Every few years, it seems, a film comes out detailing the exploits of a menage a trois. "Summer Lovers", "Threesome", "Three to Tango" are a few examples. By this time, there isn't a whole lot new that can be added to the mix, though this film tries hard to be lively, edgy, funny and compelling. Robertson plays a young, struggling actress in L.A. who's in the midst of a sexual dry spell. Amazingly, in one night, she falls for two guys. One, Schaech, is a bookish, sensitive type while the other, Keeslar, is a wild, tattooed drummer in a band. She attempts to juggle the men and decide which one she truly wants to pursue, but eventually decides that she can't decide. Tentatively, she explains to each one of them that she has feelings for both of them. One night, with the help of several bottles of booze, they discover that they can actually function as a threesome, eventually living together. Unfortunately, things eventually get out of hand as Robertson begins to doubt the practicality of the situation and wonders if she can really have a life with these men. In walks film director Mabius who seems to fulfill every need she's ever had, except she doesn't feel for him the spark that she did with the other guys. Meanwhile, her funky artist friend MacDonald supplies commentary and support from the sidelines. Robertson, looking very lovely here, gives as good a performance as anyone could of such a self-indulgent, rather reckless person. She narrates the film in flashback with several in-your-face close-ups, speaking in that Gen-X way that can annoy some older viewers. Still, she's good in the film and manages, most of the time, to retain the audience's sympathy. Schaech, who smokes incessantly throughout, is attractive (despite some pronounced dark circles under his eyes) and reasonably appealing. Keeslar is, at first glance, a dumb lug, but his appeal grows throughout the film and he winds up as one of the most lovable characters. He's handsome and sexy. MacDonald enjoys her sassy role and has quite a few sarcastic and funny lines. Mabius is very likable, perhaps too likable to make this story really work since it's hard to see why he isn't good enough for Robertson. He gives an amiable, gentle, memorable performance which goes fairly unrewarded in the film. This is a revved up, colorful, splashy rendition of the old threesome genre that is often sexy and rarely boring. It looks great and has some nice acting in it. Unfortunately, it never seems particularly real and the ending is less satisfying than it would like to be (not to mention clichéd.) Additionally, two characters who claim to have gone through great change actually haven't changed at all since they barely could pull it together to even present themselves at the climax. The story is pretty much paint by numbers and it's up to the actors to fill it in and try to make it all work. It only does so marginally. Still, it's an arresting and intriguing movie with more than a few memorable sequences.

This is one of Gregg Araki's best work yet. Kathleen Robertson, Johnathon Schaech, & Matt Keesler all did such a wonderful job. I recommend all all 3 actors other projects as well as Gregg Araki's other films especially "Nowhere" that featured Kathleen Robertson in it.The film is extremely funny and very interesting in most parts. I think Veronica(Robertson)has good taste for choosing 2 sexy men!!! She is my favorite actress and everything she does is so good so if you haven't seen the movie, go get it, it's great!!!!

This movie has a fresh and intriguing premise -- or anyway, one which is carried forward and explored to an unusual degree. But unfortunately it both is and isn't very well done.Visually, it's very well done. Kathleen Robertson, as the Victoria who can attract two hunky guys so much that they put up with living all together, is absolutely stunning. She's a blonde beauty to begin with, but as well her face positively radiates light in this film. She's got the glowing look of a woman first falling head over hells in love, and then pregnant at the same time. I'm not sure how they / she did it, but it's pretty compelling. As well the reckless young 20 something LA party scene atmosphere, which Araki used with even more (and darker) abandon in "Doom" and "Nowhere" (and I understand as well in the all gay "Totally F**ked Up" which I haven't seen), is colorful here as well. Veronica's jumping Matt at second sight, in the bathroom, is a memorably abandoned casual sex scene. Hot. Most of the movie is in high contrast, diffuse back lighted candy colors. The atmosphere is fun, fun, fun. All of which makes a good date movie.Emotionally it only goes just below skin deep. Yeah, OK, the two guys have different personalities, sort of. One is the carefree musician / jock physical type. None too bright. But sweet. The other is the emotionally soulful writer type. But both soon seem to merge into hunky male dependency on her, financially and emotionally. Ah yes. The theme song of the feminist 90's. Actually, she digs it.There are some interesting sex relations insights (gay world derrived -- natch for the 90's), such as that for a two hunky guys and one gorgeous girl threesome in the same bed to work, the two guys are gonna have to get off on each other physically as well as emotionally, at least to some degree. (Just kissing, the film pretends -- maybe.) But supposedly all are overwhelming hetero, if not entirely exclusively so. The relationship conflicts which would be sure to be there, to be dealt with successfully perhaps, are hardly seen at all in this film. In fact the guys look increasingly gay to me, but that is little explored.Instead, the plot moves forward through a different conflict -- her perceived need for ANOTHER sort of man. A career and financially successful one, who can help her in the traditional ways -- once she learns she's pregnant from one of her happy go lucky, but femme submissive, hunks. The trouble of course is that she doesn't LOVE the successful guy. He too is a male submissive, but of the casper milktoast variety. I mean this guy convinces her to go with him on a weekend getaway to his condo in Maui with the promise of "only talking", and then when she's receptive to him after being blow away by the luxe, he remains "true to his word", the idiot, and doesn't do diddly. She was begging for it Earnest. Talk about a testosterone deficit!!!Nonetheless, our heroine gets engaged to Earnest. He's so nice, and life with him would be so secure. This is getting pedestrian. As well, at this point the film loses any semblance of honesty. "Earnest is the kind of guy who would stick around, whether it was fun or not", she explains to her girlfriend. Of course the film never asks the obvious reverse question. Is she? Probably because you'd get the wrong answer. Next her lesbo girlfriend warns her against marrying someone she doesn't really and truly love. "I'm doing the responsible thing" she says. Her girlfriend counters: 'Even if it means ball and chaining yourself to him for the rest of your life?"As if!!! Under today's feminist "reformed" divorce laws? What total dishonesty! Just what would be the downside to Victoria marrying Earnest? How long does she have to stay with him? What does she get if she splits after a couple of years? For that matter, what would keep this thinking-outside-the-traditional-box femme from shacking up with her two hunks three or four nights a week while she's married to her well off milktoast? And what would be the consequences for her if she did? Horrible, for such duplicity, right? Hardly. If Earnest decided not to put up with it after a while, guess who'd have to pay for the mistake, and the transgressions? Why Earnest of course!!! Welcome to marriage law in feminist America. Whatever emotional significance most people still attach to marriage commitments at least before the fact, legally marriage is now almost entirely a one way contract which obligates only men, and not women. Was the possibility that Earnest could be viewed by Victoria not as an alternative to her dual action thing, but really as a supplement to it, touched on by this flick? Why not? After all, isn't it a natural line to explore, since she's trying to combine an edgy sexual relationship with multiple submissive men, with financial security for her child? Isn't it begging to be explored, after a line like: 'Even if it means ball and chaining yourself to him for the rest of your life?"Maybe it's not because then the incredible bias in feminist "reformed" American marriage (divorce) law today would come into focus. We can't have that, now can we?Oh, and another thing. When are we going to see a flick which flips this script? Two (or more) predominantly hetero women living happily with one guy? Where that is celebrated, I mean, rather than vilified. When in the last 1 1/2 decades has that been done? Anyone care to name the American film? It can't be done.

Likable romantic menage-a-trois (if that's how it's spelled)... will she dump crazy "them" for steady "him"? Find out! Girls may like this for brief hints of guy-on-guy action. Guys may be relieved that the hints of guy-on-guy action are brief.Reasonably daring and assertive without being particularly pretentious nor overly deep.