I hate Ed Burns. I think Rosario Dawson could go back to acting school. I have always felt a nervous twitch come on whenever Brittany Murphy speaks (like fingernails on a chalkboard). Then, alas, Heather Graham is only worth watching when directed by either PT Anderson or by early David Lynch. So, with a line up like this, I thought this would be a simple, and rather disappointing, film to view. I couldn't have been more wrong. Sidewalks of New York captured my attention with its unique storytelling ability, the quickness of the character development, and the underused talent that Stanley Tucci brought to this project. I also believe that what me enjoy this film further than I have other Edward Burns films (i.e. I HATED The Brothers McMullen) is that it wasn't your typical Ed Burns film. It was obvious, from the opening scene that he was the center focus, but it just didn't have the typical Ed Burns feel to it. This film felt fresh, not so "in your New York face" or centered on ethnicity as the others have, but instead about romance, sex, relationships, and personal responsibility. For me, Sidewalks worked because the characters worked together. This wasn't just Ed Burns focusing the camera on himself, but allowing others to speak around him. It felt like a conversation with Ed Burns and his friends, not just Ed Burns. Also, how can you disrespect a film where Stanley Tucci gives a phenomenal performance (completely taking away the Burns spotlight)! <br /><br />Pulled from an earlier release date because of 9/11, this film couldn't have made you feel more at home in New York than actually being there in person. I mentioned before that Burns fantastically takes the viewer away from you typical New York scenery and plants you IN New York (if that makes sense). He doesn't overpower you with the cliché images of the Empire State building, the Statue of Liberty, or other overblown New York images, but instead makes you feel like you actually live there. Burns, surprisingly, didn't develop the city as I assumed he would, but instead developed our characters. Burns' decision to make this film into a half-documentary, half-feature film was brilliant. New York is a fast pace town, and Burns captures that with his choice of direction. He jumps us quickly between characters, witnessing how fast a relationship can blossom in the city that never sleeps. One would normally think that this would be confusing, but for me, it kept me glued to the screen. Cylindrical story lines? Wasn't this technique so  yesterday? Perhaps, but Burns is able to keep the flow moving and the characters fun, which cannot be found in most of the knock-offs post-Magnolia. I believe that for one of the first times, Burns demonstrated his directing chops extremely well. He went outside of his norm, while keeping with the patented Burns seal of approval.<br /><br />When I first began this film I was upset with the choice of actors. It was obvious that Burns chose his friends to star in this film. Budget was tight and time was short, so why not. I have no trouble with this. My trouble is that his friends do not appeal to me as a film watcher. I have not seen (outside of Sin City in which Rosario and Brittany were animated) a worth wile film with a majority of our lead characters. Heather Graham flip-flops between decent and poor, while Brittany just seems like she isn't acting, but instead just playing "herself". I wasn't interested in the characters when I started this film, I just wanted to see how Burns would handle mediocre talent. I must admit, he surprised me. While Murphy, Graham, and Dawson were not "jump-for-joy" amazing, they worked well together. The script worked with these characters. There wasn't big shoes to fill, and I think even the low rung of the Hollywood ladder could handle this story, which kept me at ease. What really impressed me was that Tucci was jaw dropping. It was nothing that he would in an award for, but definitely the stand out talent of the film. For some very strange reason, he captivated me in this movie. I wasn't expecting the performance to be that good. I know, many of you think that this was a poor film, how could anyone's talent be that good? My thought is that Tucci stood out because nobody else was reaching the bar. The acting wasn't bad, it just felt sterile, but with Tucci that all changed. He kept Sidewalks of New York from sinking deep into the cinephile lagoon.<br /><br />Was this a movie about sex or relationships? That is the ultimate question to ask yourself as you watch Burns' comedy/drama. It is a question I asked myself as I watched it, so I want you to ask it as well. Sex is the topic of choice, but I think what makes Burns' film stand aside of the others is that it deals with honest relationships. This isn't just your typical boy falls for girl, but girl doesn't want boy relationships. This film is more about the truthfulness of individuals and the passion they evoke. I liked the stories that Burns wove together for me. This wasn't top shelf cinema, but it did entertain. Burns stories that he wrote were comical, yet exciting at the same time. We felt for these characters (even if they were not played well by the actors  outside of Tucci) and loved the city that they inhabited. This film reminded me of watching Sex & the City. That television program was exciting to me because of the city and because you believe anything can happen in that city. Love can be found in video stores, coffee shops, and real-estate visits. <br /><br />Call me genuinely sappy, but Sidewalks of New York deserves a second viewing.<br /><br />Grade: **** out of *****