Splendor (1999) Poster

(1999)

User Reviews

Review this title
42 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
What's that you say Ms. Robertson
aimless-4617 January 2005
I was not conscious of "Splendor" being a Gregg Araki film when I started watching it but after the first two sequences I was thinking: "this is great directing-who did this"? While the technique screams "Araki", as does the casting of Kathleen Robertson, the narrative is so conventional that you find the combination hard to reconcile. I loved an earlier comment that "Splendor" is like a John Hughes remake of "The Doom Generation"; i.e. very conventional and without the sex and violence, with a three-way relationship (two males-one female), Johnathon Schaech, and Director Araki's absolutely amazing production and post-production skills-along with his less than dazzling scripting.

Although Araki is paying homage to the great screwball comedies of the 1930's: "Topper", "It Happened One Night", "The Awful Truth", and "Bringing Up Baby"; the style and substance of "Splendor" is closer to Mike Nichols' "The Graduate" (not to mention an amusing parody of the "Graduate's" climatic wedding scene).

Kathleen Robertson has the Rose McGowen part in this version of "The Doom Generation" and is generally well suited to the role. I have not decided yet if Robertson is in McGowen's class as an actress, or in the class of her fellow Canadians Mia Kirshner and Sarah Polley. Robertson was excellent in "Maniac Mansion" and "Beverly Hills 90210", but these were similar roles that appear to mirror her own cool and detached personality. One thing that is clear is that she was a great choice for Ariki's trademark close-ups. Anyone perceptive enough to close the camera to face distance when shooting McGowen, Robertson, and most recently Michelle Trachtenberg has a eye for breathtakingly beautiful visuals.

The premise does not really have enough substance to sustain a feature although it might work as a half-hour television sit-com (see "Three's Company"). When the premise becomes tired the story brings in a new character, Eric Mabious; and the film self-destructs, killing time until a decent ending sequence. A tip-off that a screen writer has limited life experience to draw from is having cast and crew occupations for the characters. Robertson's character is an aspiring actress and Mabious is directing her in a made-for-television drama. His character is so hopelessly one-dimensional and painfully pathetic that I was convinced that he had a sinister side (what was with those blue contact lenses) that would eventually manifest itself. But this does not happen, maybe Araki had something interesting in mind and abandoned it in re-write. Mabious becomes a non-factor (see totally irrelevancy) and his scenes were simply inserted as padding to get this thing up to feature length.

The bottom line is that Araki fans will be a little disappointed with "Splendor". It is very conventional, it isn't much of a story, and the good banter is limited (although Kelly MacDonald has fantastic dialogue in all her scenes) . But if your Araki appreciation is more for his directorial talents (casting, mise en scene details, camera movement and placement) and his post-production originality, you will find "Splendor" measures up very well to his prior work. The morning after scene early in the film simply blows away anything similar from any director.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Araki doesn't seem himself here
allyjack13 September 1999
Former kinetic Doom Generation provocateur Araki tries to become a modern Douglas Sirk with this largely unexciting, faintly comic romance about a woman who loves two men at once and finds three-way domestic bliss, until the guys turn into "Beavis and Butthead", and she gets pregnant. Like Sirk's super-excessive 50's melodramas, the film attempts to turn basically banal, formulaic material into a swooning, sensual spectacle, and some scenes do have a striking design muscularity (the bar where a video triptych forms the backdrop to their conversation; Robertson's apartment, with the huge clock sometimes seeming suspended Dali-like). More often though, the enterprise seems merely shallow, with the movie flashing up blocks of color as if hoping that the mere evocation of a rainbow might somehow spawn a pot of gold. Araki pushes his actors into a banality that sometimes verges on sheer babyishness (Keeslar is particularly badly handled), and the movie - given its somewhat raunchy theme - displays an odd decorousness and modesty, being weirdly coy for example about the gay implications of the arrangement. The Toronto Film Festival guide cites Truffaut and Sturges as influences rather than Sirk - either way, Araki doesn't seem to be himself here.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good Music Good Fun
epiaf10 January 2006
This movie is a living relict! Doesn't seem that long ago we were wearing plastic shiny pants, MTV was still cool, and Orbits was still around. Gregg Araki has done a great job of archiving the music, fashion, lingo, nightlife, and more of some of the alternative kids from the 90s. This movie is fun, funny, and funniest when you don't use your brain while watching. Everything was good from the writing, dialogue, actors, costume, music, story, and directing. This is not an award winning film, but everyone I introduce the movie to loves it! Gregg Araki is a constant evolving artist. I urge any film lover to check out all of his films. Some of them can be a bit challenging. However, none of them are alike because he never copies himself, and that is such a blessing as most directors/writers are so predictable these days. Araki definitely keeps you watching!
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Slight, but beguiling and entertaining
mizkwebb11 October 1999
This film won't win any awards for heavy-duty messages or ironic commentary on the state of male-female relationships in the 90's. However, it will convince you that a menage a trois is not only undeviant, sometimes it's positively the only way to fly! The three leads are all cute as hell, and do a wonderful job with the quirky script. This reminds me of a French movie with a similar plot, Cafe Au Lait, translated into the demi monde of L.A. wannabees on the fringes of the entertainment industry. Worth seeing for the eye candy alone.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Fluffy and fun
rosebud-556 October 1999
"Splendor" is verrry light but amiable. Kathleen Robertson, though, is a real discovery, beautiful and a convincing actress. As the old cliche goes, the camera loves her face. For once, men in a movie are just wallpaper, as Robertson carries the film. Candy-colored cinematography,a well chosen soundtrack and a fast pace make this movie a pleasant waste of time.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Silly, Shallow and Totally Unoriginal
denis88818 December 2016
Well, I love Kathleen Robertson, and she is totally and extremely sweet and gorgeous and beautiful here. Well, this is it. There is nothing else to say about this empty waste of time. The plot is all trite and cliché. Menage a trois, two boys on one girl, then there is one more boy, then some more very dubiously obvious plot events, and very beat up and all the usual things and/// and then it is terribly boring. Kathleen is sexy and she does have a cool voice, deep and suave, and yeah, does that save the movie, nay, it never does. Well, the movie is just a seemingly predictable array of all possible clichés one can think about, and please do not expect any plot twists or unique changes. The 90 minutes will simply pass by and then voila, the titles. One can watch it only for the sake of extreme beauty of Kathleen and then quickly forget all about it.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
What a surprise!
penible4 January 2000
I have never liked any of Greg Araki's films. However, I was so pleasantly surprised by Splendor. The story is interesting and the characters are actually believable. It is such a fun, clever movie. Kathleen Robertson is just so darn cute and those fellas...whoa! I would definitely recommend it to others, especially to those who hate Araki's films. They would appreciate it the most.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
3 stars out of 20
rowboat17 February 2002
Um, this movie wasn't so good. It started out mediocre, before dropping into bad pretty quick. I think Kathleen Robertson was beautiful and played the role right. She was the highlight. She could've easily been over-dramatic and cheesy, but she wasn't. Kudos. She must've learned something from 90210. The story should've been more about the relationship and the struggle to make it work and more sociology, but throwing the pregnancy and that movie director guy into it were just huge, uncreative cop-outs in telling the story. The writer should be ashamed.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A polyamory movie with heart and courage
Pryderi3 October 1999
Veronica, single and uninvolved, meets two men at the same concert at the same club. It would be hard for them to be more different: Abel, who she meets on the crowded dance floor, is dark, sensitive, and a bit shy; Zed, the drummer of the band, is bleached blond and very outspoken. She is torn, and can't make up her mind which of them to see. So she goes out with both of them.

The rest of the film follows her life for the next year, and how she handles her complex situation - which becomes even more complicated when another man, Ernest, comes into the picture. Unusually for a film (especially one made in the US), it resists the temptation of taking an easy path out of her situation.

It's not perfect. It looks at some of the problems that can arise from multiple relationships, but she has too easy a time resolving them; it takes a lot longer in real life. But at least it acknowledges that the problems exist, and that it is possible to find answers.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Three's Company
NoDakTatum20 October 2023
Gregg Araki, he of the mostly unwatchable "The Doom Generation" and "Nowhere," comes up with an almost mainstream romantic comedy. Veronica (Kathleen Robertson) is a starving actress in L. A. who hangs out with her funky artist galpal Mike (Kelly Macdonald). One Halloween night, Veronica goes to a club and meets sensitive writer Abel (Johnathon Schaech) and the two connect. She then sees the band's drummer, Zed (Matt Keeslar), and those two really connect right on the floor of the restroom. Veronica soon begins dating both men. Abel and Zed (A and Z, get it?) find out about each other, and agree to the arrangement until Zed moves in after getting kicked out my his roommates. Abel decides to move in too, but the guys quickly show they are less than mature, especially in a relationship. By chance, Veronica gets a role in a television movie directed by the earnest Ernest (Eric Mabius). Veronica ends up pregnant, moves out of the trio's apartment, and breaks up with Abel and Zed. Then Ernest proposes marriage...

While championed as an homage to the screwball comedies of the Golden Age of Hollywood, I don't remember Fred Astaire wooing Ginger Rogers to the music of Fatboy Slim or New Order. Araki takes the screwball set-up and completely claims it as his own. Modern touches abound, such as the raunchy sex and drug use, and Araki's script handles them better than his other efforts. My biggest complaint is with Araki's direction. For the love of David Lean, get out of the actors' faces! Every shot seems to be a closeup, I got seasick and a little creeped out being this close to the characters. Plus, I have thirty two inch television which gives Kathleen Robertson a BIG GIANT HEAD! The cast is really likable, there are no villains here. You really wish everyone the best, even Ernest, who comes off as the nicest rebound boyfriend ever. Robertson is very good, even thought underneath all her good scenes, you quickly realize Veronica is a big flake. Keeslar is funny as Zed without going overboard on the dumb guy act. Schaech is also good at Abel, without going overboard on the brooding artist act. Macdonald does a nice turn as Mike, without going overboard on the best friend role. Everyone plays their parts well, never going overboard, so Araki takes up the slack, guaranteeing this is not the film to show Grandma when she reminisces about William Powell or Myrna Loy. "Splendor" is funny in some spots, but slow in others. The laughs are hit and miss, and Araki's direction is a constant nuisance throughout. While I did not hate it, I found it to be really average. It is always interesting to watch an Araki film. While they can be arresting, I had yet to find a really good one until "Mysterious Skin" came along and changed my life.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
overall a different, decent, sincere, mildly funny film
tracy.carver9 July 2001
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.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Regurgitated and unoriginal
firstborn149220 May 2000
I watched this film because it was highly recommended. Needless to say I found it to be nothing more than an directionless version of Threesome right down to using New Order's - Bizarre Love Triangle in the movie. I thought it was biased towards men and felt it barely scraped the surface of any semblance of human emotion. Obviously this was directed by Gregg Araki... If this film bespeaks the future of relationships, I think I'll go for celibacy.
3 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well-made film about a successful three-way relationship.
bevsob3 January 2000
Girl meets boy, girl sleeps with boy...then girl meets other boy, girl wants other boy as well. But instead of cheating on both of them (a la "Two Girls and a Guy"), she takes the responsible approach and tells them both, letting them decide whether they can deal with sharing her. Those of us who practice polyamory (aka "responsible nonmonogamy") will be thrilled to see a movie that treats a threesome as a viable relationship structure. And it's a fine film as well - nice lighting, some creative filming, reasonably well-acted.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
A silly movie
tributarystu8 November 2002
Warning: Spoilers
What a paradox, to call a movie "Splendor" and the movie to be nowhere near it! Amusing, indeed.

Plotwise, it's - to a certain, unpredictable and even "unthought" of point - interesting, if we were to learn a lot about modern day mentalities and social patterns. Which we don't, not even in an evasive manner. So we have this young "lady", Veronica, who, one night, meets two "prince charming". Of course it's quite overwhelming, and our young damsel in distress, having been placed in a most ungrateful situation, is faced with a decision-making task. So many choices, so many options, what to do - one would wonder. Of course, it'd be great to have a taste of both (as Marque humourfully sings about, in one of his songs). Initially, Veronica dates the guys separately but later, after everyone involved meets everyone involved, the three become...well, two he's and a she. Rise and shine before thy sinks, as the motto goes (or doesn't).

Veronica has a very clear character. She is a confused young girl, who acts on her instincts and sees later that the future isn't as easy as she initially thought. So then appears another guy, who can offer her all she wants...just that - darn! - she doesn't love him and so the ride goes on and on.

It's too bad thoughts tend to go astray at certain moments. I mean, I've seen much better love movies with twisted plots! And, probably, so have you.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The Screwball Comedy that wasn't...
dr.bedlo23 September 1999
Director Gregg Araki introduced his new film recently at the 24th Toronto Internation Film Fest to a packed house and wetted our appetites with promises of a clever, modern homage to the great screwball comedies of the 1930's & 1940's. Films like: "It Happened One Night", "The Awful Truth", "The Lady Eve" and "Brining Up Baby".

The film is a departure from the man who brought us such films as: "Doom Generation" and "Totally F***ed Up". A kinder, gentler Araki was being shown.

The film follows the adventures of Veronica (Kathleen Robertson). A young woman who has had the misfortune to fall for two very different guys: the kind, intellectual Abel (Jonathan Schaech) and the rocker on eleven, Zed (Matt Keeslar). Instead of making her mind up about which one to date, she decides to try to convince them both to allow her to date them both. Things only get more complicated when both guys decide to move in with her.

The film does follow the basic outline of a screwball, but it lacks the heart of one. The actors all bring in admirable, yet unremarkable performances. However, this is not entirely their fault. Araki fails to deliver on the most basic element of the classic romantic comedy, the banter. The old films thrived on the perpetual motion of the dialogue to continuously engage the audience, with "Splendor" we just get a round of kinky Truth or Dare. Of course that brings up another subject, sex. This is 1999, and people have sex. They did in the 30's too. They just weren't allowed to show it or talk about it in the movies. The writers had to be resourseful, knowing just how far they could skate. I don't think it's prudish to expect the same for a modern incarnation. Again, this gets back to the dialogue. They had to skirt around the issue, but those writers always knew how to let the audience know without coming out and saying it or doing it.

Perhaps, I'm stuck in the past. But I think that if you set your sights and the audience's up that high, you had better be able to deliver the goods. Maybe if Araki had watched "The Awful Truth" (a film that he did an introduction to at the same festival the day after his film screened) before he made "Splendor", he and the audience would have been better off. He's still rather new at the game, and maybe his next film will be a little more like Sturges and a little less like a TV Sitcom.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Really, really bad
justlikeheavn9 May 2001
Unfortunately watched this the other night on cable because there was little on, and I was trying to see if I could remember what I had seen some of the cast in before. I was intrigued by the fact that the girl has 2 boyfriends and they all live together, but I wish I would have moved on after I watched it for 5 minutes and it did not become interesting. I did not catch it from the very beginning, but I was hoping to at least see some menage a trois action; of course no dice! I am not going to waste your time with a description of all the cinematography & everything, but let me just tell you: it was really bad writing, a bad plot, bad acting, and it was stupidly predictable. I just wish I had predicted that it would be so bad, and I could've done something else with that hour or so I wasted. UGH!
2 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A Contrived Fantasy
Coralknight22 October 2017
Greg Araki's work typically ranges from campy farce to gritty shock value...but what they all have in common is low quality acting. And in "Splendor" he utilizes his usual formula of stocking his films with eye-candy in lieu of substance in an attempt to get the viewer to overlook the sub-par context and dialogue. Araki's constant theme of bi-sexuality or sex-fluidity happens to be the focal point of this film. Though the film absolutely misses the mark in actually giving the viewer a substantive premise for two men allowing themselves to be in a relationship with the same woman...and by insinuation with each other as well. As I watched it, I just didn't believe the female protagonist was that hot, compelling or desirable to "pull together" a three-way relationship with two completely disparate heterosexual men. Yes, I get this was supposed to be a fantasy...but whose?
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
threes not a crowd after all
katie holmes25 December 1999
sex sex and more sex this film is a tasty seductive threesome filled piece of clever film making. this film is hot and tasty and a raunchy comedy if i worked for the academy i would let this hot flick be nominated for best picture along with "GO" "CRUEL INTENTIONS" "DISTURBING BEHAVIOR" "WONDER BOYS" AND "DOGMA"
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Pop buggle gum 3-way romance.
ocosis29 November 2020
A colourful and goofy 3-way romance between a girl and two guys. Silly antics ensue but it's a fun enough good natured watch.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
A Tease of a Movie
caspian197820 September 2004
Kathleen Robertson carries this movie with her physical beauty and acting charm. Many will rent this hard to find video to see if the lovely Miss Robertson will disrobe. Although she does a number of times in the movie, the audience only gets to see very little of the action. Overall, a nice little film about a 90's LA relationship ( more like a threesome) between 3 characters who slowly learn to become friends and then a family. A good independent film, but far from anything great for a teen comedy or a romantic comedy with sexual overtones. Robertson shows her acting talents throughout the film but overall teases the audience to believe that Splendor is one of those straight to video / cable movies where you get to see a certain actress naked for the same price that you would pay to rent a copy of Body of Evidence or Poison Ivy.
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Araki-lite
carnivalofsouls12 December 2002
Araki's most overtly heterosexual film, and hence painfully mainstream, is undeniably a dissapointment for fans of his previous films, particularly the brilliant twosome "Nowhere" and "The Doom Generation". In fact in many ways "Splendour" is like a John Hughes remake of "The Doom Generations" but without the explicit sex and violence, severed heads, castrations and Parker Posey in a bizarre wig - Araki has tossed his nihilism out the window, and come up with a frustratingly conventional romcom. It continues his repeated fascination with the three-way relationship, perhaps for obvious reasons he can only portray a heterosexual relationship with two males present, and his unique visual and editing style is still apparent though toned down. Not a bad film by any means as it is enjoyable and the performances are good, but one can't help but feel underwhelmed following the daft "Graduate"-style ending. Let's hope this is a one-off for Araki.
7 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Loved it, Loved it
suzelB14 October 1999
It was fresh, witty, fun. It was well done, well crafted, and terribly well acted. I've seen many of Greg Araki's movies (who I compared to a Godard of our time as his stories are sharp-edged and on the disturbing/disruptive side) but I have to say that this one is so much more mature, a coming of age. Totally enjoyed my movie experience and related to each of these beautiful youngsters who live life with "a go", without pretension and with eventual responsibility and definite love. A lesson to all. Bravo!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
a sexy, twisted, yet reasuring view on modern romance.
nulledge19 May 2001
Loved the premise of the movie. Excellent use of soft lighting and lip gloss. The movie was very fantasy oriented and didn't pretend not to be as it hardly dipicts the average living conditions of a starving actress and her poor deviant twosome. If you haven't seen this movie, its worth watching. If you have I'm sure you have mixed reviews. Guys may dislike the "male kissing scene" but if you close your eyes and just moan in agony it soon passes. Its wasnt enough to scare me away from the movies plot which is important in any sappy romance movie that intends to keep its male audience.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Heart-Warming Comedy for the new era
OrangUtanUK27 August 2003
Warning: Spoilers
SPOILER: Boy meets Girl meets Boy, Girl gets scared, Boys lose Girl, lots of soul-searching, Boys win Girl back, everyone lives happily ever after.

And that's what is so unusual about this film. It really is a film about love; it just happens that there's two love stories going on at the same time. The film confronts the question of what happens if you really do love two people at the same time, and how society reacts. All this insight, and a fast-moving mature comedy to boot.

Every other Threesome movie ends in a judgemental collapse of the triangle. Its conclusion leaves "Splendor" in a genre of its own.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed