John Raymond Peterson
There's a reason this movie is unrated. The criteria for an R rating are likely overstepped. Seriously, all one needs to do to get a sense of what you're going to be watching is read the IMDb full storyline. Common sense prevailing, you know you'll be seeing nudity, erotic scenes, and that's why most will choose to see the movie. Yes, there's a fairly good character study story developed and both Molly Parker and Peter Sarsgaard do a good job of delivering performances that make it such. But let's face it, I'm not the only one that decided to view the film for the character study… as an afterthought. Carla Gugino thrown into the mix helped seal the deal for me. I have to warn the prospective viewers that you'll be seeing as much, if not more, of Sarsgaard's bottom than that of Parker's. I wonder if that could be considered a double spoiler.
fedor8
"Oh, I'm coming inside youuu...!"If this is the sort of dialogue you want, I suggest you delve a little deeper into your DVD store (the hidden depths and secret passages), and get a porn film. Pornos are far quicker in getting to the point - and even the characterization is sometimes better than in TCOTW.However!... A warning, lest you think there is hardcore porn in TCOTW: this crap is strictly soft-core, so don't expect something like "9 Songs", "Intimacy", or "Sex Is Comedy", other similar sex-driven plot-less garbage, masked as "art".Alarms started going off in my little head the moment I read the credits: "screenplay by Ellen Benjamin Wang". Apparently, the director's wife (probably 30 years his junior) must have one day felt that her husband owed her a shot at writing movies, as return for everything she had done for him (hint hint). In fact, maybe the screenplay is loosely autobiographical? A lonely millionaire seeks out an expensive female escort to keep him company in a five-star Las Vegas hotel... I was also surprised that Paul Auster had sunk so low as to waste his time on such cretinous and pointless material.This is what I refer to as a "lifeless movie". D.O.A. The mood is dead, the visual style (filmed mostly on video - whoopdie!) is more bland than your dull neighbour's sea holiday footage. The "hip" shaky-camera shtick gives yet again the impression of a drunken "director of photography" who stuck his camera you-know-where and then filmed the movie from behind, randomly taking in images, sometimes missing the actors completely. The near-lack of a soundtrack only underlines the deadness of everyone and everything involved. Was this crap inspired by "Idiots 95", Lars von Trier's wonderful little crackpot cinematic-revolution firm? The wobbly camera, the sex, the ugly look, and the lack of music certainly adhere to the rules of "Morons 95". We're offered two lead characters who are uninteresting and bland. I could almost see Molly Parker as a stripper (although, they're usually rather mangy-looking), but when it is mentioned that she fixed car-locks and plays the drums, I could have laughed. I could have but didn't, because the movie had already put me in a semi-slumber during its first several minutes. Parker plays an uninteresting, mentally hollow stripper; Sarsgaard plays a run-of-the-mill nice guy: an uninteresting rich and polite semi-nerd. When the two of them were together sparks flew! No, not really... But I'm sure that Ms.Wang intended to have us see those sparks - wherever they may be. Where have those sparks gone? Or were they never even thrown in the film in the first place? Ms.Wang, you need to find out who took those sparks that were meant to be in all those "sexy", "emotional" scenes. I think someone stole them. Or perhaps the sparks abandoned the set, running as fast as their feet(?) could carry them, unwilling to have anything to do with this dull project.Thank God for the miracle of modern science! No, not the internet, computers, or DNA research; I'm talking about the remote control. Using this simple yet effective tool, I managed to finish this 85-minute movie in less than 70 minutes. I know, still too long for this malarkey, but that's at least 15 minutes of my life saved, and every minute counts when you're as bored as I was, watching Ms.Parker try to be sexy with her laughable stripping and tiny butt.So what was the ultimate point of this shamelessly plot-less film? Basically, this is a "when-is-the-penetration-gonna-happen" kind of story. At the outset of their Las Vegas "adventure" Parker tells Sarsgaard and the poor viewers that there will be "no kissing and no penetration", but even the most clueless viewer knows that that's exactly what has to happen at some point. And when it happens it's... it's... rather uninteresting, just like all the previous events. In that great finale they kiss, they have (un)emotional sex, Parker is still frigid, Sarsgaard is still in love - and sobs like a baby after just having semi-raped Parker. He did that to her because he was heavily frustrated. 10,000 bucks and such disrespect? Ts, ts... Maybe the message of the film is this: "rich semi-nerdy young millionaires are often unable to get the proper sexual escort service that they really need". Wow. That IS "deep".Or maybe the movie wants us to muse over whether the vagina or the internet is "the center of the world". (I'm not making this up.) Now, that's DEEP! A little correction. I just found out that "Ellen Banjamin Wang" isn't a "Wang" but a "Wong". Furthermore, she is not a real person but a pseudonym which Wayne Wang so very ingeniously created to represent all the great and inventive minds that put so much thought into this intellectual exercise. Maybe that's why the movie sucks this much: half a dozen writers collaborating on what is essentially a non-story... that can never end well.There is more entertainment to be found in reading the name "Wayne Wang" over and over than watching this film.
rustique
I recently saw this movie again and although the topic may still be important in todays society, as a subject for a movie it however seems a bit outdated. However, it is still a very nice movie. A lot of people are drawn towards this film because of the rumors of graphic visual material. However this is not a pornographic movie and less "shocking" than a movie like "Baise-moi". But this is definitely not the essence of the movie.It deals with the subject of realism in several aspects. One is the reality or artificiality of the life of the computer dude that lives through computers. The internet is his world and is taking over the real world. He can no longer relate to people in a regular way and starts an artificial relationship with a stripper. The movie deals with the question how real these relations can be and where the real world and real emotions fit into this artificiality.This aspect is enhanced by the use of different ways of filming. At certain times it is filmed like any other movie and this cinematic quality fits the "artificial" aspect of the movie. At other times the makers switch to a style of filming whose hand-held camera footage is reminiscent of documentaries and reality shows and whose graininess reminds us of home movies. I find that the makers have made some very nice and efficient cinematographic choices to bring their message. For that alone I find the movie worthwhile. People seem to forget that hand-held does not automatically equate to Blair Witch type movies and can convey so much more.Definitely an interesting movie to watch.
animalmother78
"Center of the World" is a very well photographed drama and is highly worth a viewing, but has several flaws."Center of the World", an almost mirror image of "Leaving Las Vegas" (better film), is about a computer whiz named Richard's (Peter Sarsgaard) three day escape from his everyday life to Las Vegas with a stripper named Florence (the lovely Molly Parker), who he pays to go with him under the conditions they won't have sex.But Richard's promise eventually gets the best of him and he begins to obsess about having the best sex of his life with Florence. Florence, meanwhile, holds Richard back with teases and a "Fire and Ice" (Don't ask me) routine off screen. With each tease, the characters' chemistry builds up and we begin to wonder if Richard and Florence are actually falling in love."Center of the World" has beautiful cinematography. The entire film was shot on tape and a few scenes are in one of the best shades of black and white I've ever scene.Peter Sarsgaard is very good as the naive but extremely polite computer whiz and Molly Parker (although very better in "Pure") pours herself into the tough role of Florence almost as good as Jennifer Connely portrayed Marion in "Requiem for a Dream".The film does have several flaws though. It has far too many sex scenes (often gratuitous), the chemistry between the two characters blooms and dies at any given time and the surprise ending is almost ruined by two scenes directly after the surprise (you'll have to see for yourself)."Center of the World" is a good film worth watching once.
