This movie has a fresh and intriguing premise -- or anyway, one which is carried forward and explored to an unusual degree. But unfortunately it both is and isn't very well done.
Visually, it's very well done. Kathleen Robertson, as the Victoria who can attract two hunky guys so much that they put up with living all together, is absolutely stunning. She's a blonde beauty to begin with, but as well her face positively radiates light in this film. She's got the glowing look of a woman first falling head over hells in love, and then pregnant at the same time. I'm not sure how they / she did it, but it's pretty compelling. As well the reckless young 20 something LA party scene atmosphere, which Araki used with even more (and darker) abandon in "Doom" and "Nowhere" (and I understand as well in the all gay "Totally F**ked Up" which I haven't seen), is colorful here as well. Veronica's jumping Matt at second sight, in the bathroom, is a memorably abandoned casual sex scene. Hot. Most of the movie is in high contrast, diffuse back lighted candy colors. The atmosphere is fun, fun, fun. All of which makes a good date movie.
Emotionally it only goes just below skin deep. Yeah, OK, the two guys have different personalities, sort of. One is the carefree musician / jock physical type. None too bright. But sweet. The other is the emotionally soulful writer type. But both soon seem to merge into hunky male dependency on her, financially and emotionally. Ah yes. The theme song of the feminist 90's. Actually, she digs it.
There are some interesting sex relations insights (gay world derrived -- natch for the 90's), such as that for a two hunky guys and one gorgeous girl threesome in the same bed to work, the two guys are gonna have to get off on each other physically as well as emotionally, at least to some degree. (Just kissing, the film pretends -- maybe.) But supposedly all are overwhelming hetero, if not entirely exclusively so. The relationship conflicts which would be sure to be there, to be dealt with successfully perhaps, are hardly seen at all in this film. In fact the guys look increasingly gay to me, but that is little explored.
Instead, the plot moves forward through a different conflict -- her perceived need for ANOTHER sort of man. A career and financially successful one, who can help her in the traditional ways -- once she learns she's pregnant from one of her happy go lucky, but femme submissive, hunks. The trouble of course is that she doesn't LOVE the successful guy. He too is a male submissive, but of the casper milktoast variety. I mean this guy convinces her to go with him on a weekend getaway to his condo in Maui with the promise of "only talking", and then when she's receptive to him after being blow away by the luxe, he remains "true to his word", the idiot, and doesn't do diddly. She was begging for it Earnest. Talk about a testosterone deficit!!!
Nonetheless, our heroine gets engaged to Earnest. He's so nice, and life with him would be so secure. This is getting pedestrian. As well, at this point the film loses any semblance of honesty. "Earnest is the kind of guy who would stick around, whether it was fun or not", she explains to her girlfriend. Of course the film never asks the obvious reverse question. Is she? Probably because you'd get the wrong answer. Next her lesbo girlfriend warns her against marrying someone she doesn't really and truly love. "I'm doing the responsible thing" she says. Her girlfriend counters: 'Even if it means ball and chaining yourself to him for the rest of your life?"
As if!!! Under today's feminist "reformed" divorce laws? What total dishonesty! Just what would be the downside to Victoria marrying Earnest? How long does she have to stay with him? What does she get if she splits after a couple of years? For that matter, what would keep this thinking-outside-the-traditional-box femme from shacking up with her two hunks three or four nights a week while she's married to her well off milktoast? And what would be the consequences for her if she did? Horrible, for such duplicity, right? Hardly. If Earnest decided not to put up with it after a while, guess who'd have to pay for the mistake, and the transgressions? Why Earnest of course!!! Welcome to marriage law in feminist America. Whatever emotional significance most people still attach to marriage commitments at least before the fact, legally marriage is now almost entirely a one way contract which obligates only men, and not women.
Was the possibility that Earnest could be viewed by Victoria not as an alternative to her dual action thing, but really as a supplement to it, touched on by this flick? Why not? After all, isn't it a natural line to explore, since she's trying to combine an edgy sexual relationship with multiple submissive men, with financial security for her child? Isn't it begging to be explored, after a line like: 'Even if it means ball and chaining yourself to him for the rest of your life?"
Maybe it's not because then the incredible bias in feminist "reformed" American marriage (divorce) law today would come into focus. We can't have that, now can we?
Oh, and another thing. When are we going to see a flick which flips this script? Two (or more) predominantly hetero women living happily with one guy? Where that is celebrated, I mean, rather than vilified. When in the last 1 1/2 decades has that been done? Anyone care to name the American film? It can't be done.
