People are voting emotionally.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

To all those who have watched it: I hope you enjoyed it as much as I do.

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

Knowing several real-life wannabe actors, screenwriters, directors, and producers, none of whom are exactly 'A-List,' I thought this movie was an accurate portrayal of the twists and turns that the life of a project and one's personal life take while one, lacking connections, tries anything to come up with financing to get a potentially great movie off the ground.Look at how long it took to get "Ray" funded and made -- 10 years! Similar stories abound. It takes a monumental effort to get anything made that's a little bit different. Guys who control the money don't like risk! With all its iterations depending on the focus of the potential underwriter -- think Money-Man -- with a colorful cast of stars, all playing well-written characters, I can't get enough of this movie. I own it and have watched it many times. A real laugh fest for those captivated by all things "Hollywood." The name IMHO ruined this movie's chances at the box office. It implies a certain salaciousness that is simply not there. It is a warm and sweet movie about guys trying to help their sweethearts achieve their dreams. Should have been titled, 'The Darkness and the Light,' which is the name of the screenplay they are trying to produce, or 'A Hollywood Story,' or something similarly innocuous. Worth seeing by all means!

This film has a few good moments. The story line about the director as an artist unable to overcome the devastating end of his first try to film his masterpiece is convincing and moving. The rest of the plot about the producers and all their girlfriends is silly. But, as you work through this dichotomy, you realize what is happening - somewhat in the manner of "Adaptation," the journey of the script in question is echoed by the journey of the characters to produce the script. However, this film has none of the wit and pace of Adaptation. The characters are fairly one dimensional. Al Pacino does a shrill and annoying job of playing a shrill and annoying character.

could be better, could also be worse.. nothing to see if you´re not a fan of Robert de Niro or Martin Landau. I don´t really think Robert Wuhl is such a great actor. He dissapears during the scenes with de Niro and Landau. One reason to see the film is the fabolus scene where Christopher Walken commits suicide after delivering a chilling line. Epic!! well, it was not very bad, but it was nothing new. I prefer "Ed Wood" with Johnny Depp if I wanna see a movie about moviemaking.** out of *****

This movie is another over looked gem made awares recently to my consumerized multiplex movie taste. Robert DeNiro acted in this movie for free (according to IFC Channel's little factoid footnotes). It has a low budget feel to it. I dislike Robert "Arliss" Wuhl as an actor. Nontheless I found myself intrigued and enjoying Mistress.The discussions about art, and how they are a reflection of real life: the question posed in My Dinner With Andre: Is the art a reflection of it's artist, or is the artist a reflection of his art ? The discussion and breaking down of some of the tedious aspects of screenwriting and what it means and how one goes about it in the movie industry. The compromises required in movie-making, and art in general, is an intriguing aspect to this movie, making it more than just a run of the mill "dish on Hollywood/Los Angeles" movie. Also, the comprises woman in the movies have to make, and blacks. I think this is a great movie for an aspiring (screen)writer/actor to watch by providing some of the clues to how one has to think or approach writing and also the realistic constraints that get applied by the way the industry is structured.(BTW, I feel as if I am the only one to notice that this seems alot like Woody Allen's Bullets Over Broadway ((which was released 2 years after this movie)); Woody Allen is the greatest, but the uncredited theft of this movie may be a travesty ((especially provided the knowledge, also courteasy of IFC's footnotes, that the Writer/Director Ron Powlus[sp] spent 7 years running around trying to get this movie made. Which is a sad fact because this is an excellent movie and the amount of work he must have put into it is reflected.))Now looking at this as well, this is sort of a movie about the making of a movie about the real life making of a movie; which in itself is stating something very profound about movie making.