Splendor (1999) Poster


User Reviews

Review this title
41 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
What's that you say Ms. Robertson
aimless-4617 January 2005
I was not conscious of "Splendor" being a Gregg Araki film when I started watching it but after the first two sequences I was thinking: "this is great directing-who did this"? While the technique screams "Araki", as does the casting of Kathleen Robertson, the narrative is so conventional that you find the combination hard to reconcile. I loved an earlier comment that "Splendor" is like a John Hughes remake of "The Doom Generation"; i.e. very conventional and without the sex and violence, with a three-way relationship (two males-one female), Johnathon Schaech, and Director Araki's absolutely amazing production and post-production skills-along with his less than dazzling scripting.

Although Araki is paying homage to the great screwball comedies of the 1930's: "Topper", "It Happened One Night", "The Awful Truth", and "Bringing Up Baby"; the style and substance of "Splendor" is closer to Mike Nichols' "The Graduate" (not to mention an amusing parody of the "Graduate's" climatic wedding scene).

Kathleen Robertson has the Rose McGowen part in this version of "The Doom Generation" and is generally well suited to the role. I have not decided yet if Robertson is in McGowen's class as an actress, or in the class of her fellow Canadians Mia Kirshner and Sarah Polley. Robertson was excellent in "Maniac Mansion" and "Beverly Hills 90210", but these were similar roles that appear to mirror her own cool and detached personality. One thing that is clear is that she was a great choice for Ariki's trademark close-ups. Anyone perceptive enough to close the camera to face distance when shooting McGowen, Robertson, and most recently Michelle Trachtenberg has a eye for breathtakingly beautiful visuals.

The premise does not really have enough substance to sustain a feature although it might work as a half-hour television sit-com (see "Three's Company"). When the premise becomes tired the story brings in a new character, Eric Mabious; and the film self-destructs, killing time until a decent ending sequence. A tip-off that a screen writer has limited life experience to draw from is having cast and crew occupations for the characters. Robertson's character is an aspiring actress and Mabious is directing her in a made-for-television drama. His character is so hopelessly one-dimensional and painfully pathetic that I was convinced that he had a sinister side (what was with those blue contact lenses) that would eventually manifest itself. But this does not happen, maybe Araki had something interesting in mind and abandoned it in re-write. Mabious becomes a non-factor (see totally irrelevancy) and his scenes were simply inserted as padding to get this thing up to feature length.

The bottom line is that Araki fans will be a little disappointed with "Splendor". It is very conventional, it isn't much of a story, and the good banter is limited (although Kelly MacDonald has fantastic dialogue in all her scenes) . But if your Araki appreciation is more for his directorial talents (casting, mise en scene details, camera movement and placement) and his post-production originality, you will find "Splendor" measures up very well to his prior work. The morning after scene early in the film simply blows away anything similar from any director.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Slight, but beguiling and entertaining
mizkwebb11 October 1999
This film won't win any awards for heavy-duty messages or ironic commentary on the state of male-female relationships in the 90's. However, it will convince you that a menage a trois is not only undeviant, sometimes it's positively the only way to fly! The three leads are all cute as hell, and do a wonderful job with the quirky script. This reminds me of a French movie with a similar plot, Cafe Au Lait, translated into the demi monde of L.A. wannabees on the fringes of the entertainment industry. Worth seeing for the eye candy alone.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Araki doesn't seem himself here
allyjack13 September 1999
Former kinetic Doom Generation provocateur Araki tries to become a modern Douglas Sirk with this largely unexciting, faintly comic romance about a woman who loves two men at once and finds three-way domestic bliss, until the guys turn into "Beavis and Butthead", and she gets pregnant. Like Sirk's super-excessive 50's melodramas, the film attempts to turn basically banal, formulaic material into a swooning, sensual spectacle, and some scenes do have a striking design muscularity (the bar where a video triptych forms the backdrop to their conversation; Robertson's apartment, with the huge clock sometimes seeming suspended Dali-like). More often though, the enterprise seems merely shallow, with the movie flashing up blocks of color as if hoping that the mere evocation of a rainbow might somehow spawn a pot of gold. Araki pushes his actors into a banality that sometimes verges on sheer babyishness (Keeslar is particularly badly handled), and the movie - given its somewhat raunchy theme - displays an odd decorousness and modesty, being weirdly coy for example about the gay implications of the arrangement. The Toronto Film Festival guide cites Truffaut and Sturges as influences rather than Sirk - either way, Araki doesn't seem to be himself here.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A polyamory movie with heart and courage
Mark Dulcey3 October 1999
Veronica, single and uninvolved, meets two men at the same concert at the same club. It would be hard for them to be more different: Abel, who she meets on the crowded dance floor, is dark, sensitive, and a bit shy; Zed, the drummer of the band, is bleached blond and very outspoken. She is torn, and can't make up her mind which of them to see. So she goes out with both of them.

The rest of the film follows her life for the next year, and how she handles her complex situation - which becomes even more complicated when another man, Ernest, comes into the picture. Unusually for a film (especially one made in the US), it resists the temptation of taking an easy path out of her situation.

It's not perfect. It looks at some of the problems that can arise from multiple relationships, but she has too easy a time resolving them; it takes a lot longer in real life. But at least it acknowledges that the problems exist, and that it is possible to find answers.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Well-made film about a successful three-way relationship.
bevsob3 January 2000
Girl meets boy, girl sleeps with boy...then girl meets other boy, girl wants other boy as well. But instead of cheating on both of them (a la "Two Girls and a Guy"), she takes the responsible approach and tells them both, letting them decide whether they can deal with sharing her. Those of us who practice polyamory (aka "responsible nonmonogamy") will be thrilled to see a movie that treats a threesome as a viable relationship structure. And it's a fine film as well - nice lighting, some creative filming, reasonably well-acted.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
carnivalofsouls12 December 2002
Araki's most overtly heterosexual film, and hence painfully mainstream, is undeniably a dissapointment for fans of his previous films, particularly the brilliant twosome "Nowhere" and "The Doom Generation". In fact in many ways "Splendour" is like a John Hughes remake of "The Doom Generations" but without the explicit sex and violence, severed heads, castrations and Parker Posey in a bizarre wig - Araki has tossed his nihilism out the window, and come up with a frustratingly conventional romcom. It continues his repeated fascination with the three-way relationship, perhaps for obvious reasons he can only portray a heterosexual relationship with two males present, and his unique visual and editing style is still apparent though toned down. Not a bad film by any means as it is enjoyable and the performances are good, but one can't help but feel underwhelmed following the daft "Graduate"-style ending. Let's hope this is a one-off for Araki.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So when are we gonna see this script flipped??
djexplorer25 July 2001
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.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
different but not necessarily great
filmlove-45 October 1999
Splendor is a much different film than you'd expect from writer/director Greg Arakki's previous work. It stays away from the stylistic and linguistic tendencies that plagued both "The Doom Generation" and "Nowhere". Visually, the film is also much more conventional, adding to a slightly strange, but by no means bizarre plot line. It's the story of Veronica, featuring a fine performance by Kathleen Robertson, who has fallen in love with two different men. She somehow manages to keep them apart, and then eventually, to get them to like each other. Together they form a triple, as opposed to a couple. It seems a bit of a stretch to assume that this complex relationship would work, that the two would be willing to share her as a girlfriend, and that they would all be able to live together in seeming harmony. The problem, is that the two different men soon become crude characterizations, rather than flesh and blood people that we could care about. They seem rather pathetic at times, and things get complicated when yet another man enters Veronica's life, offering stability and desiring a relationship with her. Despite the obvious nods to Three's Company, and the sometimes funny scenes that Arakki conjures up, the film is simply not exciting enough to hold our interest in these characters, the writing is not bold enough to grab out attention, and the film isn't nearly as erotic as its set up would suggest. All in all, it's an okay film from a director I usually don't like all that much, but it's definitely not what you're expecting from an Arakki film (which doesn't necessarily mean that it's any better for its difference)
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Araki Examines Contemporary Relationships
gradyharp6 November 2005
Warning: Spoilers
SPLENDOR is a quick little film that once again demonstrates writer/director Gregg Araki's talent in making big social comments out of just a little idea. Though this may not be one of his most successful films, it certainly has enough going for it to give it a look.

Narrated by flippant, kooky, slightly irritatingly shallow Veronica (Kathleen Robertson) who also is the main character of the story, we find that Veronica (aka V aka Ron) has been on a dry run for a love life for a long time, and just when she thinks she'll never find her man, up pops Halloween, and with her best friend Mike (Kelly MacDonald) she ventures into a party where she meets not one but two candidates for relationship - Abel (hunky Jonathan Schaech) who is a would be writer and is inept at about everything social and Zed (also hunky Matt Keeslar) who is a drummer whose intellect and socialization skills don't go far beyond his drumsticks. Veronica beds them both, finds them equally attractive and eventually the three become a ménage à trois in the same apartment. The two men, while transiently jealous of each other, ultimately find happiness in Veronica's breadwinning capabilities and both truly love her and each other. Things become strained when Veronica learns she is pregnant! Meanwhile, Veronica is offered upward mobility by yet another hunk Ernest (Eric Mabius) who represents stability and money whereas Abel and Zed represent only passion. Considering her pregnant life choices she agrees to marry Ernest despite her lack of loving him and all proceeds towards the wedding day when Abel and Zed decide to make changes in the plans.

Schaech, Mabius and Keeslar provide sufficient eye candy to overcome a strained script. Had Veronica been cast differently the story may have had a better impact, but as it is this remains a fun, spunky movie that for Araki fans is a good diversion. Grady Harp
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3 stars out of 20
rowboat17 February 2002
Um, this movie wasn't so good. It started out mediocre, before dropping into bad pretty quick. I think Kathleen Robertson was beautiful and played the role right. She was the highlight. She could've easily been over-dramatic and cheesy, but she wasn't. Kudos. She must've learned something from 90210. The story should've been more about the relationship and the struggle to make it work and more sociology, but throwing the pregnancy and that movie director guy into it were just huge, uncreative cop-outs in telling the story. The writer should be ashamed.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A Contrived Fantasy
hddu1022 October 2017
Greg Araki's work typically ranges from campy farce to gritty shock value...but what they all have in common is low quality acting. And in "Splendor" he utilizes his usual formula of stocking his films with eye-candy in lieu of substance in an attempt to get the viewer to overlook the sub-par context and dialogue. Araki's constant theme of bi-sexuality or sex-fluidity happens to be the focal point of this film. Though the film absolutely misses the mark in actually giving the viewer a substantive premise for two men allowing themselves to be in a relationship with the same woman...and by insinuation with each other as well. As I watched it, I just didn't believe the female protagonist was that hot, compelling or desirable to "pull together" a three-way relationship with two completely disparate heterosexual men. Yes, I get this was supposed to be a fantasy...but whose?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Silly, Shallow and Totally Unoriginal
denis88818 December 2016
Well, I love Kathleen Robertson, and she is totally and extremely sweet and gorgeous and beautiful here. Well, this is it. There is nothing else to say about this empty waste of time. The plot is all trite and cliché. Menage a trois, two boys on one girl, then there is one more boy, then some more very dubiously obvious plot events, and very beat up and all the usual things and/// and then it is terribly boring. Kathleen is sexy and she does have a cool voice, deep and suave, and yeah, does that save the movie, nay, it never does. Well, the movie is just a seemingly predictable array of all possible clichés one can think about, and please do not expect any plot twists or unique changes. The 90 minutes will simply pass by and then voila, the titles. One can watch it only for the sake of extreme beauty of Kathleen and then quickly forget all about it.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Paging Miss Hopkins
laddie520 August 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Surfing the cable channels one night, I stumbled on this little movie and was struck first by the gorgeous cinematography: the close-ups of Kathleen Robertson were almost hallucinatory. Despite her choppy bleached hair, ordinary looks, and snippy acting style, she looked so radiantly attractive that it was immediately clear the director was madly in love with her. The director being Gregg Araki, his taste in men was actually better: he clearly enjoyed putting Matt Keeslar and Jonathan Schaech together on a couch, in bed, and in the shower. The movie is Araki's modern version of Design for Living, the old Noel Coward warhorse (note the third-act appearance of a character named Ernest, the bourgeois dullard the heroine almost marries). Too bad Araki didn't have Miriam Hopkins to work with instead of Robertson. Visually, the movie is amazing, but where it falls seriously short is in the writing... to say that Araki is no Noel Coward is like saying that Pauly Shore is no Charlie Chaplin. Like, duh. Somehow, though, this wafer-thin comedy seemed to liberate him from the cynical dead end he'd fallen into in the 90s -- his next movie (with a solid story by Scott Heim) was Mysterious Skin, a riveting, fearless masterpiece that was unquestionably the best American movie of 2004.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fun and interesting, to a point.
Poseidon-315 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Every few years, it seems, a film comes out detailing the exploits of a menage a trois. "Summer Lovers", "Threesome", "Three to Tango" are a few examples. By this time, there isn't a whole lot new that can be added to the mix, though this film tries hard to be lively, edgy, funny and compelling. Robertson plays a young, struggling actress in L.A. who's in the midst of a sexual dry spell. Amazingly, in one night, she falls for two guys. One, Schaech, is a bookish, sensitive type while the other, Keeslar, is a wild, tattooed drummer in a band. She attempts to juggle the men and decide which one she truly wants to pursue, but eventually decides that she can't decide. Tentatively, she explains to each one of them that she has feelings for both of them. One night, with the help of several bottles of booze, they discover that they can actually function as a threesome, eventually living together. Unfortunately, things eventually get out of hand as Robertson begins to doubt the practicality of the situation and wonders if she can really have a life with these men. In walks film director Mabius who seems to fulfill every need she's ever had, except she doesn't feel for him the spark that she did with the other guys. Meanwhile, her funky artist friend MacDonald supplies commentary and support from the sidelines. Robertson, looking very lovely here, gives as good a performance as anyone could of such a self-indulgent, rather reckless person. She narrates the film in flashback with several in-your-face close-ups, speaking in that Gen-X way that can annoy some older viewers. Still, she's good in the film and manages, most of the time, to retain the audience's sympathy. Schaech, who smokes incessantly throughout, is attractive (despite some pronounced dark circles under his eyes) and reasonably appealing. Keeslar is, at first glance, a dumb lug, but his appeal grows throughout the film and he winds up as one of the most lovable characters. He's handsome and sexy. MacDonald enjoys her sassy role and has quite a few sarcastic and funny lines. Mabius is very likable, perhaps too likable to make this story really work since it's hard to see why he isn't good enough for Robertson. He gives an amiable, gentle, memorable performance which goes fairly unrewarded in the film. This is a revved up, colorful, splashy rendition of the old threesome genre that is often sexy and rarely boring. It looks great and has some nice acting in it. Unfortunately, it never seems particularly real and the ending is less satisfying than it would like to be (not to mention clichéd.) Additionally, two characters who claim to have gone through great change actually haven't changed at all since they barely could pull it together to even present themselves at the climax. The story is pretty much paint by numbers and it's up to the actors to fill it in and try to make it all work. It only does so marginally. Still, it's an arresting and intriguing movie with more than a few memorable sequences.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Good Music Good Fun
epiaf10 January 2006
This movie is a living relict! Doesn't seem that long ago we were wearing plastic shiny pants, MTV was still cool, and Orbits was still around. Gregg Araki has done a great job of archiving the music, fashion, lingo, nightlife, and more of some of the alternative kids from the 90s. This movie is fun, funny, and funniest when you don't use your brain while watching. Everything was good from the writing, dialogue, actors, costume, music, story, and directing. This is not an award winning film, but everyone I introduce the movie to loves it! Gregg Araki is a constant evolving artist. I urge any film lover to check out all of his films. Some of them can be a bit challenging. However, none of them are alike because he never copies himself, and that is such a blessing as most directors/writers are so predictable these days. Araki definitely keeps you watching!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Turning the tide
PercyLloyd5 November 2004
After dreading Kathleen Robertson as the self-righteous dilettante, Claire, on Beverly Hills 90210 I never would have believed that I could enjoy her so thoroughly in anything else. But, she not only changed my mind about her, she carried this movie so well that it has become one of my "guilty pleasure" favorites. She is beautiful and silly and fun, which is exactly what she needed to be to make this movie a fun romp instead of a ridiculous bore.

Matt Keeslar, Johnathan Schaech and the ever-charming Eric Mabius were excellent playing off of Robertson's Veronica. And lest we forget the sincerely lovable Mike (Kelly MacDonald, who is also sweet and charming as Pia in Entropy), who plays one of the truest best friends I have ever seen captured on film.

All in all, I think that Splendor is a great movie to watch if you are up for some lighthearted, mildly kinky, romance. Of course this film could be analyzed out the wazoo, but just sit and watch it for fun the first time, it will get you.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Heart-Warming Comedy for the new era
OrangUtanUK27 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER: Boy meets Girl meets Boy, Girl gets scared, Boys lose Girl, lots of soul-searching, Boys win Girl back, everyone lives happily ever after.

And that's what is so unusual about this film. It really is a film about love; it just happens that there's two love stories going on at the same time. The film confronts the question of what happens if you really do love two people at the same time, and how society reacts. All this insight, and a fast-moving mature comedy to boot.

Every other Threesome movie ends in a judgemental collapse of the triangle. Its conclusion leaves "Splendor" in a genre of its own.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Fluffy and fun
rosebud-556 October 1999
"Splendor" is verrry light but amiable. Kathleen Robertson, though, is a real discovery, beautiful and a convincing actress. As the old cliche goes, the camera loves her face. For once, men in a movie are just wallpaper, as Robertson carries the film. Candy-colored cinematography,a well chosen soundtrack and a fast pace make this movie a pleasant waste of time.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Screwball Comedy that wasn't...
dr.bedlo23 September 1999
Director Gregg Araki introduced his new film recently at the 24th Toronto Internation Film Fest to a packed house and wetted our appetites with promises of a clever, modern homage to the great screwball comedies of the 1930's & 1940's. Films like: "It Happened One Night", "The Awful Truth", "The Lady Eve" and "Brining Up Baby".

The film is a departure from the man who brought us such films as: "Doom Generation" and "Totally F***ed Up". A kinder, gentler Araki was being shown.

The film follows the adventures of Veronica (Kathleen Robertson). A young woman who has had the misfortune to fall for two very different guys: the kind, intellectual Abel (Jonathan Schaech) and the rocker on eleven, Zed (Matt Keeslar). Instead of making her mind up about which one to date, she decides to try to convince them both to allow her to date them both. Things only get more complicated when both guys decide to move in with her.

The film does follow the basic outline of a screwball, but it lacks the heart of one. The actors all bring in admirable, yet unremarkable performances. However, this is not entirely their fault. Araki fails to deliver on the most basic element of the classic romantic comedy, the banter. The old films thrived on the perpetual motion of the dialogue to continuously engage the audience, with "Splendor" we just get a round of kinky Truth or Dare. Of course that brings up another subject, sex. This is 1999, and people have sex. They did in the 30's too. They just weren't allowed to show it or talk about it in the movies. The writers had to be resourseful, knowing just how far they could skate. I don't think it's prudish to expect the same for a modern incarnation. Again, this gets back to the dialogue. They had to skirt around the issue, but those writers always knew how to let the audience know without coming out and saying it or doing it.

Perhaps, I'm stuck in the past. But I think that if you set your sights and the audience's up that high, you had better be able to deliver the goods. Maybe if Araki had watched "The Awful Truth" (a film that he did an introduction to at the same festival the day after his film screened) before he made "Splendor", he and the audience would have been better off. He's still rather new at the game, and maybe his next film will be a little more like Sturges and a little less like a TV Sitcom.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A modern love story
FoxyRed13 August 2001
Okay if you like movies with hot guys and cute chicks you have to see Splendor. Its about a girls who lives in L.A. and meets the boys of her dreams and as she strives to make things easier they just get more complicated. And with an ending that you'd love,you'll never want to return this movie back to the video store.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
overall a different, decent, sincere, mildly funny film
tracy.carver9 July 2001
Likable romantic menage-a-trois (if that's how it's spelled)... will she dump crazy "them" for steady "him"? Find out! Girls may like this for brief hints of guy-on-guy action. Guys may be relieved that the hints of guy-on-guy action are brief.

Reasonably daring and assertive without being particularly pretentious nor overly deep.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
a sexy, twisted, yet reasuring view on modern romance.
nulledge19 May 2001
Loved the premise of the movie. Excellent use of soft lighting and lip gloss. The movie was very fantasy oriented and didn't pretend not to be as it hardly dipicts the average living conditions of a starving actress and her poor deviant twosome. If you haven't seen this movie, its worth watching. If you have I'm sure you have mixed reviews. Guys may dislike the "male kissing scene" but if you close your eyes and just moan in agony it soon passes. Its wasnt enough to scare me away from the movies plot which is important in any sappy romance movie that intends to keep its male audience.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Many a Splendor
cng77719 May 2001
Well, I saw this movie for the first time last night. I was flipping channels and I noticed the the girl from 90210. It's funny I didn't like her on 90210, her prescence was kind of annoying. But, I thought the movie was good. Many people would think the plot was rather, hmmm... how should we say in flagrante delect, but I actually liked it. It sparked possible fantasies in my head. But, of course we all know in this day and age threesomes aren't a good idea. Overall I really enjoyed the movie. In the end I think she made the right decision
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Every Woman's Dream
polarbyte9 May 2001
Mmmm, maybe not. Two guys, one girl, and a apt. Besides the moral questions through out the entire movie of "is this healthy", you wonder why they didn't turn it into a soft porn. It is funny, you will enjoy watching it. Get's kinda cheesy towards the end. I was pleased with the directing however, and I loved how our main actress, Kathleen Robertson, looks positively radiant in her shots of playing narrator. Rent it or catch it on cable, I don't see this as something to add to the old DVD collection.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews