One short film script repeated three times in three different cities in the United States, Europe and Japan. The dialogue is identical in each; the plot plays out the violent and alienating repercussions of chronic flirtation and self-destructive covetousness. The subtle differences in each scenario are due (theoretically) to the changes in setting, sexual orientation and cultural backdrop.

If you're a Hal Hartley fan you'll probably enjoy this film to some extent; if you're not then you may be easily put off by the repetition of what could be seen as stiff artsy banter. The dialogue is clever, sharp, witty - characteristically quirky Hal Hartley writing. But the first scenario, set in New York and involving Martin Donovan, Parker Posey and that other favorite Hal Hartley actor from Simple Men (Bill something), is easily the best of the three and the high point of the film.

There's some really nice editing in this film, for those who have an interest in technical considerations.

This is a film about the human behaviour, more or less. Like Jim Jarmousch did on "A Night On Earth", Hal Hartley attempts to reach the depths of a human soul, in a cosmically way, I think. We are more or less the same even if we don't admit it. A specific action can bring equal reaction from almost all of us. That is the point of the film. FLIRT focuses as the title says in flirting. This doesn't necessarily mean that it couldn't be otherwise, on the contrary. Hartley has his own way of processing images (and what a way!). After all he was a cinematographer, he should know. Poetic close-ups, characters more lovable not for what they say or do but for what they might say or do. This particular film studies the same situation in three different corners of the world. The places are not important. This could have happened anywhere and it did. Especially in the last place "Tokyo" the sequences are absolutely marvellous. I will not try to criticize the script as a script. There are people who get paid to do that sort of things. This is not a film to be seen by people with "conventional" eyes. This is not a conventional film. Far from it. Anyone who knows of Hal Hartley's work knows exactly what I mean. A 10 out of 10 for this brilliant film by Hartley, and remember best things in life are the ones we can't quite explain them.

I'm a big fan of Hartley, and I went into this film with no idea of what it was about. I felt disappointed pretty quickly. The trademark Harley weirdness felt forced, but more importantly the dialog was less interesting, so that it all felt very static. There were a few interesting moments sprinkled in here and there, but I only kept watching because I hoped that at some point it would all come together and click into gear.

And then, 20 minutes or so in, the story ends, we're in a different country and the same exact story with the same dialog that wasn't interesting the first time is done a second time. And then, when that plays out, a third time.

Why? I have no idea. What is this meant to show us? That people all over the world have boring little stories to tell? It doesn't really matter what Hartley's intent was, the final product is pure tedium, with just a little purely gratuitous nudity thrown in to spice things up.

Definitely an Art movie, sort of the anti-Rashômon: three different events described as if they were the same. Obviously such a film foregrounds the direction, and the dialog is recognizably Hartleyesque.

Hal Hartley weaves the same dialog through three only roughly similar stories given by their settings, the characters involved, and the cinematic treatments different meanings.

An art film about how films make art out of life. Or something.

Warning: if you lack intellectual curiosity (it's definitely not for the passive viewer) or are homophobic this will push your buttons; hence the 1-out-of-10 ratings above.

This is crap. To make the same, boring old ("human condition") point about people being in the same situations regardless of nationality, race, or sexual preference is bad enough. But does it have to be made through tiresome repetitiveness of the same dialogue, over and over? This is a very boring and lifeless film. It's also visually one of the worst I've seen in a while; did I read in the credits that someone was in charge of cinematography? Maybe it was the film's gaffer.

The first story is okay, the German one is utterly horrible, and the Japanese one sleep-inducing. Needless to say, it's by far Hartley's worst film. This looks like a very rushed and messy endeavor, and the acting is at times atrocious - especially in the German segment (The Germans, apart from some notable exceptions, have pretty weak actors).

If you want some high-quality indie comedy(or)drama from Hartley, check out "Amateur", "Henry Fool", or "The Unbelievable Truth" – all very funny, eccentric movies.

Although I'm a big fan of Hal Hartley's previous work (Trust, The Unbelievable Truth), I was a bit disappointed by Flirt. There are some clever elements to the film, including Hartley's always excellent dialog sequences. The repetition, providing different views on the same plot sequence, was well done. Overall, an above-average movie, particularly for Hartley followers.

The idea of transporting a story and telling it in three continents is an intriguing one. What we have in Flirt is a weak New York story which verges on the ridiculous when transported to Berlin and Tokyo, particularly when it comes to handgun ownership.

The similarities are unsubtle and contrived, and you feel the actors, who do well in this, are fighting a very stilted script.

Maybe if Hal Hartley had spent more time exploring the differences in how the story would play in different cultures and less time making ‘high quality titillation' (his own description) then it might have made it a better viewing experience.

The same story told three times in three countries but with different characters and culture values. Hartley goes for the Godardian style but without the political cheekiness. Nice to see Hartley try his hand at something a little different.

I really liked this movie, and I enjoy it more and more each time I see it (and it says something that I went out and bought it after one viewing, just so I could watch it again and again). On one level, it's just a lot of fun, very insightful, wittily written and playfully acted by a great cast. On another level, it's also quite poetic, obviously made with a lot of love, and structurally speaking, an incredibly well-executed work of art- perhaps too artsy for some people. I would have to say that Hal Hartley is my favourite film maker, indie or not, and of his movies, this is probably one of the best and most accessible. He'll probably never be mainstream, but that's not a bad thing- it's partially the individuality of his work that makes it so unique, so honest, and so damn good. FLIRT is a fine, fine example.

Flirt being the fifth Hal Hartley-film I've seen it's also the one I appreciated the least.

You get to follow the same story in different places of the world (NY, Berlin, Tokyo) with different people.

Although the run time wasn't even one and a half hour it felt longer. It must depend on that Berlin and Tokyo didn't really pass my quality control. And that might depend on that the previous Hartley-films I've seen have really been great and that Flirt's NY-episode also was great. It would have worked better as a short film. All by itself. But then seeing almost exactly the same "short story" again only with a twist didn't appeal to me much I discovered later on.

If you like Hartley maybe you should see Flirt all because his trustful actors (Martin Donovan, Elina Löwensohn, Bill Sage, Michael Imperioli), his pretty unique way of making film and of course because of Ned Rifle's music.

i just had to write a review for this b/c it is one of the worst films i had ever seen and i can't remember if i walked out of the theatre or not. as you know, the same story is told 3x incl. the same dialogue. the same things happen. this is not Run Lola Run. this is shite (IMHO).

it wasn't interesting to watch the story loop first time, and therefore iterations #2 & #3 decline in value. the Law of Diminishing Returns grinds the storyline into mathematical powder, as when you start with nothing (or to be fair, not much), and then reduce it, this is what you get.

there was no way for me to appreciate it on any other level. using handpuppets instead of actors might have garnered more audience sympathy for the characters and added depth to their 2D cardboard cutouts.

The EXACT scene was played out over and over again WORD for freaking WORD but the gimmick was this same dull scene was acted out by DIFFERENT people in DIFFERENT cities.

Wow! What a concept!

When we got to what I think was the third go round with the gay couple, I just said to myself, "you've got to be an idiot to endure one more second of this garbage"! At that moment, for the first and only time in my film going history, I had ZERO interest in the balance of a film. I stick with even the most boring and goriest of movies because there is always hope that things will improve. Maybe, just maybe, I'll get something out of the experience. Not this time. "Flirt" was just too unbearable to stay in the theater.

What a piece of SCHIT!

Lowest possible rating 1/10