The Center Of The World Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
A couple checks into a suite in Las Vegas. In flashbacks we see that he's a computer whiz on the verge of becoming a dot.com millionaire, she's a lap dancer at a club. He's depressed, withdrawing from work, missing meetings with investors. He wants a connection, so he offers her $10,000 to spend three nights with him in Vegas, and she accepts with conditions: four hours per night of erotic play, and no penetration. During the days in Vegas, they get to know each other, have fun, meet a friend of hers; at night, at least after the first night, things seem to get complicated. Is mutual attraction stirring? Will they play by their rules? Can it be about more than money?
| Shane Edelman | Porter |
| Peter Sarsgaard | Richard Longman |
| Molly Parker | Florence |
| Karry Brown | Lap Dancer |
| Alisha Klass | Pandora Stripper |
| Mel Gorham | Roxanne |
| Lisa Newlan | Porn Site Woman |
| Jason McCabe | Pete |
| Travis Miljan | Dog Owner |
| Jerry Sherman | Old Man |
| Carla Gugino | Jerri |
| Pat Morita | Taxi Driver |
| Balthazar Getty | Brian Pivano |
| Robert Lefkowitz | Motel Manager |
| John Lombardo | Gondolier |
| Wayne Wang |
5.90 out of 10 (2257 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Wang and Wong? The great mystery... to be uncovered.
posted on 25 Jun 2009"Oh, I'm coming inside youuu...!"If this is the sort of dialogue you want, I suggest you delve a little deeper into your DVD store (the hidden depths and secret passages), and get a porn film. Pornos are far quicker in getting to the point - and even the characterization is sometimes better than in TCOTW.However!... A warning, lest you think there is hardcore porn in TCOTW: this crap is strictly soft-core, so don't expect something like "9 Songs", "Intimacy", or "Sex Is Comedy", other similar sex-driven plot-less garbage, masked as "art".Alarms started going off in my little head the moment I read the credits: "screenplay by Ellen Benjamin Wang". Apparently, the director's wife (probably 30 years his junior) must have one day felt that her husband owed her a shot at writing movies, as return for everything she had done for him (hint hint). In fact, maybe the screenplay is loosely autobiographical? A lonely millionaire seeks out an expensive female escort to keep him company in a five-star Las Vegas hotel... I was also surprised that Paul Auster had sunk so low as to waste his time on such cretinous and pointless material.This is what I refer to as a "lifeless movie". D.O.A. The mood is dead, the visual style (filmed mostly on video - whoopdie!) is more bland than your dull neighbour's sea holiday footage. The "hip" shaky-camera shtick gives yet again the impression of a drunken "director of photography" who stuck his camera you-know-where and then filmed the movie from behind, randomly taking in images, sometimes missing the actors completely. The near-lack of a soundtrack only underlines the deadness of everyone and everything involved. Was this crap inspired by "Idiots 95", Lars von Trier's wonderful little crackpot cinematic-revolution firm? The wobbly camera, the sex, the ugly look, and the lack of music certainly adhere to the rules of "Morons 95". We're offered two lead characters who are uninteresting and bland. I could almost see Molly Parker as a stripper (although, they're usually rather mangy-looking), but when it is mentioned that she fixed car-locks and plays the drums, I could have laughed. I could have but didn't, because the movie had already put me in a semi-slumber during its first several minutes. Parker plays an uninteresting, mentally hollow stripper; Sarsgaard plays a run-of-the-mill nice guy: an uninteresting rich and polite semi-nerd. When the two of them were together sparks flew! No, not really... But I'm sure that Ms.Wang intended to have us see those sparks - wherever they may be. Where have those sparks gone? Or were they never even thrown in the film in the first place? Ms.Wang, you need to find out who took those sparks that were meant to be in all those "sexy", "emotional" scenes. I think someone stole them. Or perhaps the sparks abandoned the set, running as fast as their feet(?) could carry them, unwilling to have anything to do with this dull project.Thank God for the miracle of modern science! No, not the internet, computers, or DNA research; I'm talking about the remote control. Using this simple yet effective tool, I managed to finish this 85-minute movie in less than 70 minutes. I know, still too long for this malarkey, but that's at least 15 minutes of my life saved, and every minute counts when you're as bored as I was, watching Ms.Parker try to be sexy with her laughable stripping and tiny butt.So what was the ultimate point of this shamelessly plot-less film? Basically, this is a "when-is-the-penetration-gonna-happen" kind of story. At the outset of their Las Vegas "adventure" Parker tells Sarsgaard and the poor viewers that there will be "no kissing and no penetration", but even the most clueless viewer knows that that's exactly what has to happen at some point. And when it happens it's... it's... rather uninteresting, just like all the previous events. In that great finale they kiss, they have (un)emotional sex, Parker is still frigid, Sarsgaard is still in love - and sobs like a baby after just having semi-raped Parker. He did that to her because he was heavily frustrated. 10,000 bucks and such disrespect? Ts, ts... Maybe the message of the film is this: "rich semi-nerdy young millionaires are often unable to get the proper sexual escort service that they really need". Wow. That IS "deep".Or maybe the movie wants us to muse over whether the vagina or the internet is "the center of the world". (I'm not making this up.) Now, that's DEEP! A little correction. I just found out that "Ellen Banjamin Wang" isn't a "Wang" but a "Wong". Furthermore, she is not a real person but a pseudonym which Wayne Wang so very ingeniously created to represent all the great and inventive minds that put so much thought into this intellectual exercise. Maybe that's why the movie sucks this much: half a dozen writers collaborating on what is essentially a non-story... that can never end well.There is more entertainment to be found in reading the name "Wayne Wang" over and over than watching this film.
I want my eight dollars back!
posted on 04 May 2009This is an excruciatingly awful film - strike that - an excruciatingly awful video that has been transferred to film. If you can not afford film, Mr. Wang, PLEASE curb your ego and release it directly to video.The quality of the picture is terrible and the "story" is twice as bad. The "film" revolves around two of the most vacuous characters I have ever had the displeasure of watching on screen: Richard, a socially retarded software millionaire who pays Florence, an empty headed but street-wise stripper, ten thousand dollars to accompany him to Las Vegas for a weekend. In those three days, Richard naively hopes to win this bimbo's heart.Over the course of the weekend we are subjected to watching the homely Florence play mind games with the idiot man-child, Richard. Richard's only relationship with women is masturbating in front of his computer monitor (shown in a flashback), which demonstrates that he is easily manipulated and an extremely pathetic human being.I won't spoil the ending for you, but it actually doesn't matter if he ends up with her or not. What matters most is, you've just wasted eight or ten bucks (depending on where you live) on a cruel joke played by Wayne Wang.Wang doesn't introduce one character worth empathizing with or even relating to on any level. Are we supposed to feel sorry for this bumbling twenty-something millionaire? Oh, the poor little rich boy. Are we supposed to care about the self-debasing affected stripper who only cares about money? How can you worry about someone who doesn't concern herself about anything or anyone? You can't!Again, I have to go off on the quality of this "movie." It's horrible! The entire film was shot on video and it doesn't even look like digital video. Some of the scenes were so pixilated my eyes had a hard time focusing on the screen - and, I thought The Blair Witch Project's quality was bad.I love independent film, but this isn't film - it's video. A very, very, very bad video.
Showgirls: the Next Generation
posted on 21 Feb 2009Take Showgirls, make it all independent filmy and lower the budget, and you'll have this movie. Trashy as hell, but veiled as intelligent. The audience I saw the picture with laughed throughout the showing. See it for what it is, porn-lite fobbed off as art, and you will too. Perfs by Gugino and Parker are dead on. I got tired of Sarsgaard's one note performance. Still, I like to see DV features make it to theatrical, and I'll give filmmakers credit for achieving that much. And for getting my $10.My advice: Rent "Center of the World" and play it with the sound off at the next literati cocktail party you host.
Last Tango In Vegas
posted on 15 Feb 2009A lightweight riff on Bertolucci's magnificent "Last Tango In Paris" finds a couple strike a deal whereby he will pay her to spend three nights in Vegas with him. Well, a holiday in Vegas even if you have to do a bit of sexy dancing for someone? Who could say no? The problem here is that the main character of the film pretty soon establishes itself as Las Vegas. Who cares where that ice cube is going? I wanna see The Stratosphere! And there is the problem...despite some half hearted attempt to inject modernity into it all by making him a computer wizard (though this is never really explored from the cyber sex angle) and despite the washed out colour of the DV flashbacks and some arty shots it is really hard to care. A couple of questions are raised but never answered and the whole film teeters on the verge of being interesting but never engages the viewer. Stil there are some great shots of Vegas!
Very sensual and daring
posted on 05 Feb 2009It's hard to find a truly erotic movie made in America. Most mainstream films have little sex/no nudity and a whole lot of violence. And what constitutes "erotic art" in films is made up horribly contrived, unbelievable Cinemax/Playboy movies. That lack any real heat and are amazingly unsexy and boring. So a film like "Center of the World" is a rare gem. It actually is sensual, erotic and the participants in the sex scenes seem comfortable and actually engaged in what they are doing. The scenes do not come off as awkward or simulated. Which is the challenge for any film director. To make the audience believe what they are seeing is real. What's special here is that a great actress who one would actually like to see do nudity/sexual material, has the lead female role. There's no body doubles here and Molly seems really comfortable with the nudity and explicit sex scenes. She looks absolutely gorgeous throughout the movie. And is not the traditional, cookie butter starlet that is churned out in a 1,001 Cinemax skin flicks. Hollywood should make more of these films. Unfortunately, I think during this age of "sexual repression" in the arts, our natural human sexual needs will continue to be hidden from view on both the big and small screens.
Lots of Potential, Little Result...
posted on 11 Aug 2008I've seen a lot of movies with the Internet as subject matter over the past few years, and the surprising size of the audience I sat with for this one leads me to believe that my interest is shared. The Center of the World was supposed to examine sexual relationships in the age of the Internet, according to this Salon article:But Salon got it all wrong; the touchy subject of online pornography was only fleetingly alluded to, and what I got instead was a slightly more realistic version of Pretty Woman. Thankfully, Sunday's episode of Futurama did a much better job on the pornography issue!
Good, and reasonably realistic
posted on 03 Aug 2008I found the movie to be well made and the story pretty good, and holding it all together was a constant feeling of "I can believe this."There was very little in the movie that seems unreal to me.As the first comment says, more movies should be made like this - an intelligent exploration of how we feel about sex, love, feelings, desire, etc.
At least it only cost me $4
posted on 02 Jul 2008Well, 29 francs, which is the equivalent of $4. I knew little about the film except that it was a bleak erotic Wayne Wang film. And it was all of those things. Maybe I just wasn't in the mood to see Pretty Woman Meets Leaving Las Vegas/Showgirls, I don't know. I was underwhelmed by the sex, the dialogue, even the loneliness--I've had better of all of those. The one scene I did actually find right-on was...POSSIBLE SPOILER: ...the one where they finally have sex in the end. It comes just after he talks about how it is going to be, how great HE is going to be. But the reality is that he isn't super-lover; she isn't wet, he spits on his hand to get inside her, she is just starting to get into it when he comes. How many women can relate to that? I certainly can. I don't think the scene was at all about her retreating into herself and pretending not to enjoy it--it was about the fact that he was a great lover only in his own mind. And when he turns her over and forces himself on her after that, no one can claim she is simply "pretending" not to enjoy it. She's being raped, for God's sake!END SPOILERI'll have to rent Smoke again to regain my taste for Wayne Wang films.
"Pretty Woman" with a reality check.
posted on 06 Jan 2008In the above mentioned movie it always seemed strange that a really rich and handsome guy resorted to a hooker, albeit a real knockout one? Now we see a possible scenario that might make the plot not just a fantasy. A "Dot-Com." millionaire, with the required "nurd-ness" uses his economic power to feed his...well I guess fantasies and the story results are pretty good. They are at least more realistic than the sterile grunting that most current movies use as "sex scenes". Hollywood does violence beyond scale, but they do "sex" in the taboo filled lock-ups of censors and religious heresies. A director takes a daring chance into these forbidden areas and he is either eviscerated or beloved. For this movie there has been some of each. I don't think it deserves either. I think the movie making is a bit lame but the story and the attempt at reality deserves credit where due. I wonder how "The Postman Always Rings Twice" would have been if it had been done this boldly? Rhetorical questions seem to serve little purpose but I wonder how this movies got to be "R" rated and "Midnight Cowboy" was rated "X"? A question for another time perhaps? This movie is not in the class of "Midnight Cowboy", but it is pretty good and should be seen.
terrific characters (spoilers)
posted on 27 Dec 2007Center of the World is one of those movies that sticks in your mind. Not for the straight-to-video look, and not for the sex scenes (during which Wang mostly focuses on the characters' faces rather than bodies). It's the characters that keep you thinking well after the credits.Richard Longman (Sarsgaard) starts out as a stock character: the nerdy, socially inept computer millionaire who doesn't know how to get a girlfriend. But Sarsgaard, brilliant as usual shows us his many layers. He gets aggressive with video games; he's instinctively caring, assuming a strong "masculine" role (though it's obvious he's not the strong one). He's a big kid who just wants some intimacy, but doesn't understand the basic complexity of human connection. On the other hand, he's seduced by the surface of things--watching too much porn, he really believes that money and a good time will make those sexy porn-queens care about him. In reality doesn't take the time to get to know Florence at all. His rage and frustration confuse him; he's empty and often resorts to money to fix things.Florence (Parker) is a bit of a cipher at first. She's cold, withdrawn, business-like. Yet it's clear that as she gets to know Richard, she likes him. She's conflicted about her role as her feelings change--does she want to sleep with him? does that make her any less of a whore?Many reviewers took sides with one or the other, which I think is a mistake. There's good and bad in both that makes them equally sympathetic. Richard wants intimacy and is a nice goofy guy. But he's also emotionally stunted and more than a little pervy in his desire to buy not just sexual satisfaction, but human connection. He has no right to buy her feelings, but he is allowed to be confused by her lack of them (given their camaraderie)Similarly, Florence is cold and not a little cruel. But she is also conflicted by her feelings, which are somewhere in that gray area of real affection and sexual attraction. Even conflicted, however, but she doesn't make the mistake of thinking that her feelings are love. He bought her body and even of her enjoyment in the weekend, but he can't just buy a relationship. I don't doubt that she wants him, but after (or during) the point when she gives in, she realizes how much of her desire was fantasy. In the end, she makes the only choice she understands.The last few scenes--Richard's pointless, (somewhat stereotypically masculine) act of rage, and Florence's cool expression of her sexual independence--reveal how damaged these characters are. And though the ending is ambiguous, the audience instinctively knows that something is ruined between them.The real trick? Hopelessly, we root for them to heal each other somehow. We buy into the Pretty Woman fantasy, just like they do (Florence less than Richard, but still) We imagine that Florence lets her guard down and learns to care for someone, and Richard tries to connect with a real woman rather than some porn fantasy. But this is the anti-Pretty Woman (which was a travesty of a film). This is reality.Not a perfect film, but very thought-provoking.
Dear God, would somone please make the suck go away!
posted on 31 Aug 2007First of all, I never knew that the majority of audiences in the United States who attend arthouse cinema could ever, ever, EVER consider this abommination an "art film". Since when do we feel that glorified pornography with a some-what better than Debbie Does Dallas script makes fine cinema? Because the characters all had "issues"? Because they were "emoting" after their sex scenes? This film is utterly one of the most revolting excuses for independent film I have ever had the displeasure to see.I have no problem with love scenes, sex scenes, nudity, et al, as long as they have some sense of tasteful rellevence to a strong story. However, this script was merely a hashing out of sexual perversions, with the SLIGHT feel of romantic interest for about a millisecond. The writing was at times laughable, and most of the time tollerable at best. I have scence sexual thrillers that actually went somewhere...this, sadly, was not one of them.'Tis Pity She's a Whore.J
Why Digital Sucks
posted on 14 Jul 2007Ran into this one on one of my 7 HBO's last night. Considering the talent behind and in front of the camera, plus the new digital technology that was used to film the movie, you would think this would have made news when they tried to release it. After watching it, I now know why I've never heard of this film, it probably went straight to video without one week at any of the indy film houses in LA like Laemmle or Landmark. Wayne Wang is a great Director - see "Smoke" or "Joy Luck Club" to see for yourself. Peter Sarsgaard is a sensational young talent, see "Boys Don't Cry" or "Salton Sea" to see for yourself. Molly Parker is somewhat unknown to me, but her recent work as a female rabbi in "Six Feet Under" is bringing her more to the forefront. Sarsgaard and Parker are decent enough in their roles, it's Wang who blows this movie to bits. Using Hi-Def/Digital Camera technology was the big mistake. If you want to see every freckle, pimple, and pockmark on your movie characters faces, then go with Digital. Wang made these beautiful enough people look really really bad, and to me, this movie is the "A #1" example for why a film should not be shot in digital, at least not this way. Film is film, and a film is shot on film. If something's not shot on film, i.e., on digital, then guess what? It's not a film. It's a movie. Because of the pornographic nature of this movie, the digital camera made it feel like that much more of a porno to me. Wang probably makes digital look worse than it actually is by deciding to shoot his actor's faces so close up. It ruins each shot. He makes Molly Parker look like an alien with his close ups on her big blue, freckle framed eyes. He makes Peter Sarsgaard look like a bum with his tigh shots on his cavernous pock marked face. It's disgusting. If you shoot digital, lose all tight shots and bad lighting, and watch this movie as an example of what not to do when shooting digital. The story is pretty much a not so original take on rich guy goes all out to buy a prostitute and maybe they will fall in love, let's see what happens. It's worth watching, but like many movies, only because you can learn what not to do as a filmmaker.
Horrible
posted on 04 Jul 2007The script is disastrous, pretentious boring drivel. Whoever wrote those dialogues and plot is a loser who never had a meaningful relationship with anyone, or hopefully had one but absolutely no writing talent whatsoever.The camera work is a pathetic attempt at presenting the movie as an 'art film', 'independent' or whatever is supposed to give it some value. The only reason I managed to get through to around 90% of this film is my friend who laughed at and ridiculed every single line of those fake dialogs. I mostly spend my time wondering how much worse is it going to get.If people can actually get this kind of trash to DVD and cable TV, I wonder whether I should give up my profession and start making movies. I am convinced I can write a much better script than this junk.Don't even think about watching this.
Boring, Slow and Mis-Marketed
posted on 01 May 2007At the risk of sounding like a pervert, I must give this movie a bad review primarily because this movie was promoted as explicit sex with a story, but it was more of a bland and boring story with a few erotic dancing scenes. All the actual sex was kept off the camea. While some people may like slow, drawn-out, simple drama storyline with bad dialogue, I was expecting an edgy erotic thriller in the fashion of "Basic Instinct". Needless to say I was greatly dissatisfied to find it did not meet any of my expectations. I could easily make a better movie myself. Maybe I will. For those who LIKE the slow dramas and don't mind nudity and implied sex, this is a decent idea of putting a computer geek looking for love and a below-average stripper looking for money together. Just don't make any expectations before and during the movie and you should not be annoyed by the non-climactic ending.
Women, The Center of the Universe.
posted on 02 Mar 2007Women, the power of their control, if they only knew how easy we break. They always seem to catch you off guard and they always have the destiny of us in their hands. The Center of the World is the authority of the female dancer phyche. It correctly shows that the nightclub dancer is a girl with refined features and intelligent, I loved a stripper, I remember how I could not believe she was a dancer just like Richard. Florence is beutifull, so refined so innocent looking, so classy yet, never a whore, she danced and took our money, we gave her alot of it for a couple of songs while she danced on your lap. Director Wayne Wang has either dated a dancer or fell in love with one because he displays the power of women, they make the rules, end of story. The Center of the World is a film that teaches a hard lesson to men, women are never bought, not for all the money in the world or for all the luxury, deep inside, a girl will only give to he who deserves. A couple has entered a room and look at the view, while in flashbacks, the story of their meeting is told. The meeting at Pandoras Box, she tells him "2 songs 30 dollars". He offers her a nice compensation for a little vacation, she accepts with conditions. Richard falls in love, she's becoming attracted, she wont allow herself since she was hired. She gives in and he is stunned that it meant nothing to her, but look in her eyes. Acting is in the eyes and Richard and Florence display a tidal wave of feelings and soul. When Richard realizes Florence is not his he breaks down like a little boy, remember? Women make the rules, if they only knew how easy we break.
SEXY ALIENATION
posted on 07 Oct 2006I like this film for what it is. It's really erotic. And it's very very hot. But I'm a sucker for endings, and without spoiling - I have to say I was a little bit disappointed. Don't get me wrong, this is great independent filmmaking, but with a little more guts, and a little more detail of the human condition - and all of it's dysfunctions and twisted little habits - this film might have been a landmark.
Nothing new here
posted on 01 Jul 2006Ancient script. Man needs the physical stuff. Man hires dancer or prostitute. Man falls in love with her. Man in crisis mode.This movie lacks a bundle on the character development's front. And the passion between Richard and Flo doesn't really fly. The elements are there to make a good movie, but Wayne Wang seems to be unable to put the magic touch to it.Molly Parker and Peter Sarsgaard are doing a fine job as Flo and Richard.You can easily skip this one.Out of 100, I gave it 73. That's good for **½ out of ****.Seen at home, in Toronto, on October 18th, 2002.
A good movie for suckers
posted on 30 Apr 2006"Center of the World", which refers to the birth canal, tells of a young millionaire nice-guy who pays a stripper to do three days in Vegas with him. She imposes restrictions like no kissing on the lips, no talk of feelings, no fornication, etc. At issue is, will they get past the sex stuff and fall in love? Wang has put a slick veneer on this story which spends too much time with gratuitous sex and too little time with character development...and what little is developed is pretty hard to swallow. Gugino's appearance is token, out of nowhere, and contributes nothing and all the lollipop and "fire and ice" BS is just window dressing for a story which is a flat as warm beer. C
"One of the Best Films of the Year, and Probably the Greatest F*(@ Film Ever made."
posted on 27 Jul 2009It really feels good to see a great movie and last night I saw the Best Film of the Year (so far). Actually, I liked this movie so much that it will end up in my top five list of the year. So I went to the 9:30 showing of The Center of The World, and that film worked in every possible level. The story is a simple one, dot COM Millionaire hires stripper, who he has a crush on, to go to Vegas for a weekend. She gets $10,000 he gets all the fun he can handle. We have seen this done very badly before. But what Wayne Wang does, to me, is Film History. The film doesn't go the usual route, feelings are not allowed, this movie is about the Battle of the Sexes. The Battle of the Sexes, How more cliché can one get, well if the capital of cliché is Tokyo, this movie lives in New York, that's how far away from cliché this movie is. Women and men are enemies in a battle that is never going to end and no one is going to win. Every single scene between the Millionaire and the Stripper are clear stand offs. I won't pushed the matter on, this film is a F#^( Film. There are at least seven sex scenes in it and in every one of them, the battle becomes more and more brutal. Who is in control, which has the power, who is more beautiful, who is not a wh*%@? The Millionaire thinks he has the power, Stripper thinks she has control. The Film was excellent. I could go into more detail why this movie is perfect but I won't. Some of my reasons are maybe too cruel for the public's ears. Is better just to let you come to your own results. The film was done very boldly, it was shot on DV and until now I didn't like the results but this movie once again, changes my mind about some topics. Is almost a documentary about these two people and the battle that they are both going to forfeit. So the format and the style fit the movie like a glove. Both actors, who you probably have never seen before, are great. And the writing seems to me a bit minimal. This is a movie that screams improvisation, but very well thought out improvisation. The film had a very surreal touch to it, and I think Vegas should be the one to thank for that. Hotel rooms, bars and the Vegas surroundings are the main backdrop, and it still creeps me out. Is one of the most haunting films I have seen in a while. Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention that this movie is plot-less, and is just as interesting as anything anyone could come up with. In a month were everything that is coming out are stupid Tom Green movies, I'm happy I discovered this one in time. And for the newspapers, if you want a sound bite, see what you think of this one. "One of the Best Films of the Year, and Probably the Greatest F^%( Film Ever made." Lo