Reviews & Ratings for
The Center of the World More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 7:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Index

68 reviews in total

---

38 out of 42 people found the following review useful:
Filmic Art in Digital, 2 June 2003
Author: postmanwhoalwaysringstwice from usa

To the best of my knowledge "The Center of the World" was shot on a digital camera. If this is the case, then that was a very wise choice for the material and tone of the same. "The Center of the World" is an intellectual adult's version of "Pretty Woman" (although, I couldn't help but notice a few similarities to Egoyam's "Exotica"). On the most basic level is where we leave "Pretty Woman", however. This film is definitely not for all tastes, but that would be a loss for those folks. "The Center of the World" has a lot to say about human sexuality, loneliness, and money and the simple link between them in this modern-age. It's about the loss of human contact and connection between people in the same room; it's about perception and misjudgment. Additionally, there's a very primal ritual running through the sex scenes in this film that speaks volumes about human evolution versus technological evolution. There's a lot here and I don't want to ruin it for anyone by continuing my rant.

---

30 out of 32 people found the following review useful:
terrific characters (spoilers), 20 June 2004
Author: rajax from new york, ny

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

Center of the World is one of those movies that sticks in your mind. Not for the straight-to-video look, and not for the sex scenes (during which Wang mostly focuses on the characters' faces rather than bodies). It's the characters that keep you thinking well after the credits.

Richard Longman (Sarsgaard) starts out as a stock character: the nerdy, socially inept computer millionaire who doesn't know how to get a girlfriend. But Sarsgaard, brilliant as usual shows us his many layers. He gets aggressive with video games; he's instinctively caring, assuming a strong "masculine" role (though it's obvious he's not the strong one). He's a big kid who just wants some intimacy, but doesn't understand the basic complexity of human connection. On the other hand, he's seduced by the surface of things--watching too much porn, he really believes that money and a good time will make those sexy porn-queens care about him. In reality doesn't take the time to get to know Florence at all. His rage and frustration confuse him; he's empty and often resorts to money to fix things.

Florence (Parker) is a bit of a cipher at first. She's cold, withdrawn, business-like. Yet it's clear that as she gets to know Richard, she likes him. She's conflicted about her role as her feelings change--does she want to sleep with him? does that make her any less of a whore?

Many reviewers took sides with one or the other, which I think is a mistake. There's good and bad in both that makes them equally sympathetic. Richard wants intimacy and is a nice goofy guy. But he's also emotionally stunted and more than a little pervy in his desire to buy not just sexual satisfaction, but human connection. He has no right to buy her feelings, but he is allowed to be confused by her lack of them (given their camaraderie)

Similarly, Florence is cold and not a little cruel. But she is also conflicted by her feelings, which are somewhere in that gray area of real affection and sexual attraction. Even conflicted, however, but she doesn't make the mistake of thinking that her feelings are love. He bought her body and even of her enjoyment in the weekend, but he can't just buy a relationship. I don't doubt that she wants him, but after (or during) the point when she gives in, she realizes how much of her desire was fantasy. In the end, she makes the only choice she understands.

The last few scenes--Richard's pointless, (somewhat stereotypically masculine) act of rage, and Florence's cool expression of her sexual independence--reveal how damaged these characters are. And though the ending is ambiguous, the audience instinctively knows that something is ruined between them.

The real trick? Hopelessly, we root for them to heal each other somehow. We buy into the Pretty Woman fantasy, just like they do (Florence less than Richard, but still) We imagine that Florence lets her guard down and learns to care for someone, and Richard tries to connect with a real woman rather than some porn fantasy.

But this is the anti-Pretty Woman (which was a travesty of a film). This is reality.

Not a perfect film, but very thought-provoking.

---

29 out of 34 people found the following review useful:
Love in the Time of Dotcoms, 7 May 2001

Author: kkcoold from Berkeley, California

A digital camera does not a movie make but Wayne Wang didn't rely on avant-garde technique alone when he decided to revisit the basic boy-meets-girl story. He simplifies the problem by choosing two people with very little in common and then taking them out of their natural settings and putting them in the unreal world of Las Vegas. The man is a socially inept but financially successful engineer so typical of our times and his character is developed and portrayed very realistically by Peter Saarsgard in a role very different from what he played in Boys Don't Cry. He's got it down even to the careless dressing and awkward laugh. I know - I work in the Bay Area. Molly Parker is equally convincing as the drummer-by-day-stripper-by-night career woman who has such a cool and invincible air about her that it makes quite an impact in the few occasions when she does let her armor down.

It almost seems as if Wang has taken the Hollywood classic Pretty Woman and has decided to deHollywoodize it. And in that he has been quite successful. The graininess of the Blair Witch style digital camera coupled with innovative shots including unexpected close-ups follow no clichés. Equally cliché-free is the screenplay which follows a loosely linear narrative advanced primarily by the sexual encounters between a man and a woman who are placed in the near-equivalent situation of a desert island and come from different worlds. In this, one can discern shades of Last Tango in Paris, except that this movie is set in a more cynical time where love has been deconstructed and is not worth killing for. Sex becomes the center of their world but even as they escape into sex they cannot quite leave their personalities, their dreams, their insecurities behind and that is what ultimately saves them and their story from the mundaneness of a forgettable sexual encounter. Although they go into into the deal for purely selfish reasons - he desiring an escape from Internet porn and she looking for some extra cash - their encounter, like all good stories, becomes something of a journey of self-discovery.

Mention must be made of the attention to detail which makes the setting very believable. The soundtrack is eclectic and follows the local Californian club scene rather than big label network music. And the dialogue is very boy-girl-next-door rather than being made up of grand lines. However, this movie is not everybody's cup of tea. The lack of a discernable narrative in some of the scenes risks losing the viewer's attention. And there's no simple message or tying up of loose ends here. But those who can brave that and the graininess will be rewarded with a contemporary look at love in our times.

---

27 out of 31 people found the following review useful:
Very sensual and daring, 11 September 2003
Author: mdinfo1 from USA

It's hard to find a truly erotic movie made in America. Most mainstream films have little sex/no nudity and a whole lot of violence. And what constitutes "erotic art" in films is made up horribly contrived, unbelievable Cinemax/Playboy movies. That lack any real heat and are amazingly unsexy and boring.

So a film like "Center of the World" is a rare gem. It actually is sensual, erotic and the participants in the sex scenes seem comfortable and actually engaged in what they are doing. The scenes do not come off as awkward or simulated. Which is the challenge for any film director. To make the audience believe what they are seeing is real.

What's special here is that a great actress who one would actually like to see do nudity/sexual material, has the lead female role. There's no body doubles here and Molly seems really comfortable with the nudity and explicit sex scenes. She looks absolutely gorgeous throughout the movie. And is not the traditional, cookie butter starlet that is churned out in a 1,001 Cinemax skin flicks.

Hollywood should make more of these films. Unfortunately, I think during this age of "sexual repression" in the arts, our natural human sexual needs will continue to be hidden from view on both the big and small screens.

---

33 out of 45 people found the following review useful:
Center Staged, 17 June 2002

Author: Charles Tatum from North Dakota

Although more infamous for its sex scenes than its acting and

direction, Wayne Wang does marvels with a digital camera and his

actors in a very good independent film.

This is an adult film, so some of the descriptions in this review

may not be for young eyes. Peter Sarsgaard is Richard, a young

computer genius worth a million or so who takes a liking to

Florence, played by Molly Parker. They decide to take a trip to Las

Vegas together, with Richard paying for everything, and some

harsh guidelines set up by Florence: no kissing on the mouth,

together for just four hours every night, and no actual sexual

penetration. Goofy Richard goes along with the demands, and the

two skip town to Vegas. Richard is skipping more than just town,

his computer business is about to go IPO, and his partner can not

seem to get a hold of him.

Florence and Richard settle into a routine, and try to get to know

each other after being so intimate physically. Richard's love for

Florence is obvious, but slowly Florence begins to have feelings

for Richard that are not of the usual prostitute/john type. Carla

Gugino flashes in as one of Florence's screwed up friends, who

notices a change in Florence when she is with Richard. Eventually,

the couple begin breaking their rules, and the climactic sex scene

brings out everyone's true colors on the future of the relationship.

The title of the film is interesting in that Richard thinks the center of

the world is his computer, and Florence thinks it is a female's

sexual organs. Eventually in the film, Florence's definition seems

to be decided on, with Richard using his Center (money wise) to

get to her Center.

The film treads through the familiar sexual obsession territory, but

without going to the lengths that have been touched on in dozens

of late night Showtime and Sinemax series and made for cable

fodder. Richard is a genuine babe in the woods, trying to project a

dangerous side, when in fact he is a nice guy who wants to help

people. Try and keep track of how many times he asks Florence

and others if they are okay or all right.

Florence is a great character, unable to contain her growing

emotional attachment, so she uses her own body as a wall to

Richard's love. You find yourself wishing these two screwed up

people would get it together, but the ending leaves it up in the air

without being too frustrating.

If anything, I sometimes found the sex to get in the way of the plot.

Both people share innocuous stories from their past, then follow

through with kinky sexual acts, but I deemed more from the

stories.

Wang does a great job with the digital camera. He is respectful of

his actors, not getting into everyone's face because he has the

technology to, but he stays close enough to give the audience a

voyeuristic feeling in the hotel room scenes. While some scenes

run long here and there, I found the two main characters so

different and so interesting, I did not mind the slow spots.

There is a lot of sex and nudity here, but only one very brief scene

set in a strip club constitutes anything you would normally see in a

porno. This is the kind of film Roger Ebert has been screaming

about for years, demanding a new "A" for Adult rating that would be

higher than an "R," but not quite a porno either. The "NC17" blew

up in the MPAA's face, as it replaced the "X," it did not fall just

below it.

"The Center of the World" is just less than an hour and a half long,

but speaks volumes about its characters. I enjoyed it more than I

thought I would, I am still smarting from sitting through Wang's

"Chan is Missing," one of the most dull, overcelebrated, and

pointless films ever made. He has come a long way, and I highly

recommend this effort.

This is unrated, and contains some sexual violence, strong

profanity, very strong female nudity, strong male nudity, very strong

sexual content, brief pornographic sexual content, very strong

sexual references, drug abuse, and strong adult situations.

---

16 out of 19 people found the following review useful:
Much better than it seems, 30 September 2002

Author: Heather from West Hollywod, California

I passed on this film while in the theaters due to bad reviews and a highly misleading ad campaign. I disagree with both. This is an accomplished psychological piece a-la-Bergman that never betrays its characters by providing an easy way out. The film follows a rigorous script that dwells deeply into the wants and flaws of the two leads and ultimately tells us that we are limited by our own minds as to the possibilities that life might offer. Although Florence and Richard in theory could change the terms of their relationship, their inner feelings and biases restrict them to what is possible within their own way of thinking. The sex is central to the conflict in an intellectual plane, which will severely disappoint those who are searching for sexual highlights. In terms of DV technique, this is perhaps the best shot film after the DV classic "The Celebration." If you are looking for an engrossing film where every detail serves its main theme, this is it. There is no fat here. It deserves to be watched over and over to absorb its depth under simple dialogue, understated performances by two extraordinary actors and a minimalist plot.

---

15 out of 18 people found the following review useful:
Interesting for the Right Person, 17 March 2002
Author: benjm from New York

I thought this movie was a very worthwhile rental. However, it is not for everyone. Here is what I enjoyed:

1. Extremely convincing acting; 2. Sophisticated scripting and edits; 3. Intelligent dialog; 4. Interesting use of digital video (think grainy "Blair Witch" shots); 5. Some hot sex scenes; 6. Characters that interested me; 7. Deals with very raw and real emotions for these characters; 8. Director doesn't spoon feed the viewer. Some things in the scenes are better left unsaid, and they are left implicit for the viewer to grasp. I enjoy being treated as intelligent; 9. I appreciate the take on the dark side of Internet wiz-kids; 10. The movie succeeded in getting me to feel the mood of the characters very well. The feelings you are left with after watching the film--the ambiguity, the desire, the bitter-sweet frustration, even the slight weariness--enhanced the impact of the film for me.

What you May Not Care For:

1. Was I able to relate to the main male character only because I am a male involved in high-tech field?

2. Very slow pace. This is about burning emotions, coy dialog, and appreciation of believable acting. It's very cerebral. Not a typical drama by any means.

3. If you want to see even more sex, then rent a porn film. The sex here is not just about sex, but about adult loneliness and other adult themes.

4. There is a lot of subtle symbolism and fragments of dialog that you have to pay attention to get the most out of the film.

5. Many people who did not groove with the director as a whole would think the beginning, middle and ending was too slow and not satisfying.

6. If you don't appreciate the challenge of shooting realistic looking digital video in poorly-lit situations you may think the photography sucked. I didn't, it worked for me, but it's not for everyone.

7. Confusing cross-cutting scenes forward and backward in time. I thought it was very appropriate, but it could annoy others looking for simpler fare.

8. Too many things left unsaid in the dialog to be totally clear what is going on. I liked this, thought if very appropriate for what the characters were experiencing, and it made it feel much more voyeuristic, even kinky. Again, not for everyone.

9. You may not be able to get beyond the fact you are supposed to feel sorry for an Internet Wiz Millionaire and a confused young stripper who gets paid a lot of money for one weekend in Vegas. On the hand, they are still just two human beens and that is, I think, the whole point...

10. If you are a horny person looking for naked woman with big boobs I think the film will leave you, well, kind of flat.

In short, an interesting film for a young guy involved in high-tech and likes to think...

---

13 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
. . .is it money? is it sex?, 12 July 2002

Author: Rogue-32 from L A.

An extremely articulate and well-observed film from Wayne Wang, about what it means to have power - financial power, sexual power - and how shallow this power truly is, especially when it's detached from anything resembling true involvement, genuine passion. Both characters are obsessed with The Game, and they are both very good at it. Peter Sarsgaard and Molly Parker are both superb, letting us see enough of their characters' inner workings to completely understand them without showing too much, losing the edge. Each has what the other thinks he/she needs, and the film is basically a discourse on negotiation - what you will give up to get what you desire? Issues of control are central to the theme, and the cool thing is, both characters know it and they get off on that more than the actual sex itself.

---

17 out of 24 people found the following review useful:
Digital Verite..., 18 November 2002
Author: jconner_1984 from Los Angeles

"You don't *look* like a stripper..." was the first clue. Director Wang, who clearly OK'd Zalman King/Adrian Lyne film style ad and packaging art, was hardly hiding the reality vs. fantasy (or real vs. fake) themes of his superb dot-com romantic tragedy much past the opening credits.

Wang's use of hand-held camera, grainy 8mm, incandescent lighting color wash, high-definition close ups, and assorted traditional noir and verite style cinematography and direction is a breakthough exploration of digital media.

Vegas visitors brave enough to leave their Strip casino/hotel cocoons during daylight hours will surely be struck by the almost surreal difference between how ugly and unglamorous the city is by day and how other-worldly beautiful after dark. Florence, however, is no Vegas...

Get it? Florence (Italy), is *real*, and every flaw she (the city) may have simply adds to the unearthly beauty she emanates. Whether filmed in handi-cam, Fisher-Price pixelvision, or 70mm IMAX, at high noon or midnight, the beauty of Florence (Italy) is timeless and media-independent. At least in the hands of Wayne Wang, Florence glows with or without the lipstick and latex...I mean neon.

Richard's visit to the Venetian Casino/Hotel near the end of the movie completes the tragic romantic (city) metaphor. The "canals" at the Venetian Hotel are truly as pathetic as the film depicts them.

The problem is, these two tragic lovers have always kept a safe distance away from Florence (Italy), or *reality*, and are tragically resigned to a Vegas-reality. Or a dot-com reality...

Filmed digitally and rendered as cinema verite, even duplicating the "grainy" silver halide crystal image artifact of low light film stock with a digital effect extends the film's theme to the medium communicating the artist's expression.

Great film.

I just wish my many shares of homegrocer.com were as valuable as a single used copy of a DVD of this film....or a single apple from an actual grocer.....

---

12 out of 15 people found the following review useful:
great film of modern people, 20 December 2001

Author: Douglas Daily (fooms) from seattle, washington, sa

riprock's review is right on. The guy is looking for a good time but in the sense of a somewhat naive dude who's not used to interacting socially. The woman is looking to be comfortable in her job and not having to interact too socially. Yet they are both drawn into each other by their commonality.

Not a film for everybody. Not raunchy enough for the porn freaks, not graphic enough for the art freaks, too graphic for the love story freaks. We're all freaks.

This movie hits a perfect balance in showing the two sides of love, lust, and lingering love.

Great photography, pixillation, mood inspiring, cold -- yes but that's part of the story. Bringing the Carlo Gugino character just at the right time, sent this movie over the edge as as superb look into modern psyches.

This is not a sexy movie. it's a relationship movie. but not just of man <-> woman, but of person <-> person. It's deeper and more personal than many of you think. that's why you don't like it, find it uncomfortable. You see yourself, it's lonely, it's scary, it's fun.

I

---

---

Page 1 of 7:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

Add another review

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Amazon.com summary	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user reviews
Your vote history