Fast Food Fast Women (2000)

People are voting emotionally.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

At first, Anna Thomson's bot-ox lips, nose job, and silicone distracted me. I notice that this look is big in Hollywood, the bee stung lips of so many movie stars, their big boobs on a starved stick of a body makes the young guys pant, but the girls can't possibly match the impossible can they? Anna is an educated woman that has rejected Wall Street to work as a waitress in a diner. She's 35 and her mom's applying the pressure. Her Broadway paramour, a married man has strung her along since she was 23. Enter Jamie Harris, starving taxicab driving, failed novelist. Suddenly ex-wife dumps Jamie's kid plus one on him. Naturally through a series of unlikely big city moments, Anna and Jamie hook up, lose each other, and love.Then there's the autumn autumn match of still spry, 70 year old Robert Modica and Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, ex-Woodie Allen wife Louise Lasser. This relationship of seasoned citizens so rare in film took the show away from the yougen's. We cared whether or not sweet, only had sex with someone he loved, Modica can get it up for willing Lasser. We hoped the drugstore was stocked with Viagara.The screenplay offered some silly city shtick, New York City hip, but these scenes fall flat; nevertheless, this one, the babe and I enjoyed.

My girlfriend and I were stunned by how bad this film was. After 15 minutes we would have called it quits except we were too curious to see if the film could possibly redeem itself. It didn't.I can't understand the praise given to this film. The writing was downright awful and delivered by some of the worst acting I have seen in a very long time.One thing that especially annoyed me about this film was that often when people were talking to each other there was an unnatural pause between lines. I understand using a pause to create a feeling of awkwardness (like in Happiness). This was not that type of pause -- it was just simply bad directing. This film might actually be much better with subtitles, and maybe the overseas market is the best one for this film, because then the innane dialogue and bad acting wouldn't be noticed as much.I generally like these types of small quirky films (The Real Blonde, Walking and Talking, Lovely and Amazing), but this one failed on so many levels that I consider it one of the very worst films I have sat through in the last few years.

This is just a sweet film. I think that if you don't like it because it's too mellow, you should ask yourself if you haven't grown to be too cynical.All the people that normally only see trash as "Sleepless in Seattle" should see it. The film is romantic but not sticky, intelligent but not arrogant...The performance of Anna Thomson (or Anna Levine as she is called here) is simply heartwarming. all the movie through, you never realise that this lovely Bella-character is an actress.

This is the third film I've seen pairing director Amos Kollek and actor Anna Thomson. The other two, "Sue" and "Fiona", were both great and about the most depressing things you could watch ("Sue", in fact, is a masterpiece). So I was curious to see where Kollek was going to go with this, a more light-hearted, and even comic romance. Of course, we aren't talking "Sleepless in Seattle" here, thank goodness. I have to say that while I was watching the movie, there were times whenI shook my head and said to myself, "this is bad" or "that's ridiculous". In fact, this film had many more flaws and awkward scenes than Kollek's earlier work. But at the same time, after it was all over and I was walking home, I really felt like I had seen something special.I can't explain why exactly, but one thing that was surprising is that Anna Thomson's character, while the driving force in the previous films, was comparatively dull and uninspiring and underdeveloped here. Her love interest, even moreso. But this film was buoyed by a secondary romance plot involving two 60-somethings fumbling their ways into some sort of relationship. Louise Lasser Louise Lasser, hehe, making a comeback of sorts in recent years ("Happiness"), was just wonderful. Her partner (was it Robert Modicka?) was also off-the-map charming. If I have one complaint, there wasn't enough time in the film devoted to this burgeoning romance. There is one scene involving the two that is about as tender as anything i've ever seen on the big screen. It's nice to see good love stories about middle-aged people and above and they show that often the actors, perhaps due to more experience acting, pull it off much better than most of the young and the beautiful.In sum, another winner for Kollek and Thomson, and I just wonder when, if ever, Thomson will become a star in the states (she is quite popular in France). I kind of hope she doesn't, but that's out of my own selfishness to see her in more of these kinds of films as opposed to the inevitable lure to make the big money in the bad movies. I also hope Louise Lasser continues to get more parts because she rocks. (8 out of 10)