Wonderful character development!

Fresh and Exciting

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Wow! What a bizarre film! Unfortunately the few funny moments there were were quite overshadowed by it's completely weird and random vibe throughout.

The scenes of New Orleans have taken on a greater importance since the Katrina disaster. Some people will only know N.O. from this movie. (Unfortunately, most people will never see the movie, either.) Real-life characters, clubs, and music make this worthwhile for anyone's viewing at least once. Dialog on esoteric matters resembles 'Slackers'. I enjoyed that a science fiction perspective was required for the relationships to exist, while the vibe of the film is otherwise very neighborhood-low-tech. The problem is that I was fooled into thinking that the accompanying plot mattered, only to be left hanging at the end. Very enjoyable , piece by piece. This would have been a much better film if they had either 1/ tightened up the plot a little, or 2/loosened it enough so that lack of a real resolution wasn't required. .

HAPPY HERE AND NOW is one strange film. I wish it were on DVD because I very much want to see it again. Encountering it a couple of years back at a festival of the Film Society of Lincoln Center "picks," I was thoroughly mystified even as, moment-by-moment, I enjoyed the movie. The ensemble cast is a really interesting grab-bag of performers (from Karl Geary to Ally Sheedy, Shalom Harlow, David Arquette, even Larry Fessenden), and the writing and direction is by Michael Almereyda, a moviemaker who keeps growing as he matures. What really knocked my socks off, however, is the ending: a phenomenal feat of film editing by Kristina Boden (and, one presumes, Almereyda) that, in a single continuous succession of splices, brings together the entire movie--theme, ideas, feelings, visuals--so beautifully and fully that I found myself in tears. It's the first and only time that film editing has ever had THIS effect on me! Please, someone, bring "Happy Here and Now" to DVD.

Mysterious, elliptical film that at first I didn't know what to make of, but I found it really lingered in the mind afterwards and was ultimately one of the most memorable films I saw at the 2002 Toronto International film festival; a really unique play between the real and the imiation of the real and the blurring between them. Funny, strange, affecting; I didn't understand all of it, but I liked it.

Now let me clarify that I love art films. I love abstract ideas. I love seeing and hearing things on screen that make me go,"Wha????, and then go "oohhhh...i get it." But this is no Godard. This film, well, I just don't know. Is it in art film? Is it an excuse to display the gritty, third-world beauty of New Orleans, and the array of characters that lie within? Or is it a low-budget independent film that juggles from one concept to the other, never bothering to connect the dots because, well hell, there wasn't really a solid script in the first place, and never a real purpose to the story(how's that for a run-on sentence)? i guess my problem with this film is that, though it may have been low-budget, they still spent a a good deal on its production and actors, but didn't bother making an actual story with what they had. I was intrigued by the film and the ideas it was portraying. And if the whole film would have been as beautifully-abstract as the final dream sequence, or even the beginning (the music score, by David Julyan is great!), I would have wept--in a good way--like a child. I saw this at the New Orleans film fest in a packed house of audience members happy enough to see people and places they recognized: Ernie K. Doe, Bud's Broiler, etc. But perhaps they loved it...who knows?The ideas, talent, and potential are there for a good film. But as a whole, the film makes you go, "hmmmmm....interesting....NEXT PLEASE!"