March 11, 2001, 10:07 a.m. CST
Well here's the first post.. now what the heck was that i just read? seems to be more about some chick than the movie :P
March 11, 2001, 10:13 a.m. CST
next movie to review is KINGDOM COME! hahahaha.....^_^
March 11, 2001, 10:14 a.m. CST
I stopped reading your review after the first eight paragraphs or so. You are too wordy sometimes, which is not always bad, but when too much is spent on personal anecdotes and how you ended up at the theatre, then it gets tedious when it is supposed to be a film review. However, since I think I tend to share your taste in films I will have to check this one out. Thanks for the heads up!
March 11, 2001, 10:28 a.m. CST
The movie sucks. I mean it really sucks. I like well-made chick flicks (an increasing rarity, but this guy finds them fun ocassionally), and this is most definitely not one. A Jewish princess who could have escaped from the Frank Zappa song (stereotyping is alive and well in this flick) is gold-digging for a husband who has a lot of cash but will leave her alone sexually. It's stupid, it's annoying, and it's actively offensive to both men and women. I hope "Amy's Orgasm" is as good as you say, Moriarty. I'll see it on your recommendation, because you've only been wrong once in my experience (I had a lot of fun with "Series 7".) Just thought I might let people know what they might be in for.
March 11, 2001, 10:44 a.m. CST
Is it me or do all AICN reviews seem like they are written by Del Griffith from Planes Trains and Automobiles under seperate pen names? Not everything is an anecdote. Seriously, the builup to the review was longer than the review itself. If I want entertainment from a movie, I'll go see the movie. If you are reviewing said movie because some of us think you have good taste in film, here's a good idea: review the movie and save the anecdotes for a seperate column. Or here's a better idea. Why don't we have Harry make a new section, called "Geek Adventures" and then all the AICN staffers can tell their amusing little stories about the ass on the chick standing in line in front of them, or where they bought their donuts from that morning, and then link them to the review of the movie itself. It would save time for people who just want to click over and see whether or not a new indie flick is a masterpiece or a turd, and it would allow AICN reviewers to truly go balls-out and simply post their daily diary. It's not that some of these little side stories aren't occasionally amusing, but honestly, the long-winded reviews are really pushing me to ign.com, and I don't even LIKE that site outside of the video game stuff. Don't get your underwear in a bunch, I realize that you're trying to deliver a bit of personality and relay some of the geek experience. But we're ALREADY geeks if we come here regularly, so we don't need virtual-reality geekdom. And personality comes across better with an entertaining review with some salt and pepper rather than eight paragraphs about how you got into the theater that make me want to hit "page down" repeatedly. Just trying to help, guys.
March 11, 2001, 11 a.m. CST
by drew mcweeny
I think the reason you're frustrated is because you think that the "lead-in" was somehow separate from the piece. Take a look at it again. Am I just randomly talking about things I did, or am I specifically profiling the filmmaker, the experience I had talking with her before the film, and the reaction of other people to the title of the film? All of this is related, and it's not just "lead-in." I'm sorry television has ruined the attention spans of my generation and everyone younger, but it ain't my fault.
March 11, 2001, 11:10 a.m. CST
This film sounds cool. I like indie Rom-Coms, cuz you get to see actors who are basically unknown, who carry no baggage. Unlike Hanks/Ryan etc.
March 11, 2001, 11:16 a.m. CST
by Jesus Q Einstein
Plotwise it sounds like nothing more than a 2 hour version of 'I Need Love' by LL Cool J (Initial bravado and independence gives way to gushing of real need for affection). Oh dear. + Moriarty - don't say that we have no attention span cause we just want to hear about the movies - I thought that was the point of the site - not to hear about you guys (no offence).
March 11, 2001, 12:02 p.m. CST
Based on such a terrible first feature, I am very hesitant to see any other film by this filmmaker. I Love You Don't Touch suffered from an unbearably smug script, poorly written and a weak cast. Skip this and go rent Next Stop, Wonderland instead.
March 11, 2001, 12:47 p.m. CST
Quote "From: TheRealMoriarty Subject: To Respond... Comment: I think the reason you're frustrated is because you think that the "lead-in" was somehow separate from the piece. Take a look at it again. Am I just randomly talking about things I did, or am I specifically profiling the filmmaker, the experience I had talking with her before the film, and the reaction of other people to the title of the film? All of this is related, and it's not just "lead-in." I'm sorry television has ruined the attention spans of my generation and everyone younger, but it ain't my fault." End Quote *********** It's great that you got to meet the film maker and all dat, but none of us will, so your pontification doesn't really add dat much for the rest of us. It's just more text to scroll through. The audience reaction could be summed up with more brevity as well "they all seemed to like it", or "they thought it bit" or "reaction was mixed". And does your story on HOW you got to see the sreening really add that much? Please don't get all hoity toity cause someone calls the review longwinded. It is. ***** As to the "my generation has a short attention span" quip. Ugh. Even people in Dickens time thought some of his stuff was verbose. P.S., if you don't have the attention span to read dis talkback, I'll understand :-D
March 11, 2001, 2:08 p.m. CST
I think Moriarty's defense of his comments was fine, in fact I enjoyed the anecdotes. If you did have a problem with them and wanted to respond maybe you should it in a more intelligent manner. Using real words such as "this" and "that" might help. I think his short attention span theory actually holds up better when responded to by someone who can't take the time to spell out words with four letters in their entirity. And in case you couldn't tell, I am "dissin' dat comment o' yo's".
March 11, 2001, 2:12 p.m. CST
by jeff bailey
Yeah...you know what I hate? I hate seeing people's fucking neurosis on screen. I mean hate all these lonely Travis Bickles who write movies with hookers, and strippers, and domantrixes with hearts of fucking gold. Not that I'm against sex industry workers. More then fine with me. But don't trivialize them and make them into romantic figures. And I equally loathe films where girls get involved with a "player" who could have any woman but instead sees her as his equal and the woman changes him. For more of this bullshit, check out the whacked Rene Russo character in the Thomas Crown Affair (thanks Leslie Dixon). Yeah we get it, guys have madonna-whore complexes, women like to "try" to change jerks who treat them like shit. Great, I don't wanna see your life on screen. Or at least your sad sexual/relationship hang ups. For great female charcters, I'll watch a Cameron movie. Well rounded, strong, maternal, and truely equal with their male counterparts. For a great romantic comedy, I'll watch Woody Allen. Yeah. he's got hang ups but at least they are in the middle of some complex bigger issues of dealing with death in the middle of life.
March 11, 2001, 2:56 p.m. CST
by Jack Lazarus
Does Moriarty seem to anyone else like he gets more long winded with every review? Seriously, this guy is the Charles Dickens of AICN (for all the wrong reasons, no flattery intended). Someone needs to put a governor on his keyboard or atleast rein him in with a wordcount limit. I don't even read his reviews for content anymore, just to get a quick chuckle at how pretentious and self important they are. As far as the movie goes, it sounds about as sophisticated as a reverse version of Down to You (though I do appreciate the non-intended subtext of casting the death fetish guy from X-Files as the romantic lead). Come on, quit recycling these tired character cliches and get a real plot...or at least have spaceships blow something up.
March 11, 2001, 3:40 p.m. CST
Gobanana quote "I think Moriarty's defense of his comments was fine, in fact I enjoyed the anecdotes. If you did have a problem with them and wanted to respond maybe you should it in a more intelligent manner" ************ Forgot the word 'do' didn't ya? Nothing looks sillier than an " I'm more intelligent then you" statement without those important two letter words. Ever heard of verbs? LOL Stinky Banana boy :-P
March 11, 2001, 7:02 p.m. CST
by Senor Askew
Harry, Jesus man. This new "Basic Instinct" animation is just too horrific to comprehend. "It's horrible, disgusting and crude, yet I can'not look away", it's The Harry.
March 11, 2001, 7:43 p.m. CST
by Regis Travolta
Or so I've heard. Not that I've ever had one but some day maybe when I get married. Masturbation is a sin you know. You'll go blind and get hair on your palms if you do it then you'll go insane. Or so I've heard.
March 12, 2001, 11:36 a.m. CST
........i don't have indepth knowledge of porn films like YOU DO! hahahahaha.....^_^
March 12, 2001, 12:01 p.m. CST
Thanks for responding at least. I do trust your judgement and all, you seem to have good taste in movies. But I still don't view my minor criticism of your review as the result of my short attention span, I just think maybe you could edit yourself more carefully. Maybe tighten up or drop a few sentences and I...and I...hey look there's a squirrel...here, squirrely squirrely...dear god, what the hell is that new animation...anyway where was I? Oh, yeah. That's why I think that Ghost Dog was at least the best movie I've seen on the Sundance Channel this week. The End.
March 12, 2001, 6:04 p.m. CST
March 12, 2001, 9:10 p.m. CST
Sheesh, some of these anecdotes are just a little too much. I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Moriarty - you claim that your telling the whole story adds to your opinion and review. Not really. Not at all. Oh sure, if you had a conversation with the filmmaker, we'd like to hear about it. That's cool. But ALL the details about how you were picked up and why and where and blahblahblah. We don't need or want to hear about your date. In fact, I came away from the review thinking "This movie might suck", but the reviewers opinion was tainted by having become chummy with the filmmaker. That sounds like I'm accusing you of selling out, and I'm not. It could've been subconscious, and really weakens your viewpoint, in my opinion.
Dec. 16, 2002, 8:09 p.m. CST
by Boris Grushenko
First of all, if you noticed my screen name, you'll know that I too am a fan of Woody Allen's "Love and Death". That is the first coincidence. The second is that my wife is named "Amy". How could I resist a movie titled, "Amy's Orgasm", even if I just brought it home as a joke to tease my wife. As it is, I am a big fan of dialogue-driven neurotic comedies, so I was interested in seeing it too. Besides Woody Allen, I've loved the work of Whit Stillman and Noah Baumbach and bits and pieces of Ed Burns's stuff, among others. So this film seemed right up my alley. Well, I wasn't a big fan of the film. I wanted to like it all the way up to the end, but couldn't. It just felt too familiar, too formulaic, and way too long. It felt like a 250 page screenplay, even though it was probably the standard 100-125 pager. (And this from a self-proclaimed "talkie" junkie.) That said, I like Julie Davis and hope she finds her niche in the business. I'd like to see her focus on acting actually, or if she wants to continue writing and directing, I hope she finds a good writing partner. I'd agree with Moriarty's assessment of her male co-star... he definitely didn't help Julie out, but even with, I don't know, say, Matthew McCounaghey (sp?) it still would have felt tired and contrived. I'd chalk it up to the fact that I am a "dude", and this was a "chick" flick, except I've liked other independent chick flicks in the past. (Anyone remember "Walking and Talking"?) It didn't help that I'd seen "Kissing Jessica Stein" earlier, basically the same plot except with a lesbian angle... and then there was that big-budget Ashley Judd movie that was once titled Animal Husbandry, or something like that, but was later changed to a name I can no longer remember. Same basic story. How can an over-educated, neurotic, and single Jewish girl find true love... blah! But, uh, keep at it Julie.