Strong and Moving!

A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

I'm writing this while the movie is running on Movie Central in Canada. Gosh, this is terrible, terrible, terrible. I'm not talking about story or plot or acting: Just what the picture looks like. Yes, it's a low budget movie, but I've seen better -- much better -- visual quality in undercover documentaries and home movies shot on iPhones and GoPros. The framing of the shots in 16:9 is worse than bad (sometimes, half of the actor's heads were cut off horizontally -- one can tell that common top for concurrent release in 4:3, 16:9 or 1:2.35 formats was never a consideration), and often out of focus (ever heard of depth-of field or lighting control?). Shots and counter shots in dialogues lack integrity in terms of color, contrast and focus -- and, if it weren't for actors wearing the same cloths through the shots, one would guess that different scenes were hacked together. In inside shots, one can see the overhead microphone boom reflected in the glass of the patio door -- which wouldn't be all that bad if the mike position was static, but one can see how the mike was pointed at the actors as the dialogue moves along between actors, and seeing such visual artifacts totally took me out of the movie. Yuck.Oh, yes, and then there's tripod shot contrasted with jittery hand- held shots without steady-cam. It must be cool to say FU to an audience that is supposed to make work commercially viable. As I said: Terrible, terrible, terrible. But, hey, if you happen to be a visual masochist, you actually may enjoy a movie that looks like a failed high school project. I hope Goldberg gets a chance to make more movies -- but he needs (and deserves?) much better people behind the camera and in the editing room, specifically, he needs people with a sense of aesthetics, and enough trained skills to create visually pleasing images. For all I know, it's eye candy that sells movies even if the story is bad, but the lack of eye candy kills any good story. Else, it's just a radio play. In a nutshell: I believe that the people handling cameras and managing post owe it to the actors to make them look as good as possible -- which certainly hasn't happened here. That being said, nobody looks as bad (or out of focus) as much as Goldberg himself. The movie leaves me guessing if he wanted to commit visual suicide. Bad as it is, there were some (but not enough) good shots in the movie: The underwater shots in the pool consistently were very nice quality and better than the movie as a whole. OK, the movie's over. Here are the culprits listed in the credits:'A' camera operator: Mark Putnam 'B' camera operator: Jonathan Bruno1st assistant 'A' camera: Michael Gonzales 2nd assistant 'A' camera: Alicia Pharris 1st assistant 'B' camera: Ludovico Isidori Additional 'B' camera operator: Monika Lenczewska Additional camera operators:Greg Cotten, Ian Benham, Nich Musco, Adam Goldberg Additional 1st Assistant camera operators: Tyler Harrison, Justin Kane, Adam DorrisUnderwater camera operator: Boyd Hobbs (Kudos! As mentionend above).Digital Imaging Technician: Michael Halper Video Assist: Lou Spadaccini Additional Video Assist: Jorden Kadovitz

Jose is a bearded man who plays in an indie rock band. He is encumbered by commitment and behaves like a 20 year old who fears commitment. The soundtrack is bland and also appears to be prepared by exactly who you would expect, a hipster bearded man who is too old, too proud and too distanced from audiences. Resulting in this vanilla, pretentiousness of music that did in no way compliment the film.His relationship with his fiancé is frail and the chemistry is off. Their love story through the use of flashbacks is sloppy. The banter between Jose and his 'quirky friends' is even worse. I am a firm believer in watching a film until the end to see whether or not it can redeem itself. When people say "Nothing really happens." This film is it, look no further. The self awareness in this film is hauntingly void. I question who thought this script was a good idea. I question how he managed to get Gillian. This film left me so confused and unsatisfied. What a terrible way to end a Sunday night.

I'm not sure what kind of mid-life crisis Goldberg is having but this is 97 minutes of unwatchable rambling garbage through no real story line or anything interesting at all. It's very clear that the actors involved think their jokes are clever and funny but really they're all just laughing together and no one else understands a thing they're saying. I sincerely regret renting this, not so much for the $ I spent, but more for the wasted trip to RedBox. I shut it off at the 50 min mark while fighting back alternating yawns and nausea. I'd ask for my money back but I desperately want to avoid hearing or seeing Goldberg again. Ever. Steer clear.

I'm sorry to say, as some reviewers have already noted, there is very little to laugh at in this Adam Goldberg led indie. It seemed like between the ad-libbing and inside jokes by the cast that they were probably having a better time than the rest of us.Goldberg, who directed here and co-wrote the script with Sarah Kate Levy, stars as Jose Stern, a neurotic guy having all kinds of problems with past and present female relationships, as well as a career as a singer-songwriter that's now relegated him to entertaining at children's birthday parties.One positive was that I thought Anna Belknap gave a strong performance as the highly intense Kate, wife of Jose's former band-mate Gabe. Also, in a bit part at the end of the movie, I thought the clown, portrayed by Steve Agee, was funny.In summary, for me, there was more annoyance than laughter here, plus I thought the ending was just an "in your face cop-out" to the viewer.