pre-review note : seeing as the only concern of body shots is " sex " , i will be forced to refer to that particular act innumerable times throughout the duration of this review . because of this , i will try to vary word descriptions of " sex " ( meaning if you are offended by pejorative terms , and \ or your name is jerry falwell , you are kindly invited to hit the x up on the left corner of your screen ) , so if there happens to be a word you come across and cannot comprehend , fret not , it's most likely just another way of referring to " sex " . i think we'd all agree that any word used incessantly becomes a bit monotonous so i hope you appreciate my attempt to liven up what could potentially be a very boring review . <NEG> though not as boring as the movie </NEG> which makes steve forbes flat tax plan seem as lively as watching a naked mathew mconaughy play the bongos while high on god knows what . body shots is a film so frightened of coitus that scenes of copulation are filmed ominously , in the way you'd normally expect to see a violent attack . it's about people who think about screwing , seek it out , and talk about it . these are things we all do , sometimes . the characters in this film spend every waking moment pondering the simplicities of sexual acts . their lives center around the next sexual encounter , but they seemed depressed . it's as if fucking is all they have to look forward to after a busy workweek . at its core body shots is a message movie , the kind of thing i could picture really progressive church groups showing to middle schoolers in order to turn them off coition . michael cristoffer ( who directed gia , another film that treated bumping uglies as if it where evil ) is a moralist with nothing new to say . his characters don't communicate anything of interest to each other , so cristoffer gives them an opportunity to let out their inner thoughts by speaking directly into the camera . they voice simplistic platitudes like " i like to come " or " sex without love equals violence " . huh ? and yes that is as complex as this movie's observations get . <NEG> the characters are stupid and shallow </NEG> , with not one registering as anything more . the plot concerns vapid over sexed twentysomethings on an all night hunt for carnal pleasure , then the after math ( the morning after ) of such events . we meet the characters as they speak directly to us , confiding in us with their idiotic ruminations on intimacy . i would normally go into the characters and the actors who play them , giving you the pros and cons , but for this film i cannot . i'm not trying to be clever or witty , but i honestly hardly remember anything that would set them apart from the others . with the exception of trent ( played by ron livingston as a bargain basement patrick bateman ) , the rest fade into each other-- a patchwork of fake breasts , defined abs , pearly white teeth , and creamy , flawless skin . i vaguely recall brad rowe as the sensitive one , only because his character gets the worst lines ( " sex without love equals violence " ) . in between all the confessionals , cristoffer films everything like a headache commercial , with blurry slo mos and dramatic head turning . <NEG> the fact that this director at one point won a pulitzer prize completely baffles me </NEG> . this film is <NEG> made without one iota of intelligence or insight </NEG> into the generation that its tag line claims to be defining . if body shots is meant to say that all twentysometyhings are idiotic and f * * k-obsessed , fine , i don't have any problem with a film that tries to persuade me to think a certain way , but cristoffer only gives us one side . additionally <NEG> that one side isn't even entertaining </NEG> ; the characters indulge in buggery without an ounce of sexiness . or realism . one sexual encounter takes place outside a club on a chain link fence between the two most sensitive characters . they suddenly have vigorous intercourse with each other for no apparent reason ( other than that they both happen to be standing next to each other ? ? ? alas , if it could only be that easy ? ? ? kidding of course ) , then , not only isn't it erotic , it isn't real . it doesn't feel like an authentic sexual encounter . every f * * k scene in this film ( and there are many ) is <NEG> treated in the same unsexy manner </NEG> . body shots makes fornication dirtier than the most scummy porno film . it shows us none of the pleasure that should go along with it , and most of all , it fails to show us why its characters love making it so much if they seem to hate the act of actually doing it . the resulting search for nookie ( and you can take that cookie ? ? ? ) over one night leaves us with several <NEG> tedious plot lines </NEG> to follow . the main concern is much ado over a rape that may or may not have occurred . the film shows us two separate versions of the possible rape ( one where it is consensual the other where it is not ) and in both versions the young actress playing the possible victim gets her shirt torn off . this is a topic that could be interestingly explored if done intelligently , and if memory serves me i can't think of one film that has done so , and yes i saw the accused which may be one of the most overrated movies of the 80's next to wall street . unfortunately <NEG> nobody gives us reason to care </NEG> , not the writer , the director or the actors nearly all of whom seem to have wandered off the set of a noxious 90210 spin off . paul thomas anderson approached boogie nights in a manner similar to what cristoffer does here , though boogie nights succeeded . it was similarly moralistic , but it gave us two different viewpoints ; it showed us how the lifestyle of porn enticed its characters , and it showed us the possible fall-out of such a decision . the characters in boogie nights were as idiotic as the characters are here , but anderson seemed to care about them . he gave them heart . cristoffer <NEG> gives them nothing but raging hormones </NEG> . he preaches to us , by using his characters to preach to us . this is not the way to get any message across . why not just direct a public service announcement on the perils of hittin' skins ? cristofer kind of does that , though <NEG> without an ounce of insight </NEG> , and with a helping of leering exploitation .
