I gave this 5 stars for the five monologues that I did enjoy the most. There are two or three really good performances in this, particularly Lisa Gay Hamilton, Kathy Baker, and Rhada Mitchell in a too-short piece that leads off. The rest are either adequate (Kimberley Williams, Alicia Witt and Rebecca Tilney), or less-than-adequate, and a few just plain bad like Deborah Unger (tremulous and melodramatic). A real clunker for me was the morbid, over-the-top, deadly dull story from Elizabeth Pena's monologue which is also way too long, on top of which she doesn't do it well at all.Hamilton's monologue is probably the best-written of the ten, the finest balanced including deep humiliation with a willingness to confide this without resorting to bathos. Most I found merely self-conscious and stagy with a tinny theatricality that made the person speaking sound so forced and unconnected to reality that I lost contact. This happened especially in Pena's long, drab monologue about a distinctly unhappy marriage. Why Garcia felt the need to stretch this one out like he did I have no idea, but I finally fast-forwarded (turns out I was two seconds from the end of it anyway) and got to Baker's which restored some freshness and balance and gave a better ending to the proceedings (it's wonderful to see an actor with the skill and confidence of Baker simply step into the role and wear it instantly with a minimum of fuss and affectation (certainly one of Ms. Unger's problems)). I don't know if Garcia has a problem with marriage, relationships, or women, but he has an axe to grind somewhere. He has done other ensemble pieces with some of the same women. It seems to be his specialty. While I am a man, I am one who enjoys a good chick flick (Muriel's Wedding, for instance), and I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy Ten Tiny Love Stories. I did, but it was definitely uneven and weighted to the negative side in overall quality.I think the women were given a bit too much freedom in their interpretations so that some of the less-skilled among them, like Unger, struggled to find the pitch. She just keeps coming apart at the seams during hers leaving herself nowhere to go to modulate her performance. Depending upon the length of the piece, Unger seemed to run out of space and yet sounded so constantly on the brink of disaster emotionally, that it began to sound like a pitiful whine long before it was over. And finally, I felt that some of these monologues were not true in the sense that they had a phony feel to them. They sounded like they were supposed to be candid but they came off stilted. For the three of four good pieces, it's certainly worth the effort.

The idea of watching ten different monologues of women reminiscing about men may seem like a slow death to some viewers, but I found it intriguing to watch these actresses mine the most out of their characters with no safety net provided. As a heterosexual guy, I would recommend this film to other men as learning aid on how to listen to women in the very least, even if some scenes stretch credibility. I was particularly impressed with Kimberly Williams who I had not given much credit to as an actress before seeing this. She paints a vivid picture of the story she tells not only with her voice but with entire body language. I also continue to be impressed with Alicia Witt who continues to show more daring in her craft than most young actors.

Spoilers herein.This has been termed an experiment because it is unusual, but it is more of an adventure into the space of the written word.Garcia is a writer. Writers use words as knives to open spaces to inhabit. With this particular kind of writer, it is the words themselves that have an energy as if they were alive. That life follows the discovered grain of compacted emotions, natural but unexpected. This is wholly different from how the majority of writers work, those who think characters can take you places, or the minority who believe in situations or emotions having life and leading the way.But how to invite readers into those newly open pockets? Shakespeare had a solution: use actors as readers not characters. I don' t think most movie-goers appreciate the different threads available to filmmakers and us as viewers, the different ways we have of connecting ourselves to the mind of the filmmaker through the medium. Most of use just assume that actors are meant to be characters and characters have something to do with real people.Garcia works a different thread. His remarkable "Thing You Can Tell..." exists first as words, then sensitive literary conceits, then as intentions in the collective minds of small ensembles, and only then as cinematic images of characters. The reason it works so effectively is because he shifts from one ensemble to another as if to emphasize: folks, this is NOT about these people you think you are seeing. It is about something deeper, more visceral and universal than whatever individuals are being conjured up.That project exploited many cinematic tricks: repeated patterns and strophes in the mannerisms and situations of the characters. This project goes further, much further.There are no ensembles. No mannerisms. No characters to speak of. The sets are homes, but homes framed with unnatural depth as if they were freshly opened crevices of imagination. The camera never moves. The dialog is as internal as one can get, as directly between us and the creator of those words.So we have two things going on here. The first is the connection between us and Garcia's poetry. I personally find it a little cloying, too artificially feminine, steeped in the crisis of the intelligent Latin male and promise of Spanish literature, that world of writing where the reality of the viewer creates the reality of the viewed.But those reservations are minor compared to what else is going on here. All ten of these "stories" have the same soul, but he has given them to ten different women to interpret their own way, with no directions whatsoever. Then they show up and do it, often only meeting Garcia for the first time that day.So what we have is something between real acting and reading, assuming that "real" acting is the process of creating a person while eliminating the actor. What we have are ten glimpses into the souls of actresses rather than ten glimpses at characters. I have watched this over and over, sometimes with just the sound. It is pretty remarkable. With only a few exceptions, these are not good actresses, not actresses who can transcend themselves with the material. They are people whose own emotional foibles get mixed with the words. What gets exposed is what it means to be an actress manipulated by forces not quite in their control. With their characters, it is the activity of a man. With the actresses, it is the words of a man.Spend some time with this.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.

This is a movie about how men think women think about love. No woman describes a one-night sexual encounter and declares it a love story.Of the ten monologues I felt only three really had any kind of truth ring through them. I kept waiting for the film to get better, and it did a bit, but never better enough.This is an interesting concept, and I kept wanting it to be good, but it never succeeded. Maybe if they actually WERE love stories it would have worked.