Anti and Pro ??!!

Rating: Null/10 (7 December 2009)

It is not a confusing movie. It's just confused. And with other defects too.
Most of this cast are so pale. (Ryan Phillippe) and (Breckin Meyer) both look like children, or idiots. But while this partly could mean good casting for their simpleton characters, the real problem was that they didn't add anything to their roles; being uncharismatic, and without any depth at all. So how about being in the hands of a clueless script that has no depth or whatsoever?!
The movie shows the atmosphere of New York in the late 1970s, and how some of the cream de la cream were living, or rather being doped. The sinking into this freedom of nightclub 54, so the developments of what it leads to moral collapses, are all clear. But suddenly, at the end, all of that turned into a mixed up stuff; the guys who were taking tons of drugs became suddenly clean?, the couple who was about to break became suddenly so in love??, and the movie which was a satire all along became suddenly an elegy???
It came to a point where it cries over the days of 54 where the freedom was so unlimited; (Steve Rubell) says a real goodbye to his staff, while the movie says the same to these days, in unhappy farewell, saluting (Rubell), and his original dream of a club, with the hat off. So, as a whole, was it a movie about how filthy 54 was? Or was it a movie about how great it was? Was this movie's (Steve Rubell) a ground-breaker creator, a wise mentor, a symbol of sensual liberty that deserved to be missed in the modern BAD America? Or was he a repulsive degenerate, who loved only money, cocaine, and being in control, and built a destructive hellhole? It shows that Mr. (Mark Christopher), the movie's director who wrote it also, didn't ask these questions to himself in the first place!
I didn't understand the problem of the 3 young leads while the movie was busy making a very shoddy love triangle between them. I didn't understand what's this movie's character mainly; anti 54 and the days of disco?, pro?, neutral historian?, anti and pro in the same time?! And I didn't feel joy out of the movie itself, since none of it was great or remarkable.
I can't say that (Mike Myers) did it fine, since this script didn't make his character finely at all. He just stole the show being solidly serious, considering originally his reputation as a comic star, plus being - surely - the best actor in this bunch!
I hate, truly hate, when I said about a movie: "What did this one want?". Simply because this can mean that this movie lost its meaning someway. And with this acting, directing, I hated the movie itself. It just looks like its leads.. confused; a fan of the illusionary colorful lights and a discloser for their illusion in the same time.
P.S: Now, there is a talk about a longer version, a director's cut, blah blah blah. Grrrrr! It didn't amuse me to the extent of seeking its right, un-shown, original. With many "director's cut" versions nowadays, I feel that this is exactly how to sell the expired goods twice!