This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

the audience applauded

Lack of good storyline.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

the viewer is dead wrong who claims that some 'mercenary' has 'exploited' hilary swank's success by releasing one of her early roles in a 'worthless B movie.' first, this film was made seven years after her first role, and just before her breakout role in 'boys don't cry.'second, it is the job of the owner of a library to make money from that product - as much money as can be made; so how is that 'mercenary'?third, this is NOT a worthless movie.it's too bad that some people don't understand authentic depictions of life when they see them. having grown up on the streets of Hollywood, i found this film to be remarkably accurate in its picture of that town. in fact, i was surprised that it took a largely-German crew to get it so right.the camera work and editing were superb, considering that the film is not a big-budget work. the script was, if not brilliant, at least very thoughtfully wrought (though i could object to several scenes that strained believability).its format is the meta-rondel (or meta-rondelle), a form in which we follow an object or an idea from one character or set of characters through other sets of characters until we come to a conclusion. other rondels are: La Ronde (1950), The Gun (1974), Twenty Bucks (1993), The Yellow Rolls-Royce (1964), and Winchester '73 (1950).the viewer previously mentioned is correct in that the film follows semi-related sexual encounters, which are the subject of this rondel.all in all, a film worth watching.

Matt Adler fans might be interested in this one, though he only appears as a very minor supporting character for three or four minutes total. But what the heck? It's one of the last films he's actually appeared in (because he's doing mostly adr loop credits these days).In spite of that, however, this is one utterly dull movie. You have probably seen a zillion movies just like this one, a few separate stories which share interrelated characters (in one way or another). But, they're basically very short scenes of insignificant events between the characters (all connected through sex) in which they take the time to pontificate (both through action and dialog) to the point where your wondering if you're the only one who has no idea what they're saying or if you're the only one who doesn't care. While there were a few interesting things that occur in the movie (most all of them involving any of the scenes with Hillary Swanks character--since she was probably the most interesting, if not the most likable character in the whole mess), this is just about an hour and half of non-sequential nothing. It may work in some films (Tarrantino, borrowing from the anarchistic stylings of 70s french and Italian filmmakers was able to pull it off, among others), but this the way 'Quiet Days in Hollywood' worked out, it is one of the many that makes no sense, and rarely strives to do little more than waste time.

I can't believe that some people gave this movie a 10! I could barely stay awake while watching it and I had just woken up! There didn't seem to be any distinct plot, the acting was horrible, and the dialogue was bland. I honestly don't know why this movie was ever made.

This early Hilary Swank movie showcases Ms. Swank's charisma but little of her talent. She has a thankless role(the foul-mouthed but philosophical hooker with the ubiquitous heart of gold), but to her credit she speaks her ridiculous lines(I'm sure the German to English translation didn't help) without embarrassing herself.Hilary is only in the first and last vignettes, and the first is a total waste; she's just not meant for this kind of role(but who would be). The later scene is the best part of this film and there's a moment where she jumps in the shower(no nudity shown) and exclaims "It's cold!" with a wonderful smile on her face that lightens the whole(rather depressing) affair up. Her repartee w/ Peter Dobson(and doesn't his voice sound EXACTLY like Martin Sheen's?) is natural and funny, if poorly written.Natasha Gregson Wagner is similarly wasted(as she was in Another Day in Paradise(a very good movie BTW)).The rest of the movie makes it painfully obvious that the director/writer has worn out his copies of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, esp. the diner scene with Chad Lowe.A professional effort but it's only for Swank/NGW/Tarantino fans.