Dave from Ottawa Note that it is NOT the Steven Soderbergh film of the same name. If only my local video store had been so helpful as to point this out. Anyway, since the rental was already paid, I watched it. It is done as a pseudo-documentary, with a camera crew following around a downward spiralling, sex-addicted landscaping contractor (no, really) who lives in a motel room thanks to being kicked out by his girlfriend and who is going broke paying for sex with a teenage prostitute he is obsessing over. The hooker won't appear on camera, and so her scenes and speeches are re-created by an actress on a rather cheap looking soundstage, standing in for the motel room. The constant shifting back and forth between 'reality' and re-creation makes for a somewhat disorienting experience in which it is difficult for the audience to settle voyeuristically into the usual Cops-style reality TV experience, and this is obviously the point. The audience does not get voyeuristic titillation, it gets an education in male attitudes about sex, women and women who sell sex. The viewpoint is clearly feminist, with the men emerging as users and losers, not to mention the financial victims of their own needs, while the women come off as more stable and sensible. The documentary style is a good filming choice, as it hides the low budget while maintaining the illusion of reality and immediacy. That said, there are better ways to spend 90 minutes.

humbledmonk If you are looking for a big budget, Hollywood style film, you are out of luck. If you are looking for a big budget, Michael Moore style documentary, try again. There are no real action scenes, no real dramatic build ups to an exciting climax. This is exactly what it is supposed to be, a thoughtful documentary focusing on the part of an underground business and addiction that no one has tried to achieve before.The first time I saw this movie I had the benefit of watching it with one of the actresses, who clearly explained to me before and during what the director was trying to do.The next time I watched it, I tried to view it as a regular documentary and at that I think it did a great job, though I may still have been a little biased due to the first viewing.Now, reading the Directors comments, it all makes perfect sense and I realize just how well done this movie really is. She really worked at making you see GFE from the John's perspective, not just from the prostitutes as most movies will do.The movie itself is well shot and I did not see any really poor acting. Quite the opposite, it all felt real and yet not quite at the same time. Truly well done and I believe the director achieved the tone and style she was trying to create.

new-spirit-jazz So this is basically a fake documentary about guys who regularly see prostitutes and imagine them being girlfriends.Could be interesting, but somehow it isn't.I didn't like this movie. All action is filmed in a dull and uninteresting way. When the women talk, you can barely hear it because they purposely (what purpose?) quieted down their voices. In many scenes there is a flashing subtitle that reads "re-enactment" - that puts the final nail in the coffin of what is this movie's believability. Why should you engage your fantasy in something that doesn't even claim to be the real thing?The movie also has a continuous undercurrent of sadness. That is maybe related to the fact that prostitution is illegal in the US (an absurd state of affairs to be sure). Or the un-reality of the imagined girlfriend experience. But none of these things really explains it. Apparently the director chose to make a sad movie for unknown personal reasons.{SPOILER AHEAD - although it doesn't matter much if anything is spoiled because there is no tension anyway}The movie also ends sadly, with the client being arrested by undercover officers for seeing the prostitute who claims to be underage. Maybe that is the movie's message?But then, what is the message? The movie stays strangely detached from all that happens and you never really know what it's trying to say. I don't know. I feel cheated and I don't want to watch this ever again. There isn't even any wisdom or anything surprising in what the guys say - and they basically talk all the time.Nah. This movie isn't even a turn-on.I'll give it a 2 for the fairly original concept. And for making a movie at all. But give us something enjoyable next time, please.

info-18878 Keywords on Ileana Pietrobruno's Girlfriend Experience: brilliant, assured, original; non-judgmental and daring. The subject of prostitutes and "johns" has never been approached like this, and the Vancouver locations create a great shadowy world.Haven't seen the Soderbergh film of the same (similar?) title, but he would be hard pressed to top this Canadian wow-er. It's obvious that the filmmaker comes from the edit room (she edits documentaries and features) because the story and coverage are so perfect. Clearly a child of 20th century rep cinema, this is one of the best narrative works to borrow from -- and then explode -- documentary and reality conventions. Check it out.