments and reviews, "Bodies, Rest and Motion" is the most wonderful thing I have seen in years. The four actors (Fonda, Stoltz, Cates, and Roth) could not do better to bring to us a very subtle, touching, and elegant portrayal of loves come and gone and lives living on threads. There's no action here, and very little actually happens, but the dialogue and the attention to details are so strong, you find you don't need anything more; you can simply revel in each actors' beauty and condition. You have to watch this movie more than once, and you have to cry at times, it's that good. I'm scratching my head why this movie did not make greater acclaim. Either I'm going mental, or the world is just missing out.

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!