Reviews (7)

Comparable to MEAN STREETS
The principal difference between MEAN STREETS and FINGERS is that the focus in FINGERS is exclusively on the character played by Mr Keitel and his relationship with his father (mainly) and his mother, and his search for a partner who will give expression to his sexual longings. The maintenance of tone throughout the film by Mr Toback is superb. He also does not rush and cross cut scenes - he allows the inherent momentum of the scene to develop at the pace of the characters conversation, reactions and interactions. The location shooting is vivid and relevant. The sex and violence are also dramatically relevant and quite powerful, but the macho world may be offensive to a modern perspective where women are treated as compliant , and sometimes not so compliant, sex objects. Just one memorable scene: Jimmy informs his mother that his piano audition did not go so well. His mother stares, squints, scrunches up her face and turns to the wall, utters no words but speaks volumes. In another scene his father tells him he should have been strangled at birth. Jimmy takes out his rage in a number of ways.
Well worth owning. Good Bach piano too.

Keitel Is Perfect As Usual
James Toback is quoted as telling Harvey Keitel in the Beverly Hills Hotel in 1977 that Keitel "was born to do Fingers." Toback was right; Keitel delivers a first-rate performance that is arguably his best ever, alongside his work in Mean Streets and Bad Lieutenant. This story is about mental anguish derived from perfectionism; Keitel tries to please his mobster father and his high-strung(describing his mother at best)pianist mother and fails, causing him to fall deeper and deeper into a brewing vat of psychosis. He can find no love from his parents; to satisfy his hunger for love, he becomes fixated on a call girl named Carol (an excellent performance by Tisa Farrow)who he can never have. The rejection of him by his mother, the death of his father, and the loss of Carol combine to push Keitel's character, Jimmy Angelelli, over the edge. Keitel is the father of method acting; his ability to apply the pain he has suffered in real-life situations to scenes in films strengthens the impact of the story once it is told. It's important to remember that this man was praised by Jack Nicholson, a multiple Oscar Winner, as "the best actor I've [Nicholson] ever worked with." This film bombed at the box office; it only played for a few weeks and prior to VHS proliferation in the mid 80s, only hard-core film buffs would have seen this. The film was a failure primarily because Keitel was never taken seriously by Hollywood as a leading man. Hollywood producers only ever saw the young Italian hood Charlie Cappa from Mean Streets when they saw Keitel. If you like stories about tormented characters, Keitel provides an Oscar-caliber performance. Of course, this clashes with Hollywood's view on Keitel, but let me leave you with the following truism: There is no such thing as meritocracy in acting; connections, not talent, make stars. This is why Keitel's career was dead from the making of Fingers until his comeback in the early 90s with Bugsy, Bad Lieutenant, and Reservoir Dogs.

An educated look at the underside of life.
Many times over the years James Toback has been referred to as 'brilliant', and a good deal of those times the film 'Fingers' is mentioned in the same sentence.

It stands right there with Resevoir Dogs, Bad Lieutenant, and Mean Streets-all Harvey Keitel films which have over the years gotten far more applause than they did earlier..

Actually the premise is just enough unique: the concert pianist from the wrong side of the tracks, the carefree and confused collector for his bookie father.

Toback's dialogue is very raw, but it is on target for the very raw world he describes.

Michael Gazzo gives one of his best performances ever as Keitel's father.

Not to be missed, but if you look to Toback to recreate this magic with his later efforts, 'The Pick-Up Artist" or "Exposed", don't waste your time. Even his recent "Two Girls and a Guy" might have been "Two Mil Down the Drain" without the superb performance of Robert Downey Jr.

Manual Dexterity
In all my years of movie viewing, there have been only two movies that I completely hated upon my first viewing: James Toback's FINGERS and David Lynch's BLUE VELVET. To me, the former was a 90-minute exercise in incompetence, with the director wallowing in material unfit for a sewer. The latter was indescribable - an eclectic assortment of unrelated images sewn together by momentary fits of brutal and sexual savagery. I never would have thought that my utter lack of understanding in film as a visual language would soon come to pass, and ultimately permit me to enjoy further viewings of these films which have become two of my all-time favorites.

FINGERS is one of the best movies you've more than likely never heard of. Though I found it to be initially revolting, I gave the film another chance and boy am I glad I did. Watching the film a second time revealed one of the most audacious and best films made in the 1970's. Harvey Keitel gives what to me is his best film performance. As Jimmy Angelleli (an Angel in Hell - nice symbolism!), he's an aspiring concert pianist moonlighting as a collector for his loan shark father, played wonderfully by the late Michael V. Gazzo. The predominantly New York City cast is made up primarily of great character actors from THE GODFATHER films, in particular Dominic Chianese (finally getting recognition on THE SOPRANOS) and Lenny Montana. Tony Sirico, who plays Pauly Walnuts on THE SOPRANOS, is terrific as a gangster who has a nasty scuffle in a stairwell with Keitel. Danny Aiello and Ed Marinaro are great as Sirico's henchmen, and Tanya Roberts(!) plays Sirico's girlfriend. Marian Seldes is excellent in her small role as Keitel's mother. Tom Signorelli is great as a convict sharing a cell with Keitel. Jim Brown rounds out the cast as Dreems, and Tisa Farrow plays his fey girlfriend.

Be warned, however - FINGERS is not for everyone. It is at times a brutal and depressing drama. However, you should give it a chance if you like MEAN STREETS and TAXI DRIVER, as these are the films that come to mind while watching FINGERS.

The film was shot by cinematographer Michael Chapman, a master of some great 1970's films like THE LAST DETAIL, TAXI DRIVER, and RAGING BULL. His camera mastery is brilliant here. This, like THE FRENCH CONNECTION, is a highly visceral New York movie.

James Toback deserves kudos for making an uncompromising film. For a directorial debut, it's a stunning achievement, and it's the sort of film that would never get made today. Superb.

Not the best mob movie or Keitel movie
This movie is worth watching to see Tanya Roberts get boinged in a bathroom by a very sleazy Keitel. ... Read more

Description

A billionaire businessman hires a man to influence a South American dictator and the man ends up having an affair with the businessman's wife. ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Don't waste your time, love or money.
I took a UCLA extension class in the early '80s called "Sneak Previews" which was self explanatory: it was essentially viewing movies before they were released to the general public. This was one of them, and it turned out to be one of the biggest pieces of cinematic crap I have ever had the dishonor of sitting through. Ornella Muti is gorgeous as all-get-out, but she cannot act to save her life, at least in this stinker. The fact that this person is the only thing I can remember about this movie says it all. If it ever turns up on TV, change the channel, or if you can't, run like hell.

Ornella Muti strong debut in the Usa
AS it was written by the BIBLE of the genre VARIETY this film introduces the Goddess of Italian stars Ornella Muti to the American audience showing the actress beauty and charm....a wonderful actress whose appeal has been compared to the one of Sophia Loren.
The film is ok and the love scenes by Muti remain an icon.look at the film and you'll see. ... Read more

Amazon.com

From the pen of James Toback comes this ridiculous talk-fest, in which people seem to say whatever comes into their minds, whether it's interesting, germane, or doesn't even makes sense. What story there is centers on Robert Downey Jr., an inveterate womanizer who meets the girl of his dreams--and the one woman immune to his charms. She's Molly Ringwald, and her drunken father (Dennis Hopper) is in debt up to his neck to the mob. So she agrees to go to Atlantic City with a surly mobster and his cronies (Danny Aiello and Harvey Keitel), who have more than gambling on their minds. Downey tries to save Ringwald, even as he attempts to convince her that he can curb his wandering eye and be faithful to her. These people never shut up, but you'll quickly wish they would. --Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (7)

The Addiction of Risk Taking . . .
A gambling addict and a double-parking live-on-the-edge risk taker (who is no good at all at picking up women) luck out and escape from a life-threatening conflict with the mob (the addict's addicted father owes money), immediately come to their senses, and "change their ways." Do you believe it? This fantasy ags risk takers on, as evidenced by one review below.

Still, Molly Ringwald is adorable as Randy the risk-taking museum guide, and even though Robert Downey was a much more convincing (and appealing) pick up artist as the shoe salesman in "Only You," I gave this movie 3 stars. Dennis Hopper is quite convincing as Flash the lush-gambler-dad, and some of my favorite stars made cameo appearances.

If taken as a serious movie, only the fiction of reform is flawed. Everything else hangs nicely. Jack (Downey) is co-dependently taking care of his grandmother, who is addicted to her own kind of risk, and as she makes a sudden recovery and needs him less, he switches to Molly, who is constantly propping up her drunk, gambler father, while sharing at least one of his vices. Molly resists the new relationship until her dad shows signs of reforming. Of course she'll need a new problem.

Feel like taking a risk? The movie is cheap enough. Give it a shot. But if you get in trouble with the mob, find some other way to get out of it!

cute movie
This movie isn't one of Downey's best, but it's a pretty good movie.Especially for fans of Robert Downey Jr. or Molly Ringwald. Robert still has a sorta chubby, youthful face and a gap between his teeth(which i don't think is real). He and Molly Ringwald shine through the movie. Very sweet and funny and romantic.

Pick this Film Up!
Before his troubles with the law, Robert Downey, Jr. starred in this charming comedy vehicle as Jack, a schoolteacher, who knows more pick up lines than a politician on Capitol Hill. During one of his frequent visits to one of New York City's many night club, he meets Randy Jensen (Ringwald)a museum guide at the American Museum of Natural History whom he becomes fascinated with.

During a short period, Jack discovers that he has met his match in Randy due to her hard-to-get attitude. However, due to her father's trouble with the mob, Randy must find a way to clear her father out of the debt he acquired from gambling. This is where Jack enters, and after an unsuccessful streak of luck in Atlantic City, Jack risks everything to help Randy out. Jack the player gives up his game and pursuit of women all for the name of love.

This is one of my all-time favorite romantic comedies. The beauty and ambiance of New York City in its' P.G. (Pre-Giuliani) days are memorable, especially for me as a native. Keep an eye out for cameos by Vanessa Williams, Victoria Jackson, Danny Aiello, and Dennis Hopper as Randy's father. Director James Toback ("Two Girls & a Guy"; "Black and White") does an excellent job of capturing Downey's immense talent on screen, and Ringwald in one of her post-Brat pack films also shines. This was one of her final films before she moved to France for a few years.

If you are in a mood for a great romantic comedy try this comedy as well as "Trick". Both films were filmed in New York and offer the audience with a charming storyline and memorable characters. Overall, the "Pick Up Artist" is an excellent film that will capture your heart.

Great movie!!
I remcommend this movie to evryone. It's funny and romantic. Robert Downey, Jr. and Molly Ringwald make a cute couple in this movie.

Good movie!!
This was a good movie. It was funny and romantic. I recommend it for people who haven't seen it yet. So go rent this NOW! ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Two Girls and A Guy brought to life by its actors
"Two Girls and a Guy" is among the wittiest and most realistic dramas I have seen n recent years. Although it has been criticized for being too "talky" and not following a structured plot, this movie struck me by its realism. The characters and their conversations are rich and engaging. This is one of Heather Graham's finest performances. Natasha Gregson Wagner is also impressive and successful as the other woman. The relationship and comradery between these two characters--total opposites--is very enjoyable. And then there is Robert Downey Jr. Stealing the focus of every scene he is in, he is extraordinary. He is flawless in his portrayal of Blake, the lying, cheating, needy, and defensive actor. His interaction with himself is as captivating as the scenes where all three actors are conversing. He invokes so much emotion and frustration from his audience, and creates one of the most complex and fascinating characters in modern cinema.

Funny look at a fractured love triangle
This movie plays like a long running one act play, with basically only three central characters. Only two other people are actually seen in this movie, at the very beginning when the two girls are waiting outside, but they could have just as easily been written out and nothing of the movie would have been lost. Everything in the movie takes place right outside an apartment house, for the first five minutes, and the rest of the time it all happens inside one of the apartments. I'm not trying to be vague here, just giving the general layout of what's going on.

The movie really begins when the two girls, both waiting for their boyfriend to come home so they can surprise him, are surprised themselves to find out they are both waiting for the same guy. Heather Graham plays Carla, and Natasha Gregson Wagner plays Lou, short for Louise. Louise breaks into Blakes, Rober Downey Jr's, apartment, and the two girls wait to confront him when he comes home.

This premise sets up a mostly entertaining movie, in which the womanizing Blake lies, bluffs, and stumbles through arguments about why what he did wasn't so bad. The women show much outrage and rail against his masculinity at his pathetic act, and call him just about every name in the book, and then some. One of the best scenes is one where Blake stares at his own reflection in the mirror, chastising himself for what he is, and trying to promise himself that he'll change, but even he's not sure if he can believe himself.

As time passes, more secrets are revealed, the girls spill the beans on their own infidelities, and we come to know these people better. They seem to embrace the desire for love more than the actually conception of what love is. None of them seem ready for, nor really expecting, the permanent meant for life type of love, as revealed by their confessions, and propositions for one another.

The ending, unfortunately, is a little bland, and leaves things a little up in the air, but it would have been hard to have slapped a happily ever after ending onto this movie, so I guess it mostly fits the character of the story. I guess I would have just liked to have known what Lou was up to at the end, and whether Carla ever takes her up on her offer. In my mind, she does.

What?
This movie was stupid. It had a bad plot. It was very pointless. The only good thing about this movie was Robert Downey Jr's acting which was why I gave it 2 stars. The other 2 were good. But The plot...I'm not even gonna' start with the plot. The whole movie was stupid. I also don't get why this got an NC-17 rating. I don't want any dumb reviewer bad mouthing me just cause I don'get why this movie got an NC-17, I'm just wandering why it got it? It doesn't have any nudity or strong sexualy explicit nude scenes or what ever you call it.
Unless if it was for that scene between Jr and Graham then that is dumb.

Over all if you like dumb comedies go and watch it..

Later

Disappointing
I'm glad we rented this movie instead of purchasing it. Basic flaw was the script - two women discovering they had the same boyfriend could have turned into something clever or even funny. I kept waiting for clever or funny but it never happened. Downey, Graham, and Wagner did the best they could, but the material they had to work was amateurish at best and insipid at worst.

Not without weak points
I watched this movie through once and hit play again as soon as the dvd finished spinning back to the main menu. It's been years, if ever, since I did that with any movie. Considering that some of the scenes were obviously filmed when they'd barely had a chance to read through the lines, it says a lot for the successful emotional imagery in this movie.

You've probably seen plot synopses (or will if you scroll down) and seen plenty of zero-star reviews. If you decide to see this movie, be prepared for a few scenes that really do look amateurish. They're beatuifully shot and all the production values are spot-on, but Heather Graham and Natasha Gregson Wagner just aren't those rare gifted actors who can walk in and give a perfect performance after a day or two of rehearsal. Robert Downey *is*, though.

In the scenes with Downey, Graham and Wagner seem to wake up a little bit and show enough assuredness to really hit their lines. All the dialog is interesting -- provocative or funny -- but some of the readings clunk, especially in the early going. But Downey improvises, sings, plays piano, and hits all kinds interesting emotional changes. His soliloquy from Hamlet is so good that you will understand perfectly well why Mel Gibson was willing to mount a production of Hamlet with him at the Taper Forum (L.A.) even though Downey couldn't get insured at the time. And Gibson took a bath on it when Downey got arrested, and all he said to the press was "you should have seen him in readings...good enough to break your heart." Or words to that effect. Man, that would have been a Hamlet to see.

This movie really does its job when it finally gets moving. If you can imagine being in the mood for watching people talk to themselves in the mirror and talk to each other in long, hyper-animated, self-serving sentences, then it's hard to imagine a better movie to suit. Personally, I kinda think the people who hated this movie probably hated Lost in Translation because there "wasn't enough going on" and the characters "didn't hit the town and see all that Tokyo has to offer." Ignore the fact that this movie takes place in New York, and try to picture how you'd feel if you busted somebody for cheating on you, or got busted for cheating on them, and then see this movie and see how their responses measure up. ... Read more

Reviews (41)

WHAT! MEDICATION! WHAT MOVIE DID YOU WATCH??
WHAT MOVIE INVOLVED SOMEONE AND MEDICATION?
I JUST HAD TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT REVIEW!
BEFORE THIS ONE!
THE MOVIE WAS NOT ABOUT A PERSON TAKING MEDS!
I LOVE THIS MOVIE!
RICH(OLI GRANT)WONDERFUL VOICE AND HE IS CUTE!
5 STARS!

What The....
Ok, this movie was wierd and it was like a kid with ADD who skipped his medication just to spite himself. I liked Ben Stiller, but what in the...the...can I call it a story line??? I'm sure I couldn't do better myself, as I have skipped my medication for years( if I had meds) but I guess the one good thing that came of this movie was the Kissing climax with Brooke Shields and the 18 year old fly boy, Lij. Good job, and the song they played at the end was cool, but in general I think rap (which is a story theme) is too redundant except for old school Beasty Boys...am I dating myself? Sorry, I hope teenage girls don't get any ideas...stay away from Central Park, Ladies!!!

ANOTHER MOVIE WITH NO POINT
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER STUPID MOVIE WITH NO POINT ALL IT IS IS JUST A BUNCH OF IGNORENT NI$$AZ ARGUING AND CURSING AT EACH OTHER IT WAS SO STUPID.

Popcorn Plot?
What else can I say? I don't watch a lot of Flicks because they disgust me. As an ex-screenwriter, working out of LA, I found Black & White to be what more films should be -- an expression, a journey, an exploration! Yes this film has no plot, but is that a problem? I think not!

Take a look at the top selling DVDs or the box office receipts and you'll see what Americans like, an easy to follow story line, lots of conflict, a few burning cars and shoot em up scenes and of course, a happy ending, one in which the conflict is resolved.

This flick is none of these, rather it's an experiment, one that flopped horribly in the box office. I've come to learn that many of the best films fail to make money. Spiderman.....please give me a break!

If you enjoy film as an art, buy this flick and you won't be disappointed. If any one tells you anything else, ask them for the best flicks in their collection and I'll bet they are all box office smashes that go great with a $5.00 box of popcorn.

Black and White and hard to watch
I like a few of the actors from other movies, and had heard Ebert's positive review (especially about Robert Downey Jr, & Mike Tyson's part) so I decided to watch Black and White.

This movie now sits in the bottom of the barrel of bad movies I've seen, next to Armageddon, Lost and Delirious, and a few others.

I've never seen Brooke Shields look worse - dreadlocks and a nose-ring...I understand it is not a movie about her or her looks, but still, her dialogue ("Let us share your life!" or whatever - I'm trying to forget the movie) was just weak. Also, for some reason, that tiny camera she carried did not convince me of her documentarian prowess...

Robert Downey Jr was kind of interesting as Brooke's gay husband, and his brief scene with Mike Tyson was kind of funny, but that did not make up for the rest of the movie.

Claudia Shiffer was pretty good, although her character ...., as did all the others.

I had no interest in the characters or the lifestyle that was portrayed.

The commentray by James Toback was just as hard to listen to as the movie was to watch. He seemed to be on tranquilizers, mumbled frequently, and thinks himself great.

1 star, only for Robert Downey Jr & Mike Tyson. Can you decipher my vernacular? ... Read more

Reviews (2)

Asking ordinary folk about the origins of the universe...
We have all seen "man in the street interviews," where a microphone is shoved in someone's face and a sound bite is gathered for the nightly news as the great issues of our time are considered by ordinary folk who offer baleful opinions or heated comments for mass consumption. James Toback's 1990 documentary "The Big Bang" shows what you can find when you take the time to get into the minds of the masses. The premise is rather simple: Toback heads off with his camera and ask people how they think the world began. He interviews 18 people from the proverbial all walks of life, from nuns to gangsters, from astronomers to violinists. There is even Daryl Dawkins the NBA's infamous self-proclaimed Chocolate Thunder known for his shattering of backboards more than philosophical musings, but always a fun interview. Their initial answers are usually what we would expect, but what makes their responses interesting is that the topic quickly expands way beyond the Big Bang. We get what these people think about, well, the great issues of all time: God, sex, love, race, class, life, death and much, much more. It is not so much that there is great depth out there on the street, but rather than people put big things together in the most interesting combinations. More to the point, Toback manages to arrange these bits and pieces into a coherent argumentative structure of sorts. The end result is that you cannot help but think about your own thoughts on these issues and how they matter in your own life, even if no one with a camera is asking you. "The Big Bang" is not a great documentary, but it is certainly interesting.

One of the best film I have ever seen!
Anyone out there who liked "My Dinner with Andre" will surely love this movie. It is an absorbing look into the variety of worldviews that exist among our fellow human beings. What makes this so fascinating is the choice of those that are interviewed for the movie -- from athletes to Auschwitz survivors (even the late movie producer, Don Simpson). If you have any interest in the BIG QUESTIONS about our existence, you must see this movie! ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Talented actors, bad script
Read the other reviews for plot and story information.
After reading the synaposis about sex, drugs and gambling on the video cover in which Sarah Gellar, Joey Adams,and Rebecca Gayheart are present, I could only anticipate the sexy possibilities that could be forthcoming.
Unfortunately, the lack of any interesting storyline in the plot killed any notion of that even 1/2 hour into the movie.
It's hard to even imagine that Alan Jensen (Adrian Grenier) would even be able to bed both the Professor Chesney, and his girlfriend Cindy even if he is on the basketball team. We never know what Jensen's personality is really like except that he is into drugs. Is he smart, funny, what got him into Harvard? Who knows & who cares?
Gellar is acceptable as the daughter of a mobster. Adams is the most enjoyable part of the movie, with her raspy, sexy voice. She makes sense and is the glue that holds the stories together . The sex scenes, and they are not explicit, contain a lot of noices, but are boring, and except for Cindy and Alan's performance in the woods, none of it even matters.
The Director does amuse a little with some camera effects after Jensen takes some LSD, but those again, get boring and overused.
The performance of Stoltz and Gayheart as FBI agents is a joke. (I just ruined the only twist of the movie.
This was a long 2 hours. I hope Harvard is better than this!

Actually pretty good
First off, as a rather big SMG fan, I cannot believe this film has received lower ratings than "Simply Irresistible"! That was a limp, wooden "romantic comedy" featuring a couple who lacked any chemistry.

"Harvard Man", on the other hand, has a modicum of style, plot, and intelligence behind it. It doesn't really work in the final analysis - not because of any failings of the acting, which is mostly excellent (although I just can't overcome my aversion to Joey Lauren Adams' squeaky voice), but because the movie doesn't quite hit the pitch of danger that I felt it needed to sustain the drama. Toback, however, does compelling things with sequencing, flash forwards and back, and with camerawork, split-screen and so on, and the dialogue is mostly fine. The lighting has a nice grainy amber texture to it and the soundtrack is a fun mix of hip-hop and classical.

Grenier in the lead does well, Stolz and Gayheart are great, and Sarah Michelle - and yes, I do have a slight bias - proves again that she has excellent range. As well as being a cutie-patootie. "Scooby Doo" and all is fine, but please, SMG, pick a project that will demonstrate your dramatic chops to the non-believers out there! I'd love to see her do work on the big screen as fine as that in "The Body" or "Innocence" in BtVS...

Quite possibly the most annoying movie ever made
I am a little surprised that Harvard has not sued the makers of this film for associating the ivy-league college with such a horrible cinematic experience. I, like many, sought this film out because Sarah Michelle Geller was in it; when I learned Rebecca Gayheart was also in the cast, I thought to myself: How bad can a film with both Geller and Gayheart be? Let me tell you: pretty doggone bad. First and foremost, the storyline and script are simply dreadful and ill-conceived, and these problems are only exacerbated by the prominence of some untalented actors in the cast. Alan Grenier is Alan Jensen, supposedly the starting point guard on the Harvard basketball team, despite the fact that he is rather short, has no semblance of athletic skill, and really doesn't even try to look like he knows what he's doing when he's on the basketball court. Honestly, this is one of the worst casting decisions I've ever seen. Did I mention the fact that his acting skills also seem to be in short supply? Sarah Michelle Gellar plays Cindy Bandolini, the unprincipled daughter of a mafia don and girlfriend of Alan; talk about your odd couple; several love scenes between the two are just icky. Of course, our ruggedly unhandsome Alan is not content with Cindy; no, he is also sleeping with his philosophy professor Chesney Cort (played by the helium-voiced Joey Lauren Adams).

Back in Kansas, a tornado destroys the home of Alan's parents, and he is determined to get the one hundred thousand dollars needed for them to rebuild. In steps Cindy with a plan to make a killing off a sports bet; all Alan has to do is throw the big game against Dartmouth. Soon, the FBI is nosing around, everybody sort of panics, hope rises in the viewer that at least one of these dreadful characters will die, and then a pretty impossible if not ludicrous ending is thrown together at the end. You don't really even care how bad the conclusion is because you are just glad the film is finally over.

I don't think I've ever seen a movie go to such lengths to annoy its audience. Almost every scene features what I would call stop gaps; every few seconds, the film seems to jump a few frames for no reason whatsoever; this is a short-term technique that should be used sparingly, but the director of Harvard Man shot the entire movie this way, and it made me want to scream. Then there is the music; it's just awful, and even worse it is constant and far too loud most of the time. I guess a lot of it is supposed to sound Italian or something, even though the Mafia bit is not that important to the film. The inclusion of Ray Allen, an actual basketball player, in the movie also makes no sense. When Allen's character talks to Grenier, both of them seem to be in a race to see who can say his lines the fastest, and Allen tries so hard not to look like a professional basketball player that he ends up looking just as bad as everyone around him on the court. Just when you think things can't possibly get any worse, we are taken along for an extended LSD trip in which all the voices the character hears building up inside his head assault our own ears as well in a rising crescendo. This, in conjunction with all the other problems, qualifies this film as pure and utter torture. I have no idea why Sarah Michelle Gellar chose to participate in Harvard Man, but it almost has to be a decision she now regrets.

Very Good...
Harvard Man is a very good film. I got a used copy of the DVD from blockbuster, and it was well-worth the price. The acting in this film is great, Rebecca Gayheart really does a good job in this one. The other cast members are amazing as well. The directing in this film is also wonderful, I really like the tone. I gave this movie four stars, because It was good. I just didn't like one thing about it, when the main character, Allen (adrien Grenier, or however it is spelled!), is on drugs, I guess they wanted you to see the movie from his point of view, but all that really happens is the picture squishes (for lack of better word) up, and THAT REALLY GETS ANNOYING! The script for this film is great! I just wish the editing would have been a little different, all-in-all HARVARD MAN is a very entertaining film. It is worth watching more than twice.

Don't Pay Attention To What Other People Say
Well, I was surfing the TV channels late at night one day and I ran across this movie on UPN. I had never heard of it before, and I decided to give it a try due to the fact that I was extremely bored.

Myself being a casual Buffy fan, meaning I've seen 15 episodes at the most, I figured I'd watch it because Sarah Michelle Gellar was in it. But keep in mind that is only what got me to watch the movie in the first place and skip over Goldeneye on Telemundo (which is, by the way, a very good version of the movie, si tú hablas español and can find it on some station.)

If you go into this movie expecting to see a lot of Sarah Michelle Geller (henceforth called SMG), you will be grossly dissapointed. She doesn't have that big of a role in this film. I went into the movie with an open mind, and tried to ignore the really annoying scenes in the beginning with slow frame rates and jerky camera movements, plus hearing 2 songs at once, overtop of commentary.

But even though the beginning is very annoying, the rest of the movie is very good. I don't need to give a rundown of the plot, but I will say it takes a bit of understanding and intelligence to be able to take in all that is happening and not be overly confused.

I personally really enjoyed the movie, and can't understand how all of these negative reviewers didn't like it at all. In my opinion, it is a must buy. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Two Girls and A Guy brought to life by its actors
"Two Girls and a Guy" is among the wittiest and most realistic dramas I have seen n recent years. Although it has been criticized for being too "talky" and not following a structured plot, this movie struck me by its realism. The characters and their conversations are rich and engaging. This is one of Heather Graham's finest performances. Natasha Gregson Wagner is also impressive and successful as the other woman. The relationship and comradery between these two characters--total opposites--is very enjoyable. And then there is Robert Downey Jr. Stealing the focus of every scene he is in, he is extraordinary. He is flawless in his portrayal of Blake, the lying, cheating, needy, and defensive actor. His interaction with himself is as captivating as the scenes where all three actors are conversing. He invokes so much emotion and frustration from his audience, and creates one of the most complex and fascinating characters in modern cinema.

Funny look at a fractured love triangle
This movie plays like a long running one act play, with basically only three central characters. Only two other people are actually seen in this movie, at the very beginning when the two girls are waiting outside, but they could have just as easily been written out and nothing of the movie would have been lost. Everything in the movie takes place right outside an apartment house, for the first five minutes, and the rest of the time it all happens inside one of the apartments. I'm not trying to be vague here, just giving the general layout of what's going on.

The movie really begins when the two girls, both waiting for their boyfriend to come home so they can surprise him, are surprised themselves to find out they are both waiting for the same guy. Heather Graham plays Carla, and Natasha Gregson Wagner plays Lou, short for Louise. Louise breaks into Blakes, Rober Downey Jr's, apartment, and the two girls wait to confront him when he comes home.

This premise sets up a mostly entertaining movie, in which the womanizing Blake lies, bluffs, and stumbles through arguments about why what he did wasn't so bad. The women show much outrage and rail against his masculinity at his pathetic act, and call him just about every name in the book, and then some. One of the best scenes is one where Blake stares at his own reflection in the mirror, chastising himself for what he is, and trying to promise himself that he'll change, but even he's not sure if he can believe himself.

As time passes, more secrets are revealed, the girls spill the beans on their own infidelities, and we come to know these people better. They seem to embrace the desire for love more than the actually conception of what love is. None of them seem ready for, nor really expecting, the permanent meant for life type of love, as revealed by their confessions, and propositions for one another.

The ending, unfortunately, is a little bland, and leaves things a little up in the air, but it would have been hard to have slapped a happily ever after ending onto this movie, so I guess it mostly fits the character of the story. I guess I would have just liked to have known what Lou was up to at the end, and whether Carla ever takes her up on her offer. In my mind, she does.

What?
This movie was stupid. It had a bad plot. It was very pointless. The only good thing about this movie was Robert Downey Jr's acting which was why I gave it 2 stars. The other 2 were good. But The plot...I'm not even gonna' start with the plot. The whole movie was stupid. I also don't get why this got an NC-17 rating. I don't want any dumb reviewer bad mouthing me just cause I don'get why this movie got an NC-17, I'm just wandering why it got it? It doesn't have any nudity or strong sexualy explicit nude scenes or what ever you call it.
Unless if it was for that scene between Jr and Graham then that is dumb.

Over all if you like dumb comedies go and watch it..

Later

Disappointing
I'm glad we rented this movie instead of purchasing it. Basic flaw was the script - two women discovering they had the same boyfriend could have turned into something clever or even funny. I kept waiting for clever or funny but it never happened. Downey, Graham, and Wagner did the best they could, but the material they had to work was amateurish at best and insipid at worst.

Not without weak points
I watched this movie through once and hit play again as soon as the dvd finished spinning back to the main menu. It's been years, if ever, since I did that with any movie. Considering that some of the scenes were obviously filmed when they'd barely had a chance to read through the lines, it says a lot for the successful emotional imagery in this movie.

You've probably seen plot synopses (or will if you scroll down) and seen plenty of zero-star reviews. If you decide to see this movie, be prepared for a few scenes that really do look amateurish. They're beatuifully shot and all the production values are spot-on, but Heather Graham and Natasha Gregson Wagner just aren't those rare gifted actors who can walk in and give a perfect performance after a day or two of rehearsal. Robert Downey *is*, though.

In the scenes with Downey, Graham and Wagner seem to wake up a little bit and show enough assuredness to really hit their lines. All the dialog is interesting -- provocative or funny -- but some of the readings clunk, especially in the early going. But Downey improvises, sings, plays piano, and hits all kinds interesting emotional changes. His soliloquy from Hamlet is so good that you will understand perfectly well why Mel Gibson was willing to mount a production of Hamlet with him at the Taper Forum (L.A.) even though Downey couldn't get insured at the time. And Gibson took a bath on it when Downey got arrested, and all he said to the press was "you should have seen him in readings...good enough to break your heart." Or words to that effect. Man, that would have been a Hamlet to see.

This movie really does its job when it finally gets moving. If you can imagine being in the mood for watching people talk to themselves in the mirror and talk to each other in long, hyper-animated, self-serving sentences, then it's hard to imagine a better movie to suit. Personally, I kinda think the people who hated this movie probably hated Lost in Translation because there "wasn't enough going on" and the characters "didn't hit the town and see all that Tokyo has to offer." Ignore the fact that this movie takes place in New York, and try to picture how you'd feel if you busted somebody for cheating on you, or got busted for cheating on them, and then see this movie and see how their responses measure up. ... Read more

Amazon.com

The ever-beautiful Nastassja Kinski stars in Exposed as Elizabeth, a restless young woman from Wisconsin who moves to New York, gets mugged, becomes a waitress, and is discovered by a high-fashion photographer who turns her into a world-renowned glamour girl. While at a party in Paris, she has a strange encounter with a mysterious man (Rudolf Nureyev) who tells her she shouldn't wear so much makeup. Back in New York, this man follows her through the streets, reciting strange poetry to her, and breaks into her apartment. Naturally she falls in love with him; when she discovers that he's a violinist, she sleeps with him. She follows him to Paris, where she learns that he's not who he said he was and that he wants to use her as bait to capture a terrorist named Rivas (Harvey Keitel). She refuses but ends up pursuing the investigation herself the next day and immediately finds Rivas and his cadre of gorgeous terrorist babes. It turns out Rivas is obsessed with her and has all her magazines... This ludicrous 1983 movie, ostensibly some kind of thriller, features the obligatory "dancing alone in my room" moment made so very popular in movies like Risky Business and Footloose. However, Kinski and Nureyev are both easy on the eyes and went for full nudity in their sex scene. --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (1)

freaked me out!
This was an excellent film. I was confused at first, but then it all clicked about thirty minutes in. There were some really intense scenes that made me jump right off the couch. Loved this film! ... Read more

Reviews (41)

WHAT! MEDICATION! WHAT MOVIE DID YOU WATCH??
WHAT MOVIE INVOLVED SOMEONE AND MEDICATION?
I JUST HAD TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT REVIEW!
BEFORE THIS ONE!
THE MOVIE WAS NOT ABOUT A PERSON TAKING MEDS!
I LOVE THIS MOVIE!
RICH(OLI GRANT)WONDERFUL VOICE AND HE IS CUTE!
5 STARS!

What The....
Ok, this movie was wierd and it was like a kid with ADD who skipped his medication just to spite himself. I liked Ben Stiller, but what in the...the...can I call it a story line??? I'm sure I couldn't do better myself, as I have skipped my medication for years( if I had meds) but I guess the one good thing that came of this movie was the Kissing climax with Brooke Shields and the 18 year old fly boy, Lij. Good job, and the song they played at the end was cool, but in general I think rap (which is a story theme) is too redundant except for old school Beasty Boys...am I dating myself? Sorry, I hope teenage girls don't get any ideas...stay away from Central Park, Ladies!!!

ANOTHER MOVIE WITH NO POINT
THIS IS JUST ANOTHER STUPID MOVIE WITH NO POINT ALL IT IS IS JUST A BUNCH OF IGNORENT NI$$AZ ARGUING AND CURSING AT EACH OTHER IT WAS SO STUPID.

Popcorn Plot?
What else can I say? I don't watch a lot of Flicks because they disgust me. As an ex-screenwriter, working out of LA, I found Black & White to be what more films should be -- an expression, a journey, an exploration! Yes this film has no plot, but is that a problem? I think not!

Take a look at the top selling DVDs or the box office receipts and you'll see what Americans like, an easy to follow story line, lots of conflict, a few burning cars and shoot em up scenes and of course, a happy ending, one in which the conflict is resolved.

This flick is none of these, rather it's an experiment, one that flopped horribly in the box office. I've come to learn that many of the best films fail to make money. Spiderman.....please give me a break!

If you enjoy film as an art, buy this flick and you won't be disappointed. If any one tells you anything else, ask them for the best flicks in their collection and I'll bet they are all box office smashes that go great with a $5.00 box of popcorn.

Black and White and hard to watch
I like a few of the actors from other movies, and had heard Ebert's positive review (especially about Robert Downey Jr, & Mike Tyson's part) so I decided to watch Black and White.

This movie now sits in the bottom of the barrel of bad movies I've seen, next to Armageddon, Lost and Delirious, and a few others.

I've never seen Brooke Shields look worse - dreadlocks and a nose-ring...I understand it is not a movie about her or her looks, but still, her dialogue ("Let us share your life!" or whatever - I'm trying to forget the movie) was just weak. Also, for some reason, that tiny camera she carried did not convince me of her documentarian prowess...

Robert Downey Jr was kind of interesting as Brooke's gay husband, and his brief scene with Mike Tyson was kind of funny, but that did not make up for the rest of the movie.

Claudia Shiffer was pretty good, although her character ...., as did all the others.

I had no interest in the characters or the lifestyle that was portrayed.

The commentray by James Toback was just as hard to listen to as the movie was to watch. He seemed to be on tranquilizers, mumbled frequently, and thinks himself great.

1 star, only for Robert Downey Jr & Mike Tyson. Can you decipher my vernacular? ... Read more

Reviews (22)

Talented actors, bad script
Read the other reviews for plot and story information.
After reading the synaposis about sex, drugs and gambling on the video cover in which Sarah Gellar, Joey Adams,and Rebecca Gayheart are present, I could only anticipate the sexy possibilities that could be forthcoming.
Unfortunately, the lack of any interesting storyline in the plot killed any notion of that even 1/2 hour into the movie.
It's hard to even imagine that Alan Jensen (Adrian Grenier) would even be able to bed both the Professor Chesney, and his girlfriend Cindy even if he is on the basketball team. We never know what Jensen's personality is really like except that he is into drugs. Is he smart, funny, what got him into Harvard? Who knows & who cares?
Gellar is acceptable as the daughter of a mobster. Adams is the most enjoyable part of the movie, with her raspy, sexy voice. She makes sense and is the glue that holds the stories together . The sex scenes, and they are not explicit, contain a lot of noices, but are boring, and except for Cindy and Alan's performance in the woods, none of it even matters.
The Director does amuse a little with some camera effects after Jensen takes some LSD, but those again, get boring and overused.
The performance of Stoltz and Gayheart as FBI agents is a joke. (I just ruined the only twist of the movie.
This was a long 2 hours. I hope Harvard is better than this!

Actually pretty good
First off, as a rather big SMG fan, I cannot believe this film has received lower ratings than "Simply Irresistible"! That was a limp, wooden "romantic comedy" featuring a couple who lacked any chemistry.

"Harvard Man", on the other hand, has a modicum of style, plot, and intelligence behind it. It doesn't really work in the final analysis - not because of any failings of the acting, which is mostly excellent (although I just can't overcome my aversion to Joey Lauren Adams' squeaky voice), but because the movie doesn't quite hit the pitch of danger that I felt it needed to sustain the drama. Toback, however, does compelling things with sequencing, flash forwards and back, and with camerawork, split-screen and so on, and the dialogue is mostly fine. The lighting has a nice grainy amber texture to it and the soundtrack is a fun mix of hip-hop and classical.

Grenier in the lead does well, Stolz and Gayheart are great, and Sarah Michelle - and yes, I do have a slight bias - proves again that she has excellent range. As well as being a cutie-patootie. "Scooby Doo" and all is fine, but please, SMG, pick a project that will demonstrate your dramatic chops to the non-believers out there! I'd love to see her do work on the big screen as fine as that in "The Body" or "Innocence" in BtVS...

Quite possibly the most annoying movie ever made
I am a little surprised that Harvard has not sued the makers of this film for associating the ivy-league college with such a horrible cinematic experience. I, like many, sought this film out because Sarah Michelle Geller was in it; when I learned Rebecca Gayheart was also in the cast, I thought to myself: How bad can a film with both Geller and Gayheart be? Let me tell you: pretty doggone bad. First and foremost, the storyline and script are simply dreadful and ill-conceived, and these problems are only exacerbated by the prominence of some untalented actors in the cast. Alan Grenier is Alan Jensen, supposedly the starting point guard on the Harvard basketball team, despite the fact that he is rather short, has no semblance of athletic skill, and really doesn't even try to look like he knows what he's doing when he's on the basketball court. Honestly, this is one of the worst casting decisions I've ever seen. Did I mention the fact that his acting skills also seem to be in short supply? Sarah Michelle Gellar plays Cindy Bandolini, the unprincipled daughter of a mafia don and girlfriend of Alan; talk about your odd couple; several love scenes between the two are just icky. Of course, our ruggedly unhandsome Alan is not content with Cindy; no, he is also sleeping with his philosophy professor Chesney Cort (played by the helium-voiced Joey Lauren Adams).

Back in Kansas, a tornado destroys the home of Alan's parents, and he is determined to get the one hundred thousand dollars needed for them to rebuild. In steps Cindy with a plan to make a killing off a sports bet; all Alan has to do is throw the big game against Dartmouth. Soon, the FBI is nosing around, everybody sort of panics, hope rises in the viewer that at least one of these dreadful characters will die, and then a pretty impossible if not ludicrous ending is thrown together at the end. You don't really even care how bad the conclusion is because you are just glad the film is finally over.

I don't think I've ever seen a movie go to such lengths to annoy its audience. Almost every scene features what I would call stop gaps; every few seconds, the film seems to jump a few frames for no reason whatsoever; this is a short-term technique that should be used sparingly, but the director of Harvard Man shot the entire movie this way, and it made me want to scream. Then there is the music; it's just awful, and even worse it is constant and far too loud most of the time. I guess a lot of it is supposed to sound Italian or something, even though the Mafia bit is not that important to the film. The inclusion of Ray Allen, an actual basketball player, in the movie also makes no sense. When Allen's character talks to Grenier, both of them seem to be in a race to see who can say his lines the fastest, and Allen tries so hard not to look like a professional basketball player that he ends up looking just as bad as everyone around him on the court. Just when you think things can't possibly get any worse, we are taken along for an extended LSD trip in which all the voices the character hears building up inside his head assault our own ears as well in a rising crescendo. This, in conjunction with all the other problems, qualifies this film as pure and utter torture. I have no idea why Sarah Michelle Gellar chose to participate in Harvard Man, but it almost has to be a decision she now regrets.

Very Good...
Harvard Man is a very good film. I got a used copy of the DVD from blockbuster, and it was well-worth the price. The acting in this film is great, Rebecca Gayheart really does a good job in this one. The other cast members are amazing as well. The directing in this film is also wonderful, I really like the tone. I gave this movie four stars, because It was good. I just didn't like one thing about it, when the main character, Allen (adrien Grenier, or however it is spelled!), is on drugs, I guess they wanted you to see the movie from his point of view, but all that really happens is the picture squishes (for lack of better word) up, and THAT REALLY GETS ANNOYING! The script for this film is great! I just wish the editing would have been a little different, all-in-all HARVARD MAN is a very entertaining film. It is worth watching more than twice.

Don't Pay Attention To What Other People Say
Well, I was surfing the TV channels late at night one day and I ran across this movie on UPN. I had never heard of it before, and I decided to give it a try due to the fact that I was extremely bored.

Myself being a casual Buffy fan, meaning I've seen 15 episodes at the most, I figured I'd watch it because Sarah Michelle Gellar was in it. But keep in mind that is only what got me to watch the movie in the first place and skip over Goldeneye on Telemundo (which is, by the way, a very good version of the movie, si tú hablas español and can find it on some station.)

If you go into this movie expecting to see a lot of Sarah Michelle Geller (henceforth called SMG), you will be grossly dissapointed. She doesn't have that big of a role in this film. I went into the movie with an open mind, and tried to ignore the really annoying scenes in the beginning with slow frame rates and jerky camera movements, plus hearing 2 songs at once, overtop of commentary.

But even though the beginning is very annoying, the rest of the movie is very good. I don't need to give a rundown of the plot, but I will say it takes a bit of understanding and intelligence to be able to take in all that is happening and not be overly confused.

I personally really enjoyed the movie, and can't understand how all of these negative reviewers didn't like it at all. In my opinion, it is a must buy. ... Read more

Reviews (66)

Two Girls and A Guy brought to life by its actors
"Two Girls and a Guy" is among the wittiest and most realistic dramas I have seen n recent years. Although it has been criticized for being too "talky" and not following a structured plot, this movie struck me by its realism. The characters and their conversations are rich and engaging. This is one of Heather Graham's finest performances. Natasha Gregson Wagner is also impressive and successful as the other woman. The relationship and comradery between these two characters--total opposites--is very enjoyable. And then there is Robert Downey Jr. Stealing the focus of every scene he is in, he is extraordinary. He is flawless in his portrayal of Blake, the lying, cheating, needy, and defensive actor. His interaction with himself is as captivating as the scenes where all three actors are conversing. He invokes so much emotion and frustration from his audience, and creates one of the most complex and fascinating characters in modern cinema.

Funny look at a fractured love triangle
This movie plays like a long running one act play, with basically only three central characters. Only two other people are actually seen in this movie, at the very beginning when the two girls are waiting outside, but they could have just as easily been written out and nothing of the movie would have been lost. Everything in the movie takes place right outside an apartment house, for the first five minutes, and the rest of the time it all happens inside one of the apartments. I'm not trying to be vague here, just giving the general layout of what's going on.

The movie really begins when the two girls, both waiting for their boyfriend to come home so they can surprise him, are surprised themselves to find out they are both waiting for the same guy. Heather Graham plays Carla, and Natasha Gregson Wagner plays Lou, short for Louise. Louise breaks into Blakes, Rober Downey Jr's, apartment, and the two girls wait to confront him when he comes home.

This premise sets up a mostly entertaining movie, in which the womanizing Blake lies, bluffs, and stumbles through arguments about why what he did wasn't so bad. The women show much outrage and rail against his masculinity at his pathetic act, and call him just about every name in the book, and then some. One of the best scenes is one where Blake stares at his own reflection in the mirror, chastising himself for what he is, and trying to promise himself that he'll change, but even he's not sure if he can believe himself.

As time passes, more secrets are revealed, the girls spill the beans on their own infidelities, and we come to know these people better. They seem to embrace the desire for love more than the actually conception of what love is. None of them seem ready for, nor really expecting, the permanent meant for life type of love, as revealed by their confessions, and propositions for one another.

The ending, unfortunately, is a little bland, and leaves things a little up in the air, but it would have been hard to have slapped a happily ever after ending onto this movie, so I guess it mostly fits the character of the story. I guess I would have just liked to have known what Lou was up to at the end, and whether Carla ever takes her up on her offer. In my mind, she does.

What?
This movie was stupid. It had a bad plot. It was very pointless. The only good thing about this movie was Robert Downey Jr's acting which was why I gave it 2 stars. The other 2 were good. But The plot...I'm not even gonna' start with the plot. The whole movie was stupid. I also don't get why this got an NC-17 rating. I don't want any dumb reviewer bad mouthing me just cause I don'get why this movie got an NC-17, I'm just wandering why it got it? It doesn't have any nudity or strong sexualy explicit nude scenes or what ever you call it.
Unless if it was for that scene between Jr and Graham then that is dumb.

Over all if you like dumb comedies go and watch it..

Later

Disappointing
I'm glad we rented this movie instead of purchasing it. Basic flaw was the script - two women discovering they had the same boyfriend could have turned into something clever or even funny. I kept waiting for clever or funny but it never happened. Downey, Graham, and Wagner did the best they could, but the material they had to work was amateurish at best and insipid at worst.

Not without weak points
I watched this movie through once and hit play again as soon as the dvd finished spinning back to the main menu. It's been years, if ever, since I did that with any movie. Considering that some of the scenes were obviously filmed when they'd barely had a chance to read through the lines, it says a lot for the successful emotional imagery in this movie.

You've probably seen plot synopses (or will if you scroll down) and seen plenty of zero-star reviews. If you decide to see this movie, be prepared for a few scenes that really do look amateurish. They're beatuifully shot and all the production values are spot-on, but Heather Graham and Natasha Gregson Wagner just aren't those rare gifted actors who can walk in and give a perfect performance after a day or two of rehearsal. Robert Downey *is*, though.

In the scenes with Downey, Graham and Wagner seem to wake up a little bit and show enough assuredness to really hit their lines. All the dialog is interesting -- provocative or funny -- but some of the readings clunk, especially in the early going. But Downey improvises, sings, plays piano, and hits all kinds interesting emotional changes. His soliloquy from Hamlet is so good that you will understand perfectly well why Mel Gibson was willing to mount a production of Hamlet with him at the Taper Forum (L.A.) even though Downey couldn't get insured at the time. And Gibson took a bath on it when Downey got arrested, and all he said to the press was "you should have seen him in readings...good enough to break your heart." Or words to that effect. Man, that would have been a Hamlet to see.

This movie really does its job when it finally gets moving. If you can imagine being in the mood for watching people talk to themselves in the mirror and talk to each other in long, hyper-animated, self-serving sentences, then it's hard to imagine a better movie to suit. Personally, I kinda think the people who hated this movie probably hated Lost in Translation because there "wasn't enough going on" and the characters "didn't hit the town and see all that Tokyo has to offer." Ignore the fact that this movie takes place in New York, and try to picture how you'd feel if you busted somebody for cheating on you, or got busted for cheating on them, and then see this movie and see how their responses measure up. ... Read more