Memorable, crazy movie

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Honestly you can watch this thing in fast forward and still understand the gist of the movie, because that's exactly what I did. I think all the actors did a decent job (I've seen Kelly Lynch in other things and she's great), but the plot was wretched and the characters were flimsy. Who acts like these people? Here's a run down of the main characters: Connie: too over-the-top pathetic Ellen: Hot, but not interesting Joe: WTF!! The moral transformation- "bad boy turned good" was phony. Actually the only great character was played by Joe Pantoliano. Maybe the movie should have been about him and not these confused and hard-up people.

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: I saw this so long ago but loved the premise and really enjoyed it as a comedy even though it's totally off the wall. But it was a good movie, it had funny, fun, characters involved in a rather strange(to put it mildly) situation, and although it's extremely predictable, when one's in the mood for a Genuinely fun, though rather odd, romantic comedy, you could do worse then three of hearts.Three of Hearts didn't get a lot of attention but was, in fact, better then a lot of more popular movies of this genre might be. The plot was kooky as anything but surprisingly worked extremely well, and the mix of performers were great, as they all worked very well together. It also, happily, didn't wind up being cheesy at all because that's always a worry with romantic comedies. But that wasn't a problem here.Of coarse, there is an element of predictability one might expect from a movie such as this. But basically, everything flowed quite nicely. And no matter how predictable the movie, ultimately was, the premise that started the whole thing, was quite original and carried out quite well. Lastly, it's always nice to see one of my favorite actresses-Cherlyn Fenn. All in all this is worth a look if you haven't seen it. My rating is 7 out of 10.

Well, I saw this film one night by accident, but I was petrified, because the only humour part -which I consider very important for this sort of romance movies- was wholy put on Joe Pantoliano's shoulders; his character was really powerful, hilarious and a bit outrageous, componding a supporting role as well as the classic formers second actors in the past. In this movie, he looks like specially attractive and masculine. The female actress are average in their representation of a broken lesbian couple; I think William Baldwin is the worst actor here because it's not very believeable his carachter componding.

Alright, I gave this film no chance, watched it only because it was on and Joe Jackson did the score and knew I wouldn't even keep it on the whole time, but still... sometimes films I intend to dislike ("Signs" is one) turn out to be quite good. This one was not.William Baldwin, Kelly Lynch and Sherilyn Fenn play three annoying city patrons whose lives intertwine in the fact that Kelly Lynch(the most irritating of them all), a lesbian, broke up with her girlfriend (Fenn) and wants her friend (Baldwin who appears totally bored) to pretend to love her ex so that somehow Ms. Fenn will come racing back to her. Or something like that.Watching this movie is about as exciting as reading the phonebook. The lines are dull; I've already singled out Herr Baldwin, but all of the actors seem rather listless and lackluster; the lighting is annoying; and the score that I tuned into the dumb thing exclusively to hear is HARD to hear(but sounded good) because the sound quality was not too hot, either. Finally, I just gave up watching. What a waste it was.