Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Marva-nova Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

fedor8 This is crap. To make the same, boring old ("human condition") point about people being in the same situations regardless of nationality, race, or sexual preference is bad enough. But does it have to be made through tiresome repetitiveness of the same dialogue, over and over? This is a very boring and lifeless film. It's also visually one of the worst I've seen in a while; did I read in the credits that someone was in charge of cinematography? Maybe it was the film's gaffer.The first story is okay, the German one is utterly horrible, and the Japanese one sleep-inducing. Needless to say, it's by far Hartley's worst film. This looks like a very rushed and messy endeavor, and the acting is at times atrocious - especially in the German segment (The Germans, apart from some notable exceptions, have pretty weak actors).If you want some high-quality indie comedy(or)drama from Hartley, check out "Amateur", "Henry Fool", or "The Unbelievable Truth" – all very funny, eccentric movies.

zink-7 Definitely an Art movie, sort of the anti-Rashômon: three different events described as if they were the same. Obviously such a film foregrounds the direction, and the dialog is recognizably Hartleyesque.Hal Hartley weaves the same dialog through three only roughly similar stories given by their settings, the characters involved, and the cinematic treatments different meanings.An art film about how films make art out of life. Or something.Warning: if you lack intellectual curiosity (it's definitely not for the passive viewer) or are homophobic this will push your buttons; hence the 1-out-of-10 ratings above.

atandt i just had to write a review for this b/c it is one of the worst films i had ever seen and i can't remember if i walked out of the theatre or not. as you know, the same story is told 3x incl. the same dialogue. the same things happen. this is not Run Lola Run. this is shite (IMHO).it wasn't interesting to watch the story loop first time, and therefore iterations #2 & #3 decline in value. the Law of Diminishing Returns grinds the storyline into mathematical powder, as when you start with nothing (or to be fair, not much), and then reduce it, this is what you get.there was no way for me to appreciate it on any other level. using handpuppets instead of actors might have garnered more audience sympathy for the characters and added depth to their 2D cardboard cutouts.

K8-2 One short film script repeated three times in three different cities in the United States, Europe and Japan. The dialogue is identical in each; the plot plays out the violent and alienating repercussions of chronic flirtation and self-destructive covetousness. The subtle differences in each scenario are due (theoretically) to the changes in setting, sexual orientation and cultural backdrop.If you're a Hal Hartley fan you'll probably enjoy this film to some extent; if you're not then you may be easily put off by the repetition of what could be seen as stiff artsy banter. The dialogue is clever, sharp, witty - characteristically quirky Hal Hartley writing. But the first scenario, set in New York and involving Martin Donovan, Parker Posey and that other favorite Hal Hartley actor from Simple Men (Bill something), is easily the best of the three and the high point of the film.There's some really nice editing in this film, for those who have an interest in technical considerations.