After his latest film is met with horrible reviews, Able Whitman sets out to prove the critics wrong by finding inspiration in his cast and crew. Sometimes great art requires great sacrifice- and the director always gets final cut!
Chelsea (Sasha Grey) is a high-priced $2,000-an-hour call girl in Manhattan, offering a 'girlfriend experience': she'll dress with the client in mind, go to dinner and a movie, listen attentively to talk about work and finances, and she'll provide sex. It's October, 2008: a presidential election nears and the economy is in free fall. She has a boyfriend, Chris (Chris Santos), who's a personal trainer. We are shown five non-consecutive days in Chelsea's life. She's working on her Web page, talking to image consultants, and being interviewed by a reporter. She asks clients when their birthdays are and uses that for an astrological prediction. She's drawn to a new client, a writer from L.A. Should she break her rules for him? What if it risks her relationship with Chris? Should she invest in gold? Written by
"Girlfriend experience" is a form of sex work (paid-for female companionship) in which a female prostitute behaves like a male client's girlfriend or shows (artificial) emotional intimacy beyond the sex act. See more »
What I'm trying to build up to here is to see the role this guy plays in your life. Not necessarily your relationship between you... I'm not intrested in the intimate details between these two people... you and your boyfriend. I'm intrested in the kind of relationship somebody in your business would have with someone they actually love.
You'll have to ask him on that.
See more »
After the end credits, there's a brief scene of Chelsea washing a client's hair as he sits in a bathtub and talks about John McCain. See more »
What a disappointment. The film comes over as having had no script to begin with. Everybody's chit-chatting along, the camera (manned by the man himself - and one hears he tried to channel Antonioni - what's he smoking) is so utterly boring, the frames so stilted, action so terribly stagy - what actually is this movie. Not to mention the 'infamous' RED camera: the movie looked like it was shot with some miniDV camera with all highlights totally blown and no depth to the images. Mixed lighting is a mixed blessing, no matter what camera - somebody please forward that to the 'cinematographer'. And then there's 'sound': I can see that there's not even a name assigned in the IMDb credit's list. No wonder - I wouldn't put my name there. It seems for Soderbergh it's enough to slap some wires onto the actors (but really really deep under some layers of clothe to make it really sound mumbly-jumbly) and voila, we've replaced the sound department. Only question left is, who is coming up with money for productions like that. Really really bad and completely uninspired 'product'.
31 of 53 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?