This movie is horrible on many levels *spoilers*

Wow, I have to say you completely missed the "mood" of this movie. Yeah, I guess if it was a girl stalking a guy, that would be less watchable, but that's why this movie isn't about that. Yes, the stalking part was weird but all the weirdess is the charm of this movie... She is different, she is weird, she is crazy, but that's what gives her appeal because he sees something deeper than that. Not the greatest movie ever, but still very interesting and I don't regret watching it. And I hate sooooo many movies :)

This movie is very real and shows how real relationships work. You should go back to watching movies featuring Kate Hudson.

Join the countdown:http://www.dakotacountdown.com/

Whilst i don't think the girl is 'evil', i also felt very uncomfortable about this film. It was trying to be 'quirky' / fantastical but in the end just perpetuated some really dubious premises, eg:

1. any girl that watches porn must be really, really weird
2. spying on, lying to, and pressurising someone into a relationship (as the guy does) deserves to be rewarded
3. then putting up with being treated REALLY badly, taking extreme verbal abuse, etc, (as the guy does) is a good idea and will be rewarded in the end

However the biggest problem I had was that to me the guy's motives were totally co-dependent, rather than dealing with his own stuff as a recovering addict, homeless person, etc, he finds a girl who is even more messed up than he is, to 'save', to 'sacrifice himself' to her insults and indifference. This could still have been an interesting film if these motives had been challenged EVEN A LITTLE BIT, but they weren't.

I really agree with a lot of what mastercoldsoul has said, and i don't think its unsophisticated to have a problem with a lot of the message of this film.

i lost interest after the guy got into the house within the 15-20 minute mark. that was easy.

=========
Twilight in 30 seconds http://tinyurl.com/bbb7xs

The type of response from the OP is so stereotypical that I will just cut 'n paste my response to a similar post:


I find that most of the critical comments that are brought to bear on the film proceed from minds that are, broadly speaking, out of touch with the deeper aspects of the human being that are at work here. On another thread, for example:

Sobeit says, <<< A girl like the one in this movie would not take this boy into her apartment, especially a weird stranger who embarrassed her in front of other people when she checking out porns and then subsequently showed up mysterious in her apartment building and started knocking on her door everyday. Remember, this girl is more introverted, cautious, closed up and skittish than a normal girl due to her background. >>>

We are talking here about two girls. First there is the obviously disturbed personality and beneath it is the real girl. The real girl has been touched by the genuine interest that sees through to who she really is, and that is who opens the door a little, in spite of what her lower personality would compel her to do in the absence of such a stimulus. Of course in order to see such a distinction you have to be somewhat in touch with the real person in yourself.


(PRN) – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id-bFpYQzXE

I didn't much care for it either. I didn't like the writing or acting on her part. You can tell it was written by a woman. The guys in the film are unrealistic and have unbelievable relationships with each other. They routinely give each other the silent treatment after girl-like spats, they quibble about the location of the clitoris like a bunch of 15-year-olds (is this what she thinks of men?), etc.. The main guy becomes obsessed with the woman for reasons that aren't explained. It's definitely not for looks, as she's only marginally attractive in the right lighting. And personality-wise, she's about as likable as a rabid hyena. She does have a good reason for being so emotionally repulsive, but the main guy doesn't know that, and just keeps going back for more abuse like an insane person. I guess being previously hooked on crack makes a guy this pathetic?

I think this movie appeals to the poor, hopelessly romantic, socially impotent schlubs with fantasies of a cute, nonthreatening, horse-schlonged guy who will come along and force himself into their pathetic lives, while conveniently overlooking all their quirks, hangups and irritating idiosyncrasies. Sorry, ladies, but if a guy has a 9" dork, he's not wasting time with a sexless, frigged, headcase; he's out getting laid -- a lot.

There are repeated references in this discussion to the male character of this movie as being a "stalker." A stalker, to me, invokes an image of a creepy person, generally lacking in social skills, who presses on regardless of the protests of the object of desire. In this film, there were certainly stalking qualities exhibited by our hero, such as coming back despite repeated warnings from the woman that it would be a waste of time. But I wouldn't categorize that as stalking in the negative sense, as though the fellow was on the verge of, or actually, committing a crime. Our hero was very apologetic and considerate in his approaches. (And he finally did let go when he got the clear message that it was time to leave, well into the relationship.) What the male character did was perfectly allowable, when there is someone that makes his heart beat faster, and when circumstances don't allow (as in a workplace, where you can get to know someone conveniently and naturally) for the friendship to progress. It is very much all right to keep approaching someone who does not reciprocate with the same degree of interest (which is the common lot of most men in the initial stages of trying to break through with a woman), as long as the approaches are courteous, and as long as the clear-cut message to get lost is not given. (Even though in the film, it could be argued such messages were given by our heroine -- but as others have written, our hero saw through the protests as a defense mechanism, and excused his persistence as a means to unselfishly help this unhealthily closed-off woman, to help her to "progress" as he put it in the later phase -- while still, of course, maintaining his selfish interest to get to know, and hopefully bed, this woman he had developed a big crush for.)

I would not characterize a strategy of persistence coming from a nice and considerate man in the negative connotation that the word "stalker" presents, since we think of stalkers as somewhat psychopathic. What the male character in the film did was (granted, by going a little overboard) what every man does, when he meets a woman he'd like to know better, while encountering the not atypical ambiguity that females often exhibit. Show biz examples that quickly come to mind include the way the married, loving couple from the TV show MAD ABOUT YOU hooked up (as shown in a flashbacking "origin" episode), where Paul Reiser kept pursuing a standoffish Helen Hunt , and the TV mini-series ROOTS, where (I think it was?) Louis Gossett Jr. kept after an icy Leslie Uggams for the longest time; in both cases, it was the men who threatened that they had had enough and would not come calling again, which finally won the ladies over. Then there was the real life example of funny man Marty Ingels who was very much out of his league and normally couldn't hope to attract the beautiful Shirley Jones, until his persistence finally broke her down. What these men did was perfectly allowable, and even expected (have people actually come to think that most women give an enthusiastic "yes" at first approach, and if not, it is time for the man to give up?), in contrast to the dangerous idea generated by stalking, which is not allowable.

Some folks, as the ones here who have jumped to the "stalker" notion, love to go to extremes and take the negative route; as, for example, some who enjoy classifying those with healthy libidos as being depraved sex addicts.
.

wow mastercoldsoul-1 you have a thought level of a 10 year old girl