2BPerfectlyHonest

I watched this movie because I love Hayley Mills. However - I am not sure what is supposed to be "real" and what is part of the bedtime story, or is the bedtime story even real? Was there a business that failed or was the bedtime story just Josh making up a story about people his son knew. (Not to long ago Billy, your Uncle Buck and I took a trip to the moon...) What was the point of Frank urinating down his leg? That had nothing to do with anything. Why did such a young person have a heart attack, other than it was a convenient plot device? Was it related to the running gag about his mother's cooking yet he eats junk food at the restaurant? There are movie I regret watching, because I would have preferred a happier ending, or a different ending, you know, where John and Sally get together instead of going their separate ways; this movie I regretted watching because it is just bad. But I still love Hayley.

On almost any level, this just doesn't work. The story is within a story, and maybe within a third story. We have Josh (Andrew McCarthy) telling his son a bed-time story that we quickly realize is some version of a true story about himself and his partner Frank (Adam Trese). The story involves with a variety of plot devices, but not much interesting acting. We never understand why Frank's making his decisions,they just happen. We're not sure about Josh's version(s) of the truth. Robert Vaughn is too restrained as Dad. Hayley Mills is a cameo. John Turturro is unsatisfying in that we think he may be crazy but we're certain he's not wise. The cinematography is dull and lifeless, which is always a shame, because it is a choice. Overall, the plot doesn't hold interest or hold together, so it's not "honest" at all, and not perfectly anything.

The movie is a bit extraordinary. We go through a story withing a story and withing a story. I was attracted by the amount of actors that I have seen before. None of them seem to be on a current Hollywood A list yet are often seen in A list movies and TV shows doing a job that they catch one's eye and are not forgotten. This movie is also a low budget. To some it may be a turn off, but I enjoy the indie feeling of it combined with the great actors. They also go with it well by mainly relying on the dialogues and acting for which the budget plays a lesser role. The movie is a goo watch to go through and try to realize the point at whine one starts realizing that there is something wrong there. It isn't really a classic but a good different movie that people who like this kind of movies will enjoy.

This movie caught my eye mostly because of the actors in it, and partially because no one had written a review of it on Netflix. Heck, only 305 people had even rated it THERE, and only > 32 < here on IMDb.com, as of today 8/21/2005. Well, it IS a movie worth watching. But only if you have an open mind, you like independent films, and especially like dialogue-only movies. If you only crave the Hollywood blockbuster action flicks, this is simply NOT for you. Also note the R rating, especially for the language. This turns a lot of people off. But if you love the scenes in movies like Pulp Fiction where people are just standing around talking (and believe me, I am NOT comparing this movie to Pulp Fiction, nor is the dialogue anywhere NEAR the same level of perfection), but if you do enjoy a lot of talking, perhaps a little quirkiness like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas or even Wild at Heart, then you might be interested here. Walt D in LV. 8/21/2005