Purely Joyful Movie!

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

Sometimes, getting stuck into the wrong genre can kill a film. If you watch this one expecting to see a horror flick, you will be so disappointed by the end that you will want your 90 minutes back.First, the bad. In the early parts of the movie, everyone (including the director who should know better) say their lines as if they are on a stage rather than inside your television. Everyone, that is, except for the delightful girl playing the violin. I just love her. I suspect that the "we are taking part in a stage play" acting/cinematography was deliberate, since you could make an intellectual argument that it feeds into the theme of empty people trying to fill their lives with art. However, intellectual concepts about art do not always make good art. I recommend that anyone making a movie pay careful attention in the editing room. If it does not look good there, it won't look good in the finished project, no matter how brilliant the director/star's mental footnotes.Now, onto the fun parts. If you do not get to see Angel from Buffy dressed in women's underwear, wrapped in Christmas lights, strapped to a chair being tormented by Alan Cummings, you have missed one of life's joys---much like Honey Badger as in "Honey Badger don't give a s**t." Sometimes, poor taste is what we need to slap us awake and make us pay attention. This scene is character John Vandermark's masterpiece. It is low brow, silly, horrifying, ohmygodIcantbelievehedidthat art, but it is art. And John is rewarded with fame, riches and the undivided attention of the object of his love returned from the grave as a ghost. Too bad he is now a hollow shell of a man (literally) by movie's end.Best lines in the movie. Girl playing violin asks what that smell is. John replies that it is "passion". She counters that it's not, it smells like her dead hamster.John Waters understands that sometimes art smells like a dead hamster.

Suffering Man's Charity is set in Los Angeles where the slightly demented music teacher John Vandermark (director Alan Cumming) lives in a big house left to him by his mother, a young struggling writer named Sebastian (David Borneanaz) also lives there after John had taken pity on him. However Sebastian is taking liberties with John's kind hospitality running up large phone bills & never paying a penny for anything, John has had enough of Sebastian & his leeching & decides to confront him. Things turn nasty & after John completely loses it Sebastian ends up dead, wanting to get something back from Sebastian John passes his novel off as his own & strikes a lucrative book deal with a New York publisher but the ghost of Sebastian starts to haunt John...More commonly known under the title Ghost Writer this was directed by & staring British comedian & actor Alan Cumming this is a really strange one that I don't quite know how to sum up or even comment on, for me it's a complete turkey but I guess there might be an audience out there for it somewhere. To be honest I don't get Suffering Man's Charity at all, by that I mean I understand the plot & what happens but I don't understand it thematically or who it would or is meant to appeal too. According to the IMDb this is a horror comedy but I am struggling to think of a single funny moment during the thing & as for being a horror film there's a small subplot about a ghost but nothing else as far as I could see. I really don't know how to describe this film or what genre to assign it. To my eyes the whole thing feels like it is supposed to be a dark comedy but as I said it's not funny at all & while it's definitely different, quirky & off-beat that doesn't mean it's any good which I don't think it is. Overall Suffering Man's Charity didn't do anything for me & while there might be a small audience out there for it I can't see it appalling to the common person at all.This is well shot & looks decent enough but not much more, there's nothing scary or atmospheric here & no real horror. There's a gay kiss thing going on at the end which is slightly disturbing as it comes out of nowhere but overall this is pretty forgettable stuff.With a supposed budget of about $3,000,000 this was shot in Los Angeles & is well made. The actors play everything over the top with a bizarre performance from Cumming while Borneanaz gets to dress up in a bra & Panties with Carrie Fisher & Anne Heche in small cameo roles.Suffering Man's Charity is a strange film that almost defies description & is hard to categorize, personally I didn't like it at all & just didn't get what the makers were aiming for. Not my type of film at all & I doubt it would appeal to the majority.

I did not enjoy this film, it seemed like it was sewn together and totally taken over by Cumming. This actor I feel is completely over-rated in my opinion so to see him acting in a film he had also directed was a bit much as it was all "Me, me, me!" I know the whole plot centres around his character, but there was no depth to it and it fell flat.A gay music teacher (Cummings) who picks up hustlers on a regular basis and gives them free bed and board and the use of his whole home and fixtures, finds out this young attractive man, whom he likens to "Warren Beatty in Splendour in the Grass," (David Boreanaz)has been hustling him and goes completely over the top. The acting is really terrible from Cummings and his accent sounded like it was based on watching Dustin Hoffman films.The plot was very sketchy and I watched it thinking it was going to end, but it didn't, it seemed to rattle on forever, even though it is a relatively short film. I would not call this comedy, nor would I call it horror, more like "Sufference" as in that's what most people are enduring while watching this piece of tripe.To me, Boreanaz in women's underwear and tied to a chair was someone's fantasy, director maybe? It had no point whatsoever. I know there are a lot of David Boreanaz fans out there, but please avoid this film like the plague, it is best forgotten, even if you do get to see his bottom a couple of times.

There is only one reason to see this film - David BOREANAZ! The plot seems typically reasonable, but writing or directing over the top should not impede a good play or movie. There is no need to act as though everyone is without morals or merit. A well-executed comedy should be able to reach everyone without using one expletive word. Seinfeld's comedy was always outrageous, but within the acceptable guidelines, and this is the kind of comedic writing that many new artists never understand. Without vulgarity or graphic violence, most writers have no idea how to entertain people anymore. David is always wonderful in whatever he does. He has timing, looks, charm, and savoir faire. Cummings, go back to Creative writing class 101 and this time, pay attention.