Customer Reviews

Flirt [ NON-USA FORMAT, PAL, Reg.0 Import - Australia ]

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(4)

 

 

Hal Hartley appears to be an acquired taste... I have only seen 3 of his films so far (this, the flat-out brilliant Trust, and the okay Henry Fool) but he's clearly one of the most underappreciated American directors working today. I think the delivery of his dialogue is what kills it for most people. It's very deliberate and generally not filled with an overkill of emotion. I find this approach allows me to listen to what the characters are actually saying (as opposed to just how they're saying it). That Hartley's one of the few screenwriters with something to actually say really seals the deal.
I don't want to suggest Flirt lacks emotion though. It manages to pack in more complex emotions that most more histrionic films. In one scene, a man threatens another with a gun, reconciles with him, embraces him, has a change of heart, and shoots him. A woman who witnesses this, hearing some music that begins to play, begins to dance, caught in the moment, slips to the ground, and gets up regaining her sense of reality. This sounds absurdist, and it plays that way in the film. Still, it manages to convey a great deal of human emotions in about a minute without a false note. Hartley is a master at achieving a desired effect.
Flirt is somewhat experimental in that it replays the same narrative with nearly the same dialogue in three different countries with three different casts. This never felt boring to me, as the intention of some of the lines and the overall outcome of the situation changes each time. What's interesting is that the plot of the episodes is that the character has 90 minutes to make up their mind about whether their relationship has a future. Not coincidentally, the film is 90 minutes long. Clearly Hartley is commenting on the use of art (screenwriting, film direction) to solve personal demons. One feels he is using this film to explore a personal dilemma for himself, a point that is driven home when Hartley himself shows up in the third episode as the possibly spurned lover.
It's interesting that such an apparent act of directorial vanity never feels like hubris. Hartley manages to make an extremely personal film that actually has something universal to say. He manages to be stylistically bold without being gaudy or excessive. He manages to make the same plot interesting three times. He manages to create a masterpiece in "Flirt".

I went to see this film at a cinema festival one thursday evening in 1997. I returned the next day, same theatre, same movie, same time. By the end of the second viewing I was still taken aback.

Flirt is filled with hazy tenderness. As in "Trust" or "Surviving Desire", Flirt is filled with Hartley's staple meaning-of-life questions, making the film a delicate three ring circus: NY, Berlin, Tokyo. The setting may change, but the questions are the same. Like most of Hartley's work, Flirt didn't get much mainstream attention. I find that rather adequate

This film is built from a device Hal Hartley used in his early films: looped repeating conversations/actions. I have always been delighted by these moments- especially the clinic conversation in "Trust." Here we see the same storyline played out three times in three different locations by three different casts to varying conclusions. Several of the Hartley regulars are present which is always a plus and Hal himself makes an appearance. This is a lighter film than "Amateur", more of a throwback to his early work. If you loved "Simple Men" and "The Unbelievable Truth" this is the film for you.

FLIRT is not your typical romantic movie of the 90's (when it was filmed). But that's what makes it so great. If you are tired of the "boy meets girl, boy falls for girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl back" scenario, then you'll like FLIRT. If not, go rent SHE'S ALL THAT with pretty boy Freddie Prinze, Jr. And spare me the details, please.

I would also suggest that when viewing this film, you not concentrate on the fact that many of the lines are repeated from one setting to the next (and there are a startling number of lines repeated). But rather look for the more subtle differences and similarities.

If you are a person who views things with greater depth than "black and white", I think you will enjoy this movie.

Let me first state that I am not a follower of Hal Hartley, so I do not base my review on any other part of his entire body of work. But as a film student, I must say that this movie bordered on excrutiating to watch. First of all, do not watch this film if you are expecting a performance from Parker Posey (as I was). Her's is the first face you see in the film, and after all of her 90 seconds, the rest of the movie is a major disappointment. Even her lines seemed forced and unbelievable, and as they are repeated twice over by international casts, they only become more boring and painful to listen to. The gimmick of this film is to repeat the same exact situations in three different locales with three different casts. Perhaps with a better script or some acting of any quality, I could have been sold, but as it stands this moves was a bad idea. If you're looking for a bright spot in this movie, the honors would have to go to Dwight Ewell, who played Dwight in the Berlin portion of the film. His was the only performance of note in this utter waste of time and celluloid. If you do feel compelled to view this disaster, I'll spare you the displeasure. The lines in each locale are repeated verbatim (with the excpetion of the Tokyo episode, where the lines are broken up and even deleted. This was the point at which whatever semblance of form this movie had was cast asunder). If you have absolutely nothing else to do for 85 minutes, then consider this film, but do so at the risk of hating it as much as I came to.

Repeative. Heard mixed reviews and decided to give it a chance. Liked the different variations on the theme in difference cultures. Felt likie a Woody Allen work but not sure if it was worth the time spent in the end. Worth a viewing to form your own opinion.

The movie is on the disc. The movie is a great movie, the same story told thrice through different people and in different languages.
The disc I got came reigon free, meaning it would play on a US player with no modifications. This does not mean they are all reigon free though. Buyer Beware. Also Philips DVD players are moslty quite easy to modify ;)

Hal Hartley is way ahead of his time. This is not his best film, but it's definitely worth watching. I first saw an excerpt in a sociology/religion class which hooked me: advice on love and commitment in a bathroom. This film takes chances, and some of them aren't that entertaining, but overall it's not as bad as elsewhere reviewed on this site.

I find it amusing that people have been lured to watch this film by indy queen Parker Posey. As all Hal Hartley films tend to be, dialogue and narrative is negated and transformed by repetition and by intentional "non-acting". I mean, do people really think all the actors are acting this poorly? By having the actors not act, the ideas cannot be discolored by subjective interpretation. The film strips away traditional storytelling by repeating it in three forms. The narrative disappears in repeating it. In the three vignettes, nuances in each and differences between them are what is of primary interest. The actors are tools for Hartley's obsession with love, desire, and identity. This film is a poem. It is difficult to evaluate Hartley's films without considering the entire body of work. It may not be Hartley's most successful effort, but it is an interesting experiment nonetheless.

I thought it was very interesting of how the three stories are somewhat different but the outcome is the same. It's as they have a connection between each other, even though each story takes place in a different environment and time all together. As if they all had a vision of this event happening, and that's what makes it so intriguing.