Women in Trouble

I understand how good films get made, they are good thus people are interested in making them happen. I even understand how bad films are made, the people making them are morons and have no idea what they are doing. So my question is, how do mediocre films get made?

They could be good if they went back and rewrote things, reevaluated it. They could be bad easily. This film was so medium gray, so boring and so mediocre. There are a series of stories being told, all interconnecting in some way (like Magnolia, all takes place in one day, all characters are connected to as least one other) All of the women are having particularly bad days, one pregnant and just finding out, one gets into a car accident after being caught having an affair....etc.

The writing though is so overly dramatic, and fake its hard to take much of it seriously, its trying so hard to be "Crash" and just failing. It is not nearly as gritty, or dark, the connections people have in "Crash" are real and grounded and infuriating and transparent. In this they care for one another for no reason, they tell one another secrets right after they meet them, and then they are suddenly best friends.

The dialogue was not good, way to quirky and melodramatic, as well as whoever wrote this cant write women well at all. The male characters as well are paper thin. The Cinematography was decent, but nothing good, lots of medium close ups, and cutting from shot A to shot B, again and again and again. The lighting was fake in a bad way, to much inappropriate uses of color, and random. It also looked rather ugly and cheap.

It was a bunch of little things that really turned me off, Example: One of the hookers in this is walking around the entire movie in a bra and thong, during the day, outside and no one seems to notice, care or even mention it. Really lame guys. None of the characters really had any development, it was cardboard.

This film was medium of the road, not good, but not bad, no one really needs to see it, and I'm surprised they got as many bigger names in it as they did. 5/10 stars.

Director: Sebastian Gutierrez

Starring: Carla Gugino, Adrianne Palicki, Connie Britton, Simon Baker, Emmanuelle Chriqui, Josh Brolin

Bitch Slap

After seeing "Black Dynamite" I was on a bad B-movie kick, and knowing that a girl who is in this also posed for Playboy a few months ago, and is absolutely gorgeous made up my mind to rent it.

The plot is so over the top it doesn't even matter if its described or not. Three women, Trixie a stripper, Hel a secret agent and Camero an ex-con are trying to find 200,000,000 in diamonds. We start with them in the desert trying to get answers out of a guy about where the diamonds are hidden. The structure is set up that as we see whats happening with them in the present, as well as it keeps going further and further back in time to show us how they got to that point and who they are. So at first we go back 3 hours, then 3 hours and 3 minutes, then 24 hours...etc.

Most of the film makes little to no sense, there are entire sections that are simply gratuitous, in both violence and girl on girl macking, not that I'm complaining. The three girls who serve as main characters, or caricatures of characters are all gorgeous. Surprisingly there are two brunettes and a dark red head, no blonds, interesting, and nice to see the darker girls getting some action for a change.

The film is not meant to be taken seriously, not in the least, they know the effects are cheesy and cheap looking, they know that the guns look plastic and the action is so over the top its insanity. That's where the charm of this film lies though, because as an action movie, its not very good, and as for actual sex there is none. Its all alluded to, and teased. Watching a girl on a motorcycle take a guys head off with the rear tire, or a scene in the "Department of Homeland Security" which is filled with Washington fat cats watching strippers dance, you just have to go with it and smile.

The dialogue is what saved it for me from being another "Grindhouse" type film. The "Grindhouse" films are badly written, this on the other hand was overly written, so every line was snappy, and planned to a T. They know where their tongue is and its directly in their cheek, example: The girls start digging looking for the diamonds, their shovels never get more than 6 inches into the ground, the slo-mo is meant to excite, with tight close ups of their ample cleavage, and then showing it in real time in a wide shot you burst into laughter because its so funny.

You have to be in a mood to watch this, or unlike me easily entertained by anything, this though I was looking forward to, and cleared my mind of all internal critiques as I could and just sat back for the ride. Lots of girls fighting, lots of bullets flying, and lots and lots of push-up, and water bras. Fun for a night, repeat viewing...maybe in a few years. 8/10 stars.

Director: Rick Jacobson

Starring: Julia Voth, Erin Cummings, America Olivo, Michael Hurst

P.S. You got to love it when mid film, with no time to be wasted the girls start having a water fight, pouring buckets of water all over each other.

Broken Embraces

I'm really glad to see that Penelope Cruz still makes films in other countries. To often when someone gets big in Hollywood they end up only making Hollywood films.

Mateo (aka Harry) is a blind screenwriter. He used to be able to see and when he could he directed films. He meets with a young filmmaker (says his name is Ray X) who wants to direct a film idea he has and he wants Harry to help. Harry doesn't buy it, and with the help of the son of his friend they find out that he is actually the son of the man who produced the last film Harry directed. He was more than that though, the producer (Ernesto) was also with the lead actress in the film (Lena) Harry and Lena start having an affair and Ernesto finds out, he has a violent side and hurts Lena.

We eventually find out how Harry became blind, what happens to Lena, and why their film ended up failing so badly. Unlike American thrillers this is underplayed, as scary as Ernesto might be there is a deep well to be tapped there with how scary the obsession of a lover can be. We see him get sort of violent, but never really push the boundaries of scaring me. The film felt longer than it should have, the story even though it sounds complicated is fairly straight forward.

Penelope Cruz is adorable as always, is there anyone out there who couldn't like her? As one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood currently she still takes risks with films like this. Not that this film was that risky of a notion, but it did require some nudity on her part, and possibly taking her away from other more lucrative projects.

This film properly showed how films are made, it wasn't as accurate as it could be, but was pretty close. Always exciting to see a C-stand in the frame, or lights just sitting around, its as if the stuff I work with closely is suddenly the star of the film. As in "Holy shit, look how big that green screen is!" I liked the way it was shot, there was a lot of movement in the frame, as well as some very cool shots that move corresponding to the characters, nothing overly complicated, but just looked good.

The lighting stayed pretty dramatic most of the time, sometimes it would be hard, day time in Madrid isn't going to look overly dramatic, the warmth and sunlight sort of drown out with happiness anything too negative. It was a good film, but nothing anyone would need to run out and see. 7/10 stars.

Director: Pedro Almodovar

Starring: Penelope Cruz, Lluis Homar, Blanca Portillo, Jose Luis Gomez, Ruben Ochandiano, Tamar Novas

Home

A while ago I watched a film called "Genesis" I actually wrote a review of it here, and gave it a pretty good review. This film is in many ways the same. There are no talking heads, no real human interaction whatsoever, and are just left with the images of our earth and explanations on it's importance.

For the first 25 or so minutes of the film all we see are landscapes, some plant life, but no animals or people. The narrator (Glenn Close) tells us about how the Earth began, where our minerals and metals came from, how the earth created rock and water. Going through the billions of years it took we understand that this is nothing short of a miracle. Not to close to the sun, not to far, but the perfect medium where life can become possible. When they do get to life they don't lavish it with praise, but more a deep interest in the intricacies of how every bit of life has a meaning and a place in the world, nothing is trite or without rhyme and reason. From the smallest bug, to the biggest whale they all fit into the puzzle.

It's at this point that we get to humans, and our mere 200,000 years of existence, and how for only 20,000 years of that have we actually been doing something other than nomadic wanderings never really leaving much of a mark anywhere. Once we settle down, usually near coasts our real genius comes into play, we make boats, we figure out how to use the water to our every advantage, but we live directly off of mother natures bounty. Not really taking more than we need. That was until we discovered the "pockets of sunlight" already here. I'm referring to oil, and coal and all the fossil fuels we take advantage of now. How in the last century we changed the face of the earth 100 fold more than we did in the other 20,000 years of actually doing something here.

From tilling the earth by hand, and creating only what we needed to exist we jumped to being able to make machines that could till the earth for us, and making everything under the sun, useful or not simply because we can. Thinking about the health care debate, and watching the news they were talking about what will the Democrats tackle next? Maybe jobs, or the economy, and as important as those things are I think the more important subjects actually involve our own destruction and the livable world with us. So what's the point of making sure someone has a job if we are all dead?

The doc. is far reaching, it covers many places and a lot of subjects without ever feeling really rushed. perhaps it's because most of the film was shot from a helicopter or a small single engine plane. They use a lot of slo-mo that keeps everything pretty grounded and rather graceful. There were a few problems I had with it, which were minor and simply factual based information they gave which was not true, and it seemed that it was a problem that occurred because of the film being translated. Other things that were said just seemed wrong, but for everything they said that might not have been true there was 100 things they said that are absolutely true.

It is very beautifully told and thankfully ends on a high note. The format that the film was in was marvelous, we never get closer to a person in the film than a few hundred feet, and the only voice we hear is that of the narrators. It's so beautiful and like I said earlier it was graceful. It should really be watched by a lot of people, not just doc. geeks like me. 8.5/10 stars.

Director: Yaan Arthus-Bertrand

Narrator: Glenn Close

Capitalism: A Love Story

I have been a fan of Michael Moore's since I saw "Bowling for Columbine" in the theatre. I know many people don't like him, and I understand that, often when his name is mentioned people bring up Communism, since Moore's views contradict most of the current, or at least the last 20 years social changes he is taken to be a trouble maker and radical.

In my opinion he is anything but, his views are pretty middle of the road. The thing is, is that many of the blue collar people of the country don't think he is on their side, since "Roger and Me" he has pretty much cemented himself of being in the corner of the working man, and the underdog. With other issues examined by him, such as health care in "Sicko" and now the economic state of the country in "Capitalism: A Love Story" he shows just how much he cares about the average middle class, and lower class member of our society.

Problem is, he is also a self promoter, he likes to appear in his own film, and why not? But showing issues that the conservatives disagree with, and doing so in such a grating manner attracts attention. So if he is standing in the center of the frame then he makes an easy target. He smartly in this, like he did in "Sicko" removes himself from much of the movie, his narration comes into the movie after a while, its another few minutes before he steps in front of the camera. When he does it is mostly as a humble observer, or comic relief in an otherwise seemingly hopeless picture.

The movie is not kind, it takes off the gloves and hits hard. It names names, literally pointing out the people he thinks are at fault, and basically painting a bulls eye on their back, and I say more power to him for doing it. Here are men who while the rest of the country and world are suffering are on the flip side worth hundreds of millions of dollars, are taking tax money as bail outs and using it to give themselves bonuses.

The film in that way is very upsetting, but luckily for me as an observer I watched it today, they only passed the health care bill days ago, so part of this doc is already being taken care of in the social realm. So the film is already a little dated, but only slightly. There are still many other problems that the film brings to light that need to be resolved. Clocking in at only over two hours it leaves a lot out, or doesn't in my opinion spend enough time on certain things. Other films do a good job, and at times a better job of really coming full circle and showing a much larger section of the whole issue. An example is "The Corporation"

It was pretty good, it has all the familiar things in it that Moore's films have, so if you've seen any of his others then this will feel the same. It had a good message, but lacked a solution, but he didn't really need to give one I guess. 8/10 stars.

Director: Michael Moore

The Vicious Kind

I watched this a few days ago, so some of the details of the story or of how it was shot might allude me. I usually keep a note pad with me when I watch a movie so then I can jot down notes about what I like or dislike, as well as thoughts that come to mind. This time I didn't have that.

Caleb has picked his younger brother (Peter) up from the university that he goes to and is driving him back to their hometown for Thanksgiving. On the way they stop off at Peter's girl friends house (Emma) because she is coming with them. Caleb makes it pretty clear what he thinks of Emma, and for all women, they are whores. He was recently cheated on and has now developed insomnia which for the most part can explain his strange behavior for the rest of the movie.

Caleb goes from hating Emma and threatening her to being infatuated with her, I think that can be chalked up to the fact that she looks a lot like the girl who had just cheated on him. We meet the brothers father Donald who seems a little lecherous, but mostly harmless. Caleb's actions threaten to mess up the relative calm that has existed in their dynamic for the last 8 years. He stays away from his father, and Donald does the same.

The acting was pretty good, it's a little over the bench mark of the "This is an indie movie, do you get it?" It fits all the things that someone thinks an Indie feature should be, overly melodramatic. Certain characters aren't fully rounded simply because the writer thought that the crazier the character, the more interesting they are, thus why write the more normal ones better. In this way the script sort of failed in a way. Caleb is not likable for the most part, even the nice things he does have ulterior motives, and everything he does hurts someone else in some way. He is not at all mature, and not someone that's easy to get behind, and I didn't.

The girl who plays Emma is to cute, when they cast like this and write this sort of character they are just looking for the male members of the audience, and some of the women to fall in love with her. She is a little to perfect, just barely messed up enough that she needs saving, a little rebellious, but the girl that everyone wants. I did like the twists they did with her though, you think you know her and what she's about but you don't really.

It's not shot any great way, parts of it were to bright for it being night, other parts screamed needless quirky, but overall that didn't really take away from the story at all. My main sort of problem with it was it didn't really do much for me, I don't really care that I've seen it, it was merely mediocre.

The writing and the directing show promise, and the actors did a good job with the limited characters and story they had. 6/10 stars.

Director: Lee Toland Krieger

Starring: Adam Scott, Brittany Snow, Alex Frost, J.K. Simmons

The Time Traveler's Wife

I love Rachel McAdams, I love her. I could just leave the review at that because, well that's just really important.

Henry is only a child the first time he time travels, and it's during the car crash that kills his mother. The rest of the movie is spent trying to avoid time traveling to much, as well as making his to be wife Clare fall in love with him before he meets her. Sound a little confusing? It kinda is. To try and describe it would be to much, what with him traveling so much and being mostly unaware of what his future self is doing he discovers things that he's done when he's older, but happened in the past. Clare does fall in love with him, and he for her, and since she's the one that tells him that they meet and fall in love when she sees him at the library, it makes you wonder who chose who. If he meets her as a young man, but doesn't know her, but she knows the future him, then where did it start. In that way it seems they were meant to be together from the start, a sort of "chicken or egg first" scenario.

As a couple they actually deal with his involuntary traveling in much the same way as if he traveled for business excessively, or had to be away from home a lot. As well as problems conceiving children. All of their problems stem from his "problem" but are real world enough that they are actually the problems that almost all couples have to go through.

Since they deal with so many real world issues it's easy to become emotionally drawn in and possibly tear up a bit, I did. McAdams and Bana are a good match, I fully believed that they could be a real world couple, and there were so many points in the movie that they would look at each other and I saw love in their eyes.

Henry for most of the movie is beat down, and run ragged from the traveling. Like gravity he is drawn down. "Down" being important moments in his life: His mother dying, his wedding, his future home, etc. So since he is drawn to moments that could possibly hurt, such as watching his mother die hundreds of times, and being powerless to stop it he has become understandably bitter. So when he meets Clare, and she is already in love with him its a great juxtaposition of her giddiness and his deep sadness.

They shot in Chicago, and do a great job showing off the city and its landmarks. In that same note the Cinematography is invisible, it's not bad, but it also doesn't stick out as being really good. With a film that is so drenched in drama to begin with it's fine to just let the story push itself along and not worry to much about the shots. But like I said, it looked good, very clean, and very well done.

In the same vein as a film like "Butterfly Effect" we take the usual time traveling gimmick and throw it away and start with a blank slate, and really think about what it would mean to travel through time such as this. Not for gain, not to change the future or past, but just trying to survive and get home again. Since when he disappears he does so naked he ends up some where else naked not knowing the date or time and having to quickly find clothes so then he can fit in.

I had been looking forward to when this came out and just didn't get a chance to see it in the theatre, to busy, and it strangely didn't play at many places. Which that is a complaint for another post. This film might not be for everyone, it's not the cool time traveling story, and is mostly a romance and drama. I felt it was very well done, and a rather touching story. There were some unanswered questions, and some not fully formed characters that I wish they had fleshed out more and added more time to the movie, but I could see people getting bored. I still think another hour would have been just fine, I was intrigued and pulled in the entire time.

8/10 stars. I could see myself owning this.

Director: Robert Schwentke

Starring: Eric Bana, Rachel McAdams, Ron Livingston, Arliss Howard, Brooklynn Proulx

Dark Streets

I have never really been a huge fan of the film noir, they all tend to play out basically the same, and are fairly predictable. That was the case here, but surprisingly I liked it.

Chaz is a night club owner who isn't doing so hot at the moment, he took out a loan with some sharks and now they want to be paid back, but he doesn't have the money yet. When a police lieutenant helps him out by shooting one of the goons sent to collect the loan, he allows for a friend of the cop's to audition to be in the nightclub as a singer (Madeline). She is of course amazing, and he falls in love with her quickly, leaving behind Crystal the other singer of the club who is in love with Chaz. Chaz's family is fairly well off, in fact they own and operate the power company that powers the unnamed city they live in. As rolling blackouts occur tensions rise, why are they happening? Chaz starts to stumble over clues that his late father was murdered and didn't commit suicide, and someone near him is responsible. As he delves deeper he finds out things he'd prefer not to know.

The script is not very good, there are a lot of loose ends and things that just don't make sense.

-Why does he need to take money from loan sharks if his family is so rich?

-At one point he finds some money that his father had hidden, but we never see it or refer to it again.

-The police never get involved other than the one lieutenant who doesn't actually seem to do any police work anyway.

I am willing to overlook this for the most part, because like I said before, all these noirs tend to play out the same anyway, you'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't fit into most of the earmarks of what makes a noir a noir. If anything this is a love letter to the film noir and not so much a noir itself.

Chaz is only just barely likable and it's because he seems to be just stumbling through the story with the plot moving around him, even when he does find out some rather upsetting news, he doesn't really seem to care, he's to in love to see the actions around him.

The saving grace was the way it was shot, and the music and dance numbers, in fact they could probably have done a whole movie of just that and left the plot out and been okay. This film is a great example of being atmospheric. The club is an animal of its own, its lighting, the smoke in the air, the vibrant colors all focusing on the difference between the hard stage and the soft flesh that is on it. The dancers are gorgeous, and the camera really plays to them and to that.

They did some interesting things with focus, coming in and out at times, or purposely making parts of the frame out of focus so only maybe a quarter of the actual frame is in proper focus. The lighting as well was very purposely conceived and handled. The light was directional, that's the simplest way to put in, they wanted only certain things lit up, so that's the way they did it. Whether it was a candle on a table, or sunlight spilling through a window and onto a chase lounge they kept it contained. Many parts of the image were just ignored because it just wasn't all that important to what they were trying to do.

The dance numbers are...fun to say the least, as well as the music which is Blues. The dancers and singers (both Crystal and Madeline) are a treat to look at, the way they move, and like I said before, the camera knows right where to go, the right speed to really make the shots work. Also I liked the casting of those two girls, Crystal is olive skinned with nearly black hair, she is sweet and yet a little threatening, she is independent, but so into Chaz she allows herself to get screwed around some. Madeline on the other hand is blond with pale milk skin, she is more angelic, but of course appearances are deceiving, and always are in film noirs.

I want this type of night club to come back, it is truly cool. Unlike the clubs of today this one was filled with adults, coming to drink and have a good time, the sex was only just under the surface, there was a coyness to it that you don't find today. The clubs now are techno hormone filled dance parties where the young and stupid gather to rub on one another. The clubs of old were dark and warm, there was a theatre quality about it, the show and the girls, and the live music, Maybe one day all that will come back.

Overall the film had problems, mostly writing wise, image wise I loved it. You could tell they were fans of "Chicago" and "Moulin Rouge" and it comes through. If you like Blues music, and like this time period then it's something you might enjoy, but isn't a must see. I only wish to see the kind of atmosphere and girls from this in a better written movie, then they would really have something. The film gets a low 7/10 stars.

Director: Rachel Samuels

Starring: Gabriel Mann, Bijou Phillips, Izabella Miko, Elias Koteas, Michael Fairman

Sidenote: It's good to see more female directors making movies.

Jacob's Ladder

I'll just start with intense, this movie is intense. I had heard people mention this film before, and Netflix was certain that I would like it, but wasn't in the mood for it for a long time, I mean lets be honest, there are certain movies you cant just pop in and watch (Schindler's List for example)

Jacob is in Vietnam, laughing and joking with his platoon mates, when they are attacked by the enemy, something goes wrong, some of the men go into spasms, others are killed horribly or maimed. He wakes up from this nightmare flashback in NYC 1975. He starts to see strange things, he is being bullied and attacked by people that appear to be demons to him. He is living with a woman (Jezzie) away from his ex-wife and children, but still thinks of them often. He starts getting sick, and "imagining" the demons more and more. The line between reality and delusions begins to blur to the point of no longer being able to distinguish the two, and is there a difference?

This film served as a frame work for other films in the past few years, with its confusing twists and turns. But as a pioneer of this sort of story it stands apart from the copy cats. This is by no means a horror movie, although we do at times see some very disturbing things, it is more a pure thriller. He is freaking out just as much as we as the audience is, because unlike a horror movie we are just as in the dark as Jacob is.

With a strong performance by Tim Robbins the film revolves around him almost entirely even with a cast of supporting characters who are just as interesting and well played. The title refers to a few things, one a possible drug called "Ladder" which creates a sort of aggressive frenzy in those who are exposed to it. As well as referring to the biblical staircase known as Jacob's Ladder which you ascend to get into heaven. For a thriller there is a lot of supernatural, specifically biblical implications in the story. The demons that are watching him, and tormenting him are real, the idea of going to hell is fresh in the men's minds. After coming out of Vietnam they are broken and tortured by what they did and saw, and to them Hell is a very real thing.

The lighting and Cinematography was very impressive, I am a sucker for a dark image and someone who is unafraid of shadow, and they bathed the film in it. There was one scene I wish they had lit differently, but was overall not to much of a distraction. The lighting fit with dealing with the dark nature of the film as well as the inner workings of Jacob's broken soul and psyche.

After this I am in the mood for something a fair lighter, maybe something that doesn't deal with death so much...maybe. This is a benchmark in its genre, it really pushes the bounds and should be seen. 8/10 stars.

Director: Adrian Lyne

Starring: Tim Robbins, Elizabeth Pena, Danny Aiello, Matt Craven

Bright Star

I don't know much about John Keats, I know he was a poet and died young (don't all the greats?) I'm surprised to say that I don't really know all that much more about him after seeing this.

Detailing a romance that slowly built and burned between him and a woman he lived near named "Fanny" is shown over the course of three years, although it seems a lot shorter. I know that in that time people went slower, and didn't date like they do now, but really, get the show on the road people and as one of the characters says to Keats "Just bed her already" After meeting Keats, Fanny becomes interested in him, but his friend Mr. Brown does his best to make sure that they stay apart, most of the time succeeding. Even so the young possible lovers still fall for one another. When things start to get serious or at least more so leaning towards becoming involved, Keats falls ill, it is then a waiting game to see if he gets better or not, and how Fanny deals with it.

Like many other period pieces the cinematography has a leash and collar on and can only stray so far without starting to look odd, such as with the film "Marie Antoinette" If you want to make a period piece the shots and composition have to fall in line with that. With that in mind they still kept some amazing images on screen much of the movie, even with the limitations. Much of the film has a muted and at times stark look, so when there is color it looks all the brighter and vibrant.

The film does a great job in showing the desperation that forms during a first love when people are torn apart. The longing looks, the quick kisses they steal from one another are adorable, and so sad because it cant last, and they don't know that yet. Its a quiet movie that revolves around Fanny, and her fascination with Keats who I'm sad to say we never really understand, he is quiet and reserved and just as much as a mystery to me as he was before I saw the film.

In its way it is not much different than a lot of other fare of this same period, two people want to be lovers and they cant because of family, or money, or status. I get it, so in that way it was nothing new, but it was still beautiful and sad. The lighting in parts of it looked like a painting, which as a Gaffer and Cinematographer that's what they are supposed to do, paint with light, and they took their job very seriously.

Its not really my kind of movie, after all the praise I have given it, its not a film that really appeals to me, I prefer contemporary stories, and cinematography, but this wasn't a bother to watch like some others Ive seen (Age of Innocence, to be specific) If you like movies that take place in this era then this will be something you will enjoy. 7/10 stars.

Director: Jane Campion

Starring: Ben Whishaw, Abbie Cornish, Paul Schneider

Happy Endings

This is a terrific example of what is wrong with independent cinema. Now don't get me wrong, it is by far my favorite kind of film to watch because they really do whatever they want, and is a great training ground for up and comers (Chris Nolan, Darren Arronofsky, even Sofia Coppola) But for all the good films that come out of that vein there are just as many bad ones.

I won't even try to give a break down of what the story is about, its just too confusing, and much to complicated, and right there we find the problem. If I cant easily describe what a film is about, and the film is under say...4 hours, then there is a problem with the writing. We are basically following a series of characters, most of whom are connected to one another in one way or another and are living sort of strange lives. The characters are by and large boring, and pretty flat, even with a pretty good cast, who do the best they can, there isn't much salvaging of the boring story and boring characters.

The idea of a story is to see change in a characters, usually from some state of "being dead" to "being alive" such as boy finds girl, or needing to destroy a ring to save the world, you get it. These characters do grow and change, but so much of it is minuscule and not really done by themselves, and is forced upon them that I don't ever really care about them...at all.

This is a personal complaint, but one that I think still holds water, I hate it when a film is made that depicts another film being made and it is so unrealistic and ludicrous that its laughable. If they are making a film, the one I'm watching, then how do they mess up a dramatization of making a film so badly. Also they make filmmakers look so stereotypical, and the thing is, is that I know people like the "filmmaker" they showed, and they after graduating, if they even got that far have failed because they never had talent and were never willing to actually understand film.

Long story short, they went high concept on this, but bottomed out quick, its not a good film. There are a few memorable parts, but over all in a month I wont even remember anything about it. 5/10 stars.

Director: Don Roos

Starring: Lisa Kudrow, Steve Coogan, Jesse Bradford, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Jason Ritter, Tom Arnold, Laura Dern