Amazon.com

Todd Solondz, director of the acclaimed Welcome to the Dollhouse and the controversial Happiness, continues pushing the envelope of social decorum with the merciless and casually cruel Storytelling, his most ruthless satire of suburban complacency. Broken into two unrelated chapters, "Fiction" follows college girl Selma Blair through a degrading encounter with her resentful writing teacher (Robert Wisdom), while the more sprawling and scattershot "Non-Fiction" circles around the mutual exploitation of a fumbling documentary filmmaker (Paul Giamatti doing a near-parody of director Solondz) and his clueless subject, a suburban high school slacker named Scooby (Mark Webber). The squirmy laughs are laced with humiliation and the satire is acidic and cynical; in the world of Solondz, victims and victimizers alike are petty, selfish, vindictive, and thoughtless, and empathy is strictly rationed. Though sharply written and well directed, this misanthropic vision is strictly for daring filmgoers and Solondz fans. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (61)

"Mandingo" and "Reality TV"
Although this third film by Todd Solondz is not as good as "Welcome To The Dollhouse" or "Happiness", it still smacks of satirical cynicism. Inexplicably split into two films ('Fiction', 'Non-fiction'), we are first presented with a twenty minute film about community college level 'writing', in which, a young woman has a confrontational and sexual sparring with the black, 'mandingo' teacher. It's all meant to be a comment on hypocritical racists in education. It culminates in an outrageous sex encounter that is literally 'blocked' by a large red rectangle (taboo emphasis). It's moderately entertaining.

The second part of the film is more complex. Without exposing too much of the plot, it involves (as "Happiness" did) classism, racism, sexism, oh hell, any 'ism' you could imagine. But it works. It is simply a story of an upper middle class American family with the 2.5 kids and the proper suburban parents with a perfect son, the 'imperfect' son and the 'baby'. Kudos to John Goodman and Julie Haggerdy for participating in this movie. They bring life and legitimacy to their roles. Solondz filmed this well before "reality TV" was popular, and that is the premise. While the imperfect son is being secretly filmed for a documentary, the family struggles through it's own unusually tragic existence (the youngest of the three sons is the 'Brady Bunch brat' we always thought we wanted to see as evil). Needless to say, Solondz produces many shocks and surprises along the way. The trip is wildly entertaining, but the finale may leave the viewer distraught. Not that the story is poorly conceived or arranged, but simply that the ending is horribly, terribly depressing. It still good enough to recommend. I consider that a rare accomplishment for any film-maker.

3 Stars for Part 2: "Non-Fiction"
When I was a kid "story-telling" was a nice way of saying someone was lying. And even though I will not make the obvious jump and say the Todd Solondz is lying in "Storytelling," I will say that he is at least disingenuous and at worst a fraud.
"Storytelling" is broken up into two parts: "Fiction," starring Selma Blair as a college writing student in love with a fellow student, who has Cerebral Palsy and "Non-Fiction," starring John Goodman, patriarch of a family of mis-fits and neurotics; one of whom is his slacker son Scooby, who wants to become the next Conan O'Brian (!) but refuses to study and apply to college.
The "Fiction" section of the film is noteworthy only in that the writing professor states( and I am paraphrasing here): When you begin to write about something, whether it be "true" or not...it becomes fiction. A pretty interesting comment resonating with meaning and subtext which is totally unlike the movie that surrounds it. The acting is flat, non reactional and amateurish with Selma Blair coming off worst. This role and her performance in it is merely an extension of her histrionics and whining in "Cruel Intentions." Painful.
The "Non-Fiction" section of this film is another story: there's some meat here to grab on to with Paul Giamatti playing a down-on-his-luck documentary film maker who convinves John Goodman that his slacker son, Scooby would be the perfect star of a docu-drama centering on the "alienated youth of the suburbs" Solondz is at his best here and the dead-pan dialogue and situations ring true and yet are subversive and thought-provoking.
"Storytelling" would have been a much better film had Solondz decided to hack off the "Fiction" section and extend the second. "Storytelling" may tarnish the Solondz mantel a bit, but for those of us who can appreciate the incendiary nature of his wit, we still have "Happiness" and "Welcome to the Dollhouse" to keep us warm until the next Solondz film is released.

Brilliant vision of how to tell a story¿
The mode of portraying a tale is in focus in Storytelling through two different stories that are disconnected, yet associated to one another, as one deals with the fictional and the other the non-fictional. In the first part, Fiction, Vi (Selma Blair) is in a relationship with Marcus (Leo Fitzpatrick) who suffers from cerebral palsy and both are attending the same university. Vi and Marcus are currently enrolled in the same creative writing class where the students scrutinize each other's writing. Fiction exposes how personal experiences are turned into writing, which is callously slaughtered by judgmental readers as they their own set of values to the cerebral playing field of literature.

The second part of Storytelling, Non-fiction, illiterates the reality of the world as Scooby Livingston (Mark Webber) perceives it. Scooby lives in a upper-class bubble protected by his ruling father, Marty (John Goodman), where Scooby is constantly asked, "what are you going to do with your life?" This endless questioning of Scooby's future seems to have been stressful for him as he has sunk into a zombie-like state. Scooby escapes reality through smoking pot or chewing down a couple of mushrooms where he flees into dreams of working as a co-host with David Letterman. The day when a shoe salesman, who aspires to make film, visits Scooby's high school in order to make a documentary about the process of entering college Scooby believes that this is his chance to make connections in the world of media. However, when the documentary comes along it begins to depict the dream-like world in which Scooby lives in.

Storytelling is a clever film that displays the symbiosis between the audience and the storyteller, which is meticulously directed by Solondz. Solondz depicts the power of the audience to choose what to believe and what to disregard if it is not portrayed in an manner that the audience can accept. In addition, Solondz offers a notion of how the power of storytelling can sway an audience's convictions in a chosen direction if carefully planned. In a sense Storytelling is a philosophical film in regards to film and film making, which can be derived from the economics, politics, and the arts. Yet, the philosophical debate of Storytelling is deep beneath the surface as the audience must use a dialectic approach in order to reach it. Nonetheless, Storytelling offers a terrific cinematic experience as it offers the audience to choose whether to sink into thought or merely enjoy the ride.

Look Again
If you strongly dislike this movie, I suggest reading Crowley's scathing early reviews of Faulkner; then read Crowley's later praise of the same works. Initially, Crowley was appalled by what he projected as Faulkner's baseness. Eventually he came to apprehend Faulkner's genius to see, describe, and even love 'man.' For me, the film is upsetting because the gaze is unbroken and the subjects are living/struggling in the world. Like Faulkner, Solondz is looking at his time. His view point is not ridiculing (that view is delt with in young pill to the right of the prof).

Interesting work.
Storytelling is an interesting movie that portrays the contemporary North American society.

It emphasizes the pitiful importance of the individual as the stem of a civilization; The mistaken use of woman's sexuality as a way to communicate love, pity, confusion and anger; reflects the worth that society has given to women as objects and shows the deep divisions between people of different socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. Racism and the outcast of minorities are other elements shown but the most shocking issue is the dominant influence of media in our own lives. A single minute of fame and popularity could be worth the permanent loss of our values, personal convictions and even the lives of our most beloved ones.

A movie with content and meaning. ... Read more

Reviews (127)

One of the Best Movies of the 1990s.
Let me get this out of the way: in grade school, I was teased. A lot. In fact, it was so bad that even walking to school was an emotionally and physically painful experience. I can relate to every second of misery Dawn endures in the dynamite "Welcome to the Dollhouse." Most films like "Sixteen Candles" view high school as some insulated paradise. Not this film. Here, Dawn (played by Heather Matarazzo) is as socially inept as a pre-teen girl can be. She is subject to taunts, verbal assault, and vicious mind games at the hands of her classmates. Home life isn't much better; her parents blissfully ignore her while they shower attention on her cutsey younger sister, Missy. They give her attention only when they catch her doing something wrong, which seems to be most of the time. On top of this, she develops a crush for the teenage lead singer of her brother's band. Anyone who has experienced unrequieted love will find this subplot heartbreaking to watch. Despite the above, "Welcome to the Dollhouse" is a murderously funny movie to watch, even if you were a victim of grade school teasing. The performances are dead-on and it's one of my favorite movies of the 1990's.

A painfully honest film you will never forget
Bold, unabashedly honest, psychologically riveting, and painfully mesmerizing are just a few of the words and expressions that come to mind when I think about this uniquely extraordinary film. First shown at the 1996 Sundance Film Festival, Welcome to the Dollhouse walked away with the grand jury prize, and it is easy to see why. Writer/director/producer Todd Solondz brought a unique vision of the sharpest kind to this film, cutting right through the fluff of the typical "geek makes good" nonsense and forcing his artistic scalpel forcefully down into the nethermost regions of the adolescent heart. The story is so unsettling and painfully uncomfortable that some parents hesitated or refused to let their children participate in the filming. It's just an amazing, unforgettable movie.

Eleven-year-old Heather Matarrazzo gives one of the most remarkable performances I've ever seen from an actress of such tender age. Her eyes and bodily expressions encapsulate and transmit the hurt and misery writhing inside her every moment, leaving the viewer helpless to do anything but watch with increasingly unrestrained unease. Born with the unfortunate name of Dawn Weiner, the poor girl is ridiculed, ignored, teased, insulted, and basically mentally terrorized every day at school. Chants of "Weiner Dog" follow her throughout the hallways, her locker is marked with awful graffiti, and even her teachers and administrators are less than kind to her. Then, after school, she has to come home to parents who dote on her smart older brother and "little miss perfect" younger sister. Dawn has only one friend, a younger neighbor boy who seems to be following in her ignominiously alienated footsteps. Dawn does not escape all of this mentally unscathed, taking her own anger out on her sister in particular and doing several things that good girls should not do. In the most surreal of story elements, Dawn longs to be rescued from her situation by a boy, but hers is not a Cinderella type of fantasy. Her infatuation with a rebellious high school boy is somewhat understandable, but her relationship with a certain school bully is nothing short of surreal. I only wish I could discuss the psychology of this aspect of the movie in this context.

The one thing that really struck me about this movie is the fact that we never see Dawn cry; she internalizes all of her torments, and this does not have a pretty effect on her. I may be inventing a phrase here, but the director's vision seems to me to have been one of unsympathetic compassion. Far from holding Dawn up as the paragon of innocent, unrecognized virtue whose Prince Charming will come some day, he gives us a girl who becomes cruel in her own right to those few people around her, turning her hatred of others into a deep hatred of herself, several times teetering on the peak of mental unbalance. Solondz does not stray anywhere near the realm of fairy tale, as this ugly duckling does have an ugly side to her. The brutal honesty and lack of a visibly sympathetic portrayal of the character makes her worst moments even more unbearable to the viewer, and this is where the compassion kicks in. Solondz seemingly makes no effort to redeem this character in our eyes, yet the fact that he shows us, in such a harsh and brutal way, the miseries of this poor child's life makes her a character you desperately want to see find a degree of happiness.

The only thing I don't really understand about Welcome to the Dollhouse is the dark comedy label it seems to have acquired. I found nothing funny whatsoever about anything I saw here. Maybe that's the sensitivity of the former nerd in me, but honestly this movie is just utterly dark and depressing. Those looking for laughs will probably not embrace Welcome to the Dollhouse, but those who want to see the harsh light of truth shone into the bottom of an individual's soul and learn something from the painful experience will walk away from this film a different person than they were an hour and a half earlier. This movie has the power to touch you in ways you may never have imagined.

Everybody Runs Away....
Todd Solondz' WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE was one of those films that was "on my list" for many years. I had seen his second film HAPPINESS and was intrigued by Solondz dark dark humor. Why it took me so long to take in another of his films is hard to explain. Every review I had read of DOLLHOUSE praised it (and even some reviewers who literally hated HAPPINESS were oddly touched by this debut film). Perhaps it took me a year or so to summon up enough strength to take another Solondz flick. Now that I think about it, such hesitancy only seems natural. As it turns out, however, biting as it is, DOLLHOUSE is still a heck of a lot easier to watch than its follow-up.

Perhaps it's because as some reviewers here suggest, we all have our own "inner Dawn Wiener." It's easy to identify with this ungainly, hopelessly unpopular teenager--with the awful barrettes and clothes, a brainy older brother, and pertly adorable younger sister. We can all cop to that one pretty much. (If you identify at all with the characters in HAPPINESS, you probably wouldn't want to admit it.) But I honestly don't think that Solondz' intent was to get viewers in touch with their "inner adolescent." He's going after something bigger than that--and more sinister too.

I guess it shouldn't be so surprising that many reviewers here identify with Dawn, but when they start calling the film "realistic," you have to wonder. If there was ever a film that was an exercise in pop SURrealism, this is it.
As a teen alienation flick, I'd rate it right up there with GHOST WORLD, and like that film, it has a distorted, fun-house-mirror quality--that is, I'll grant you, simultaneously more and less real that mere realism. (I guess that's the essence of SURREALISM). Dawn's parents, for example, are little more than cartoon figures--at least until her father has a near nervous breakdown.

And doesn't that reflect a teenage sense of reality even better than sheer realism, after all? Your average teen doesn't see his or her parents as full-fledged human beings. They're way too busy with their own boiling over emotions. Until their parents humanity hits them in the face, kids see them through the looking glass, darkly--if at all.

Which is not to say that either of Dawn's parents becomes remotely sympathetic. Interesting too how in the end, Dawn's two almost-boyfriends have run away to the city. Dawn kinda sorta runs away herself trying to track downr her kidnapped little sister. Seems like anyone with a lick of sense gets out of that town.

realistic account
welcome to the dollhouse is a touching and realistic account of what its like to be on the outskirts of growing up. dawn is a young gyrl trying to fight her way in. she deals with bullies, her parents rejection, and her own self hate. the film has its funny moments such as dawn standing over her sleeping sister's bed with a hammer in her hands. the character of dawn is well played but barely develops. brendon sexton jr plays brandon, a bully in his own right but has feelings for dawn. his role is small but quite significant. dawn's family is very unlikeable strictly because of their arrogance and complete disregard of dawn.
overall the film is good. you will find yourself not only sympathizing with dawn but may find her angst and vulnerbility alittle like your own in the often harsh world of growing up. the ending could be better; it leaves you wondering about alot of things. but despite the ending the film is heartfelt and very satisfying.

Painfully realistic
I felt like switching this movie off a lot of the time. Having been where Dawn was throughout high school, I didn't think it was possible for me to watch right to the end. I was told that this movie was the story of my life. Not quite. But I did identify with some parts - Dawn being called a loner, her looks, being called ugly. But what really upset me, was the director heavily focusing on looks in the movie. I don't know why I still get upset over that kind of thing in movies. And the fact that Dawn does exactly what everyone does to her - she turns round, and says hurts them. But that's cos she's been bullied herself, so effectively, she turns into the bully.

But of course, we've all been there, haven't we? Don't say you haven't, go and dig out your old photo album. Look at the dorky hair, clothes, teeth in bad need of a brace - I could go on. And we've all had that embarrassing, awkward first kiss - I've NEVER put a spell on a guy just to make him like me! (It wouldn't work, believe me)

Heather Matarazzo, although quite pretty now, is probably always going to be cast in "character" roles, than anything else. What I really hated was where were all the kids with bad skin?! Even Dawn had porcelain skin. It's not fair, nor is it true.

Dawn was made to look all the worse, by constantly having her hair scraped back, made to wear god-awful clothes, and those terrible clothes (although I found an old pair of glasses when cleaning out my drawers - did I wear those?!)

This is a good film to watch, although I can't see myself touching a guy with a bargepole who bullied me, or called me names. That bit just didn't ring true. It's not a film I would watch again, it upset me that bit too much. But it's worth having a look at if you can get your hands on a copy. ... Read more

Amazon.com

At times brilliant and insightful, at times repellent and false, Happiness is director Todd Solondz's multistory tale of sex, perversion, and loneliness.Plumbing depths of Crumb-like angst and rejection, Solondz won the Cannes International Critics Prize in 1998 and the film was a staple of nearly every critic's Top Ten list.Admirable, shocking, and hilarious for its sarcastic yet strangely empathetic look at consenting adults' confusion between lust and love, the film stares unflinchingly until the audience blinks.But it doesn't stop there. A word of strong caution to parents:One of the main characters, a suburban super dad (played by Dylan Baker), is really a predatory pedophile and there is more than an attempt to paint him as a sympathetic character.Children are used in this film as running gags or, worse, the means to an end. Whether that end is a humorous scene for Solondz or sexual gratification for the rapist becomes largely irrelevant.Happiness is an intelligent, sad film, revelatory and exact at moments.It's also abuse in the guise of art. That's nothing to celebrate. --Keith Simanton ... Read more

Reviews (224)

I'm living in a state of irony.
Having seen 'Storytelling', I had a fairly good idea of what I was getting myself into when I picked this movie up. It deals with adult subject matter, for sure, but it manages to present the inherent, subtle humor of strange, bizzare, or grotesque situations. One scene that sticks out in my mind is when Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is in a diner with the character played by Camryn Manheim and she just finished telling him about her being assaulted and the particularly gruesome way she dealt with the assault, and he replied, "Well, we all have our plusses and minuses." I laughed until my sides hurt. You really have to see the scene and all it's nuances to fully appreciate it. And there are a lot of scenes like this throughout the movie. This is definately a squeamish and unsettling type of movie with some pretty difficult subject matter. Given that, I wouldn't recommend this movie to just anyone. Seek it out if you must, but be warned, it's not a happy story. As far as one reviewers' statement that the scenes were presented for there shock value only, I didn't really see it that way. I saw a peeling away of the appearance that is presented by people to show the sorid underbelly of life, like turning over a big rock to see what kind of creepy crawlies are hiding underneath. That's not to say that the people in this movie are representative of people in general, but I think we all have little secrets about ourselves, our 'rocks', that we wouldn't want the rest of the world to know. I can understand why some people would be turned off by a movie like this, as I think a lot of people go to see movies to escape from this kind of material. Also, I think Dylan Baker did an excellent job in portraying his character. He played a character who seemed to have the idyllic life, a beautiful wife, a large home in the suburbs, three children, and good career...and pedoephillic tendancies towards young boys. He was so creepy, taking advantage of oppourtunities presented to him, regardless of the consequences. I didn't feel sorry for his character, but I did feel like he was a creature trapped by his own demons, acting on his primal urges. He was what he was, and that wasn't going to change. I don't understand the urges he felt, but the characterization of the monster he became was certainly interesting to watch. I enjoyed this movie, and I am looking forward to seeing 'Welcome to the Dollhouse'.

Cookieman108

KEEP THE KIDS AWAY!
Man, this is difficult, difficult movie!! It's packed full of thoroughly unlikeable characters. And they do some awfully uncomfortable things.

The actors are all outstanding. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays a loser (what a stretch!!) who starts making obscene phone calls to his next door neighbor (Lara Flynn Boyle), who enjoys them. What happens when they meet? That's just one sample of the kind of interactions you might see in this movie. It plays a little like MAGNOLIA, but without much of the hopeful tone that movie ends with.

But the source of all the controversy in this movie is the character played by the brave, brilliant Dylan Baker. He plays a totally milquetoast, average, middle-class father. Yet his character is also a child-molester. I wouldn't say his character is presented sympathetically, but he isn't always shown as just a monster either. There's one scene, wherein his son has just discovered his beloved father's secret and questions him in detail about his twisted desires. The scene is hands-down the most uncomfortable thing I've ever watched. I was literally squirming...it is so shocking, so obscene and so terribly, terribly sad. In two minutes, we see how several lives are shattered forever.

Baker's performance should have been nominated for an Oscar, but this would have required too much bravery on the part of the selection commmittee.

Do I recommend the film? Well, if you aren't afraid to have your limits tested, absolutely. It has a lot to say, not just about child molestation. It's well-acted and written, and has many very funny moments too (one character to another: "I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you." to which the response is: "I'm not laughing." It's from the creator of WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE, so you know it's going to be unconventional. But it is exciting filmmaking. ABSOLUTELY KEEP THE KIDS AWAY FROM IT!

This film is NOT honest.
"If you can't handle the realism, it's your problem; this movie isn't afraid to be honest; blah blah blah." On the contrary, Solondz goes to ludicrous extremes of contrivance to convince us that the world is horrible, people are monsters, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Every single character in this film is depressed, insane, a pervert, or a liar, and every character is unhappy. That's neither realistic nor, in my opinion, "honest" on any deeper level. Solondz does his utmost to deny the existence of any chance for redemption. The worldview this movie conveys seems to be that of a deeply troubled person desperately trying to tell us that everyone else is as miserable as he is. I'm not saying some of the things he depicts don't happen in the real world (albeit in less contrived ways). But to focus on them, to the exclusion of anything else, to make a point about the impossibility of obtaining happiness, seems dishonest, manipulative, and downright irresponsible.

I really wanted to like this movie. It was well made and well acted. I even gave it the chance to sink in, since many of my favorite movies become my favorites only after a while of thinking about them. But the more I think about this one, the angrier I get. Why would anyone want to use art in this way?

Tasteless, valueless, shock-fare garbage.
This movie has nothing to offer but shock, and I mean nothing. The acting is decent, but other than that there is no point to this film other than to expose the viewer to the darkest elements of the human psyche for shock value.

The characters are a woman who fantasizes about being raped, a man who drugs and rapes 11-year-old boys, another man who makes obscene phone calls to women while masturbating, an overweight woman who kills the man who raped her and dismembers his body, a Russian immigrant who takes advantage of vulnerable women, an oversensitive, mousy waif who cries at the drop of a hat, a senior couple who separate and try to date other people, and an 11-year-old boy who's obsessed with having his first orgasm. At the end of the movie you will probably either hate or at least dislike ALL of the characters.

Not only are the characters despicable, but this movie is BORING and POINTLESS. The very last scene where this 11-year old kid masturbates on a balcony while spying on a sunbathing neighbor then marches into the dining room and announces to his entire extended family that he "came" is a perfect example of the kind of pointless shock-fare garbage that this film is. It has no value whatsoever.

Dont look for any depth, its not there.
Yes, happiness is an offensive, disturbing film-thats not why I dislike it, it's pretty much impossible to offend me.

The reason I hate this movie is because there's NO POINT! It's just shocking and offensive for the sake of being shocking and offensive. People often mistake shocking for thought-provoking. Read all the positive reviews on this site. Not one of them actually describes any relevant themes, any statements about the human condition stated in this movie. The closest you'll find is "this movie shows that...these things really happen." NO KIDDING! A better film (and they are out there) would have delved into WHY these things happen.

This film would have a little more credibility if the dialogue was a little more believable. Humans simply do not interact that way. Also, the over-use of bright colors and happy-family stereotypes is almost insulting. Yea, humans have a dark side underneath. We get it.

To it's credit, the acting is excellent, and there are some very funny scenes. But please, dont mistake this for a challenging, revolutionary film. ... Read more

Reviews (224)

I'm living in a state of irony.
Having seen 'Storytelling', I had a fairly good idea of what I was getting myself into when I picked this movie up. It deals with adult subject matter, for sure, but it manages to present the inherent, subtle humor of strange, bizzare, or grotesque situations. One scene that sticks out in my mind is when Philip Seymour Hoffman's character is in a diner with the character played by Camryn Manheim and she just finished telling him about her being assaulted and the particularly gruesome way she dealt with the assault, and he replied, "Well, we all have our plusses and minuses." I laughed until my sides hurt. You really have to see the scene and all it's nuances to fully appreciate it. And there are a lot of scenes like this throughout the movie. This is definately a squeamish and unsettling type of movie with some pretty difficult subject matter. Given that, I wouldn't recommend this movie to just anyone. Seek it out if you must, but be warned, it's not a happy story. As far as one reviewers' statement that the scenes were presented for there shock value only, I didn't really see it that way. I saw a peeling away of the appearance that is presented by people to show the sorid underbelly of life, like turning over a big rock to see what kind of creepy crawlies are hiding underneath. That's not to say that the people in this movie are representative of people in general, but I think we all have little secrets about ourselves, our 'rocks', that we wouldn't want the rest of the world to know. I can understand why some people would be turned off by a movie like this, as I think a lot of people go to see movies to escape from this kind of material. Also, I think Dylan Baker did an excellent job in portraying his character. He played a character who seemed to have the idyllic life, a beautiful wife, a large home in the suburbs, three children, and good career...and pedoephillic tendancies towards young boys. He was so creepy, taking advantage of oppourtunities presented to him, regardless of the consequences. I didn't feel sorry for his character, but I did feel like he was a creature trapped by his own demons, acting on his primal urges. He was what he was, and that wasn't going to change. I don't understand the urges he felt, but the characterization of the monster he became was certainly interesting to watch. I enjoyed this movie, and I am looking forward to seeing 'Welcome to the Dollhouse'.

Cookieman108

KEEP THE KIDS AWAY!
Man, this is difficult, difficult movie!! It's packed full of thoroughly unlikeable characters. And they do some awfully uncomfortable things.

The actors are all outstanding. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays a loser (what a stretch!!) who starts making obscene phone calls to his next door neighbor (Lara Flynn Boyle), who enjoys them. What happens when they meet? That's just one sample of the kind of interactions you might see in this movie. It plays a little like MAGNOLIA, but without much of the hopeful tone that movie ends with.

But the source of all the controversy in this movie is the character played by the brave, brilliant Dylan Baker. He plays a totally milquetoast, average, middle-class father. Yet his character is also a child-molester. I wouldn't say his character is presented sympathetically, but he isn't always shown as just a monster either. There's one scene, wherein his son has just discovered his beloved father's secret and questions him in detail about his twisted desires. The scene is hands-down the most uncomfortable thing I've ever watched. I was literally squirming...it is so shocking, so obscene and so terribly, terribly sad. In two minutes, we see how several lives are shattered forever.

Baker's performance should have been nominated for an Oscar, but this would have required too much bravery on the part of the selection commmittee.

Do I recommend the film? Well, if you aren't afraid to have your limits tested, absolutely. It has a lot to say, not just about child molestation. It's well-acted and written, and has many very funny moments too (one character to another: "I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing with you." to which the response is: "I'm not laughing." It's from the creator of WELCOME TO THE DOLLHOUSE, so you know it's going to be unconventional. But it is exciting filmmaking. ABSOLUTELY KEEP THE KIDS AWAY FROM IT!

This film is NOT honest.
"If you can't handle the realism, it's your problem; this movie isn't afraid to be honest; blah blah blah." On the contrary, Solondz goes to ludicrous extremes of contrivance to convince us that the world is horrible, people are monsters, and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Every single character in this film is depressed, insane, a pervert, or a liar, and every character is unhappy. That's neither realistic nor, in my opinion, "honest" on any deeper level. Solondz does his utmost to deny the existence of any chance for redemption. The worldview this movie conveys seems to be that of a deeply troubled person desperately trying to tell us that everyone else is as miserable as he is. I'm not saying some of the things he depicts don't happen in the real world (albeit in less contrived ways). But to focus on them, to the exclusion of anything else, to make a point about the impossibility of obtaining happiness, seems dishonest, manipulative, and downright irresponsible.

I really wanted to like this movie. It was well made and well acted. I even gave it the chance to sink in, since many of my favorite movies become my favorites only after a while of thinking about them. But the more I think about this one, the angrier I get. Why would anyone want to use art in this way?

Tasteless, valueless, shock-fare garbage.
This movie has nothing to offer but shock, and I mean nothing. The acting is decent, but other than that there is no point to this film other than to expose the viewer to the darkest elements of the human psyche for shock value.

The characters are a woman who fantasizes about being raped, a man who drugs and rapes 11-year-old boys, another man who makes obscene phone calls to women while masturbating, an overweight woman who kills the man who raped her and dismembers his body, a Russian immigrant who takes advantage of vulnerable women, an oversensitive, mousy waif who cries at the drop of a hat, a senior couple who separate and try to date other people, and an 11-year-old boy who's obsessed with having his first orgasm. At the end of the movie you will probably either hate or at least dislike ALL of the characters.

Not only are the characters despicable, but this movie is BORING and POINTLESS. The very last scene where this 11-year old kid masturbates on a balcony while spying on a sunbathing neighbor then marches into the dining room and announces to his entire extended family that he "came" is a perfect example of the kind of pointless shock-fare garbage that this film is. It has no value whatsoever.

Dont look for any depth, its not there.
Yes, happiness is an offensive, disturbing film-thats not why I dislike it, it's pretty much impossible to offend me.

The reason I hate this movie is because there's NO POINT! It's just shocking and offensive for the sake of being shocking and offensive. People often mistake shocking for thought-provoking. Read all the positive reviews on this site. Not one of them actually describes any relevant themes, any statements about the human condition stated in this movie. The closest you'll find is "this movie shows that...these things really happen." NO KIDDING! A better film (and they are out there) would have delved into WHY these things happen.

This film would have a little more credibility if the dialogue was a little more believable. Humans simply do not interact that way. Also, the over-use of bright colors and happy-family stereotypes is almost insulting. Yea, humans have a dark side underneath. We get it.

To it's credit, the acting is excellent, and there are some very funny scenes. But please, dont mistake this for a challenging, revolutionary film. ... Read more