Body Shots (1999)

Eight glossy, good-looking young actors, including Sean Patrick Flanery (Powder, Suicide Kings), Jerry O'Connell (Stand by Me, Scream 2), Amanda Peet (One Fine Day), Tara Reid (American Pie, Urban Legend), and Brad Rowe (Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss). Women in their underwear and short, tight dresses; men in suits. Men's bare buttocks and women's bare breasts (at least in the unrated version). Characters talking earnestly to the audience about blowjobs, domination, anal penetration, one-night stands, and the difference between sex and love. Lots and lots of alcohol consumption in a cavernous, neon-lit club. A bloody fistfight. The plot, to the degree there is one, concerns an accusation of rape, which is shown from his-and-her points of view. People similar to these characters probably do exist in real life, but there's no reason to make a movie about them. Everyone involved in making Body Shots should have to do 100 hours of community service to make up for the time they've stolen from viewers' lives. The script and direction are particularly banal and self-important. Vacuous. --Bret Fetzer Amazon.com

A film that nicely explores sex in the late nineties

Body Shots is a film that should have been promoted more and seen by more people. The film has sharp dialouge, smooth wit and Tara Reid nude. David McKenna has written another good script which is his follow up to Amercian History X and the cast of up and comers are all good. Ron Livingston as Trent makes the movie as Trent with his one-liners and further more we get to see Tara Reid show her goods. March 25, 2008

So very, very bad.

Body Shots (Michael Cristofer, 1999)

This refrain is getting old, so I'm pretty sure you can sing it with me now: this could've been a good movie, but...

Well, okay, I'm not entirely sure this could ever have been a good movie. We'll probably never know, given that the twisted, uncomfortable mess that we got is probably not on anyone's remake slate in the foreseeable future. Nor should it be. While the main story seems to revolve around the question of whether a famous football player (Jerry O'Connell, whose post-Sliders career has just kept going farther and farther down the tubes) raped a party girl (Tara Reid, whose career has never gotten out of those same tubes), the story is no more than a sidelight in the examinations of the lives of eight people whose relationships with one another come to be defined by the alleged event. And it's here that the nugget of that potentially decent film resides; who cares about the plot when you've got interesting characters? And to their credit, Cristofer and screenwriter David McKenna (American History X) do try to make the characters interesting. I have little doubt, actually, that they are interesting, at least to [...] twelve-year-old boys. To anyone out of adolescence, however, they're likely to be boring. There's a minor point of debate to be had as to whether McKenna meant to show these characters as juvenile and emotionally stunted, but there's no evidence that McKenna doesn't see them as mature adults, and it's that evidence that would have gone partway towards making them worthwhile.

But I'm spending far too much time talking about this movie, when I could be doing something more productive. Like reviewing a better movie. Or poking myself in the eye with a sharp stick. Either would be preferable to thinking about this horrible mess of celluloid ever again. * for Ron Livingston's character, the only bright spot in this pathetic movie despite being the stereotype of all stereotypes.
May 27, 2007

If you can figure out what this film is about you might be alone

If "Body Shots" did not start with scenes of a young woman bruised and bleeding, obviously the victim of a sexual assault, the abrupt shift that this 1999 movie takes would have been similar to those who went to see "Million Dollar Baby" thinking it was just a boxing film. Indeed, even having been shown what is going to happen to one of these characters and knowing that we are seeing the events that lead up to the incident it is easy to forget that is what lies ahead in the first half of "Body Shots," which was written by David McKenna ("American History X," "Blow") and directed by Michael Cristofer ("Gia"). That is because the early part of this film involves lots of direct to camera statements by the characters, and then after the pivotal incident the fourth wall is slammed back up in our faces.

The scope of the film is basically 24 hours in the lives of eight young, attractive people trying to live and have sex in L.A. The four women are Jane (Amanda Peet), Sara (Tara Reid), Whitney (Emily Procter), and Emma (Sybil Temchen), and the four men are Rick (Sean Patrick Flanery), Michael (Jerry O'Connell), Trent (Ron Livingston), and Shawn (Brad Rowe). The two quartets meet at a club, engage in heavy drinking and end up pairing up for the night. Jane and Rick seem to be the smartest of the bunch so they end up together, while Sara leaves with Micheal, who plays for the Raiders. The thing is, Sara has been dating Shawn, who responds to this affront by taking Emily out to the alley. That leaves Trent to end up spending the night with Whitney, who turns out to have another side to her sweet disposition.

There is a strong documentary-like element to the first part of the film, where most of the characters get to weigh in on various matters, usually sexual, that are under discussion. This allows us to get lots of views about everything from what constitutes "sex" to whether or not teeth are a good thing to bring into play during a particular endeavor. However, given what is going to happen in this film these exchanges of personal philosophies are not simply an opportunity to run the gamut of viewpoints but an opportunity to judge the characters. This will become critical in trying to make any judgment as to what really happened between Sarah and Michael.

Sara says that she was raped by Michael and he denies it. When he hears the news Trent says he could totally see that happening. What we see is first his version of what happened and then her version of the same events. The obvious cinematic reference point would seem to be to "Rashomon," but "Body Shots" does not get that far. In Akira Kurosawa's film we had three different versions of the same story, each of which revealed something about the character once you established their motive for distorting what happened. Here we have only two versions, the basic "she said/he said" dilemma. But at the end of "Rashomon" we do get the "truth," as the woodcutter confesses he saw what "really" happened, an understanding that allows us to go back and reconsider the other three stories a second time. But "Body Shots" does not get to the "truth" and we do not know what really happened.

This will drive some viewers to distraction, and obviously has. However, it is significant that Jane and Rick, who are the two smart ones, do not have to decided whether they believe Sarah or Michael, because they do not hear both stories. Jane only hears what Sarah has to say, and Rick, as Michael's attorney, only hears his side. But even without hearing the other side, each has to decide whether at face value they believe their friend. The chilling part of this story is that since both sides are believable (Michael is truly amazed and outraged while Sarah is really bruised and bleeding) who we decide to believe could be based entirely on our gender. Guys will believe Michael and women will believe Sarah, and what implications are we to draw from that rather chilling impasse?

Ultimately, the problem with "Body Shots" is not that we are left to construct our own meaning from these events and render our own personal judgment as to whom we believe (with an emphasis on being able to explain why so that there is an actual articulation of reasons as opposed to going on a gut instinct based on gender), but that the approach of the first half of the film contrasts too much with the second. These characters are glib when it comes to talking about sex, but is this just a stylistic approach of the film, a way for the writer to show off with all the outrageous topics and thoughts he can have come out of the mouths of these characters, or is it a lesson in itself? Because if the second part of the film does not teach a clear lesson, perhaps the first half does. Maybe the second part is not the wake up call, maybe it is the first half and that when Sarah assures us that sex is "just sex" she has doomed her character to her fate. July 2, 2005

Is it that Tara Reid getting raped is not important? It is!!

Well, if you have only watched 10 minutes of this movie, I will just let you know now that Tara Reid driving around in the Mercedes in the rain, with the cut on her forehead claiming to have been raped is about as far as this movie went to describe what happened. If you think you are going to get the answer to this controversial question------GUESS AGAIN.
That's all I have to say, and that the movie drags on and on.
P.S. Tara Reid got me to see the movie because I think she's really great---otherwise I don't think I would have seen it in all actuality.
Thanks,
C December 28, 2004

Dream come true

The plot? Where? Tara Reid nude? Worth every penny! I recommend for that scene alone! November 7, 2004

More reviews at Amazon.com ...