Love in the Time of Money (2002)

Love In The Time Of Money is very representative of its era of independent films. First, it is an ensemble piece, including frequent "Indy" stars Steve Buscemi and Rosario Dawson. Second, it has an interesting artistic mechanism to advance the plot: daisy-chaining from one character to the next. Third, it's a lot of slice-of-life moments with similar themes but no particular overriding plot. Fourth, there is a lot of intense inner-city camera work, and diverse camera angles to juxtapose, art, scenery, and faces. Five, the performances of the members of the ensemble run the gamut of tired (Malcolm Gets) to sublime (Carol Kane) and mostly solid with an emphasis on quirkiness in between.So, with all the other bases covered, I read other IMDb reviews to make sure that it has the most important characteristic to be representative of today's independent films. Its supporters wax enthusiastically about how different its perspectives are from "your typical Hollywood films." At the end of the day, the film is blessedly short by such standards (87 minutes), and certainly watchable, so if you are looking to pass time, you could do worse -- but you could do better. For me, this defines mediocre. One notable exception: if you love Carol Kane who appears in the second half of the film with characters Nick and Will, take the time to see her magnificent performance -- easily the best in the film.

A good indie flick that I stumbled on late night the other day. I love indie flicks set in NYC like most Woody Allen flicks and films like Rodger Dodger, Tadpole, an indie flick with Adrien Brody which I can't recall the name but is an overlooked gem, etc. The ensemble cast is very good and the director connects the stories very well. I liked the stories with contractor and the hooker, Steve Buscemi was good as usual, and the scene with Michael Imperioli at the end with the hooker was very well acted. Also, the banter between Buscemi and the gorgeous Rosario Dawson was well written. I just wish they showed her naked as she looks like she got a nice body. Also, look for a pre Entourage Adrien Brenier who has a decent role. I thought he was very good in the overlooked indie "The Adventures of Sebastian Cole" also.

This movie is best watched late at night (if you can stay awake). It is 90 minutes long where the first 85 minutes are an odd and eerie sequence of scenes that seem to transfer from one character to the next in what appear to be chronological order. Then in the last 5 minutes the movie's point unfolds, and you're left with an interesting puzzle that may make you want to see it again: was the movie forward chronological, reverse chronological, disconnected, or an endless paradox that is broken in the "end", which is were the movie began? Makes me wonder if the title is a riddle, too. The first 5 minutes is also important, if you're trying to close the loop.

the more i think about it, there was nothing redeeming about thismovie. i saw it 9 months ago, so my memory might have made itworse than it was, but i do know it was at least as bad as a 4 out of10. after seeing the movie, i met the director. he seemed so cluelessas to what he was doing or what he had done, and as far as icould tell, he didn't care for the film either. even he agreed that hedidn't really know what he was doing, and he was forced to docertain things because it was filmed digitally. i felt that the movie was trying to hard to fit in to the formula that itbuilt for itself: "9 people all have to be connected in some way. howcan we get from point 'A' to point 'B'" so in order get from theprostitute we see in the start and back to her at the end they 10minutes on each character's relationship to another person. itmakes one feel choked by the 2 demensional, badly drawncharacters.I just remembered the one redeeming part of the movie... SteveBouchemi there is one scene where he is amazing. that's it. as isay... 4 out of 10.