People are voting emotionally.

Better Late Then Never

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Straight to the point: i know why people may hate this movie. Indeed, there are things in it that really get on your nerves. A condescending and annoying prick of a main character, pseudo-intellectual-and-insightful dialogues which actually make you cringe, and a camera-work so god-awful that you can't help thinking this movie was filmed by blind cripples who were holding a camera for the first time in their lives.But there's more to Roger Dodger than just an everlasting lust for sex and a race to get some. There are moments when you can actually see that even the most cynical and utilitarian people have a heart that can feel. And that sometimes it's much harder to open up and show the real yourself than you are used to thinking.Alone by themselves, the characters of Campbell Scott and Jesse Eisenberg may be pathetic, each in his own way. What makes this movie stand out is how well their extreme diversity and unlikelihood is played out when they are together. It's like the opposite forces of nature collide, producing an outcome that can never be predicted.Jesse Eisenberg did a brilliant job portraying a 16-year old boy who's desperate to find out what a woman's love feels like. Extremely believable in his naivety and all-goodness. I'm sure that almost anybody who wasn't instantly popular among the ladies in that age and had to work his way to the women's hearts can easily connect to the personality he displays. And that's another beautiful side of this film: that while Nick's supposed to be the student and Roger the mentor, it's actually the Nick's ways we see as the proper ones.Still, the movie plays it nice to everybody, not trying to demonize one character and make the other look like a saint. At the end we are given a chance to see some redeeming features even in those who might seem like a cause lost entirely. Which actually leaves some hope that maybe that tour de force wasn't such a bad and useless idea after all. And that was just the right thing to drive Roger Dodger home as a film leaving a pleasant aftertaste, which alone is enough to justify spending your time and effort to watch it. So don't be too judgemental too much in advance.

Jesse Eisenberg's first ever major film, Roger Dodger, is a unique coming-of-age story with enough simplicity on the surface and enough complexity beneath it to take the form of an impressively entertaining study of the social interactions between men and women. As writer/director Dylan Kidd's first project and winner of the Best Feature Film Award at the first ever Tribeca Film Festival in 2002, this surprisingly well-done little gem will leave you wondering why it wasn't a bigger commercial success and why Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland, The Social Network) is the only member of its production that you still see in the business on a regular basis. (No discredit to Jesse; if there's anything Roger Dodger does reinforce, it's the fact that he deserves every bit of success that he's achieved)."Sex is everywhere," Roger Swanson, played by the show-stealing Campbell Scott (Dying Young, Big Night), tells his socially lost, 16-year old nephew, Nick (Eisenberg). Nick has traveled alone to New York City in the hopes of convincing his smooth-talking Uncle Roger into teaching him the ways of seduction so that he might end his romantic troubles by finally getting a girl and losing his virginity. While Roger is overwhelmingly cynical, incessantly arrogant, and often brutally forthright (blatantly exemplified by the motto he applies to the advertising business– "You can't sell a product without first making people feel bad"), there is no one who knows the rules of the game better. He solidifies his tactics with an impeccable track record; he takes a woman home "every night".Originally reluctant to open up his one man band to the prospect of apprenticeship, Roger agrees to spread his wisdom to Nick. What follows is a night out in the city that never sleeps in a crash course in charming women. From hilariously ridiculous scenes of the two scouting out women on the streets to unexpectedly profound conversations at a bar, the night proves to be an open examination of these two previously mysterious characters.However, the movie is far from simply a character study. While Scott's and Eisenberg's performances are near-perfect, the execution of the film ensures that its value is not dependent upon the quality of the acting. Behind a simple plot and seemingly simple characters is a noteworthy script that delivers witty, realistic dialogue and intriguing conversations. Free from Hollywood-ized n0nsense and feel-good drivel, the scenes between the two guys and the two women they engage at a bar are perhaps the film's best, showcasing not only Roger's subtle tricks and Nick's charming innocence, but also the natural chemistry between Scott and Eisenberg and the vulnerabilities they both carefully expose with their characters.The chaotic events of the night lead to an ending that, while it strays slightly from the tone of the rest of the movie and perhaps comes a bit too suddenly, is perfectly raw and unexpected. I can't remember being more satisfied with an ending in a good while.All in all, Roger Dodger teaches the common moviegoer that not all good indie flicks have to be about vibrant colors, trendy folk music, and quirky families (Little Miss Sunshine, Juno). And more importantly, this smart man's American Pie (even if that sounds like an oxymoron) proves that not every coming-of-age, cherry-popping comedy (or maybe more dramedy, in this case) has to be sullied with sloppy and overdone high school stereotypes, eye-rolling dialogue, and unlikable characters of both genders.I'm hooked, Jesse. Keep making movies.

I'm sure most people won't find my comment to be of much value, but to those of you with any tendency toward motion sickness, please read on...I cannot comment on the bulk of the content of this film, as I only saw a very few minutes of it. I'm afraid the shaking camera was almost enough to induce seizures, and was simply more than I was willing to bear. (Does anyone still think this type of camera-work adds to the cinematic value of a film?) I suppose some people still consider a shaking camera to be artistic in some way, but as for me, this poor camera work constantly reminds of two things:1) that I'm watching a poorly filmed movie, with no chance of really getting into the story, and...2) that I need to add Dramamine to my shopping listLuckily, I borrowed this movie from the library, so I'm only out my gas money. Oddly, I still feel somewhat ripped off. (Must be those high gas prices...)

Given that Roger behaves like nothing more than a bitchy queen all the way through, why am I expected to believe that he is in anyway desirable to women? Acidic, manipulative, self-seeking...just a revolting personality...and yet the director somehow expects us to want to spend time in his company. The best part of 2 hours, in fact. 2 minutes would be too long!! That his New York cronies appear to find his dinner party repartee amusing says as much about them as it does about him. Personally, I would cross the room to avoid his supercilious clap-trap and I'm not remotely interested in a group of vacuous trendies who would fan his ego. Hence, I don't care about the characters. And, in so not doing, I don't care at all.Even the introduction of the "nephew" couldn't inject heart. The film is all about word-play - being perceived to be clever-clever - whilst having no heart at all.Watching this film was an empty and vaguely depressing experience.