Puccini for Beginners

Better than Woody Allen's last five movies combined, PUCCINI FOR BEGINNERS is that snappiest, funniest, romantic comedy in recent memory. The cast is spectacular and the direction is flawless. I can't say enough good things about this movie. I first heard about it at Sundance; everyone I know who attended kept telling how I needed to see it. I am not one to buy the hype so I just let the movie fade from memory. Having just seen it, I see that the hype wasn't unjustified; in fact, I'd say it wasn't strong enough. Put simply: this movie is cute. C. U. T. E. Gretchen is adorable, as always. Elizabeth Reaser is a dream come true; she delivers her dialogue with the skill and precision of a government trained sniper. Justin is so affable, you can hardly stand it. Overall, I just have to say that missing this movie highly, highly inadvisable.

Puccini for Beginners (2006) was written and directed by Maria Maggenti. It stars Elizabeth Reaser as Allegra, a young lesbian woman and Gretchen Mol as Grace, a young straight woman. Justin Kirk portrays Phillip, who knows them both.

This is a very New York City movie. Allegra is surrounded by beautiful friends and beautiful acquaintances. (Think Sex and the City.) New York City is clean, beautiful, and friendly. (Think Woody Allen.) That NYC centric view is obvious in every frame. I think it's great. I can live without the real New York City for an hour and a half.

The movie is sort of a romantic quadrangle, although that's not exactly right. It's more like a romantic pinwheel, with Reaser in the center, and the other characters rotating around her. I find Reaser to be a fascinating actor. In fact, I bought this DVD because of her superb work in "Sweet Land." The script calls for her to be a fascinating actor. It worked for me.

Apparently, I'm in a real minority in my enjoyment of this movie. It has an IMDb rating of 6.0, which is terrible. I'm not sure why it's rated so low. My suggestion--watch it and judge for yourself.

I really wanted to like "Puccini for Beginners" but it is a heavily flawed film.

1. It is not funny enough. I don't think I laughed out loud once and I only chuckled a few time.

2. The main character is not sympathetic enough. She is cheating on both her boyfriend and her girlfriend.

3. It steals too much from the Woody Allen films "Annie Hall" and "Manhattan" but is not nearly as clever as it wants to be.

4. There is hardly any opera music or reference to opera. With a title that contains the name "Puccini," I was expecting opera to play a bigger part.

Despite that, there are some mildly funny parts and the cast is attractive, especially Gretchen Moll. I wish she had been in the film more.

"Puccini for Beginners" is not a really bad film but it is disappointing because it could have been much better. If you are looking for a good lesbian themed comedy, watch "Gray Matters." It was much funnier.

Nice NYC comic romp with a fatal flaw: central character just isn't likable. She's cheating, she's lying, she's whining, she only talks about herself -- so why is everyone falling all over her, aside from sex...

Ms. Mol was a true bright spot in this film. Central character needed some of her charm and warmth -- both in writing and delivery.

This was Closing Night film of a very successful 11th Seattle Lesbian and Gay Film Festival with director and star Justin Kirk in attendance. It received a very warm reception.

Filmed in 18 days 9/05 and doesn't look nearly as low budget as it was.

"She voted Republican, you should have known." Only in American movies does voting Right automatically equate to being a Nazi supporter or being a serial-killer. (Good luck to you if you've already been brainwashed by Hollywood flicks into adopting this mind-set.) There are many other examples of liberal indoctrination; it is persistent and all-present in PFB.

Nearly every character behaves like a pre-election politician trying to rake in votes among his liberal electorate, by injecting as many asinine politically-correct statements into the vapid dialogue as they can; so much so in fact that half-way through this painfully unfunny turkey I was musing on whether the film's incompetent writer/director had the primary goal of entertaining people i.e. making them laugh (remember: a comedy, so that's her job), or whether this terribly lame script was merely an excuse for her to voice her painfully predictable and utterly mindless left-wing views. Either way, she is a buffoon with zero talent. After all, isn't this the same Maria who molested us with "The Incredibly Lame Adventure of Two Girls in Love"?

PFB is bizarre pile of rom-com (all rom and no com) horse-manure about an unbearably unattractive/unappealing lesbian who is at the center of a love square, meaning that she has affairs with three people, almost all at once. In the absurd "reality" of this stupid movie, this ugly woman is desired and lusted over by every man and woman she meets – while Mol Gretchen (the ACTUAL beauty here) is the one getting cheated on and dumped by both men and women. Yes, I'd laugh at this cretinous role-reversal – if only it were intentional. It isn't.

Elizabeth Reaser is such a mediocre and uncharismatic actress and – as I will mention at least ten times more – bearing such a horrendous face, that my nepotism radars immediately switched on. I had a quick look at her bio – and sure enough: her stepfather was nothing less than owner of the Detroit Pistons, a post that her mother took over later on. That explains quite a bit, doesn't it? Further proof that in Hollywood you can only make it if you have relatives in the industry, if you belong to a certain ethnic group, or if you have an upper-class background. (And if you fall into all three categories, a movie-career becomes virtually a certainty – should you want one.) This is quite ironic – and highly hypocritical – considering this movie's pro-Socialist pro-working-class message of equality, huh?

Let me get this straight: the movie promotes anti-capitalism while seeking to make as much profit in a very competitive movie market? Furthermore: the movie portrays Republicans as greedy elitists – while the movie's writer/director hires some rich preppie daughter from a powerful and wealthy American family to play a left-wing lesbian? Perhaps one needs to be daft in the extreme in order to "understand" liberal ideology and the self-contradicting means by which they attempt to impose their views on the rest of us who lack this extreme daftness.

But hip social issues aren't Maria's only pointless obsession. The script is also burdened, saddled, and ultimately crushed by Maria's laughable desire to be taken seriously as an intellectual; that much is obvious. Instead of focusing on making the movie FUNNY (something she's clearly incapable of anyway), this fool tries to impress us with pseudo-intellectual piffle, while making boring left-wing insinuations every 5 minutes – as if Manbearpig itself had hired her for the job.

The script fails in every department, however. The characters aren't believable; they are politically-correct cardboard cut-outs, walking indie-film clichés. They aren't even remotely funny; not even slightly amusing, and very rarely interesting. The dialog sounds fake and forced, not much better than what one gets in a typical episode of "Friends".

Credibility is stretched to breaking point as the entire script relies heavily on absurd coincidences – while Maria desperately tries to justify these too-numerous-to-mention chance meetings with some pretentious, unconvincing gobbledygook about why Freud thought there was "no such thing as coincidence". Besides, who gives a rat's bum what Freud thought about anything not related to psychoanalysis? It's like quoting what Plato thought was the best way to cook spaghetti. Or what Agassi thinks about French poetry.

And nice try, attempting to portray New York's left-wing lesbian "elite" as smart and well-educated. New York City is a place of high imbecility, not at all anymore the city in which "if you can make it here you can make it anywhere". Make what? Bad movies?