Sorry, this movie sucks

One of the worst movies I've ever seen

n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

With two directors, three screenwriters and the work of the original novelist to draw on, the surprising thing about The Extra Man is its paucity of wit, insight and cleverness. Too many cooks spoil the broth, but usually because they throw too much into the pot. This movie is more like stone soup. The main character is entirely defined by obsessions with 1920s literature and cross dressing, neither of which are defined, explained, resolved or lead anywhere. Kevin Kline is wasted in a character that feels incomplete, like half his scenes were edited out of the film, and then is completely neutered of all his politically incorrect personality. It attempts to take on the concept of poverty-stricken existence on the fringes of great wealth, then demonstrates again and again and again that it has no clue what poverty is or what it means. The feeble attempts at comedy here peak with John C. Reilly going a funny voice. This film includes some of the most aggravating and amateurish narration I've ever heard, tries to turn that horrid voice-over into a joke, then continues on with it after the punchline. A great cinema adaptation will make you want to run out and read the book. The Extra Man did make me want to rush and buy up all the available copies of the original work, but so I can pile then up on my lawn and burn them.Louis Ives (Paul Dano) is an awkwardly quiet and proper prep school teacher who acts more like a withdrawn and socially inept young student. He's introduced to the audience fantasizing about being The Great Gatsby and then loses his job after being caught trying on a bra in the teacher's lounge. After spending several months doing nothing, because prep school teachers apparently earn enough to make that possible, he decides to move to Manhattan and rents a room (more like a hallway) from Henry Harrison (Kevin Kline). Sexist, rigid, imperious and simultaneously pretentious and down-to-earth, Harrison claims to be a teacher and a playwright but what his life truly revolves around is being an "extra man". In New York society, wealthy widows are in need of men to escort them to events and fill out the spare chairs at dinner parties.That's the setting of this film. The story, such as it is, deals with Louis' triple efforts to comprehend his sexual identity, date an attractive co-worker (Katie Holmes) at the magazine where he lands a job, and sloooooowly enter into Henry's world as something of an apprentice "extra man". Of the first, Patti D'Arbanville's nuanced portrayal of an aging sex worker is the only highlight. Beyond that, the whole plot line fizzles out and leaves the viewer with no idea if Louis straight, gay, transvestite or what. Of the second, Louis' pursuit of his co-worker defies every bit of his personality, has no point and concludes with Louis counter-intuitively abandoning the pursuit. Of the third, these filmmakers do nothing to delve into the world of "extra men" beyond anything but the shallowest depths and leaves the audience with no better understanding of the culture and its participants than when the movie began.The closest The Extra Man comes to humor is a bit involving Kline and one of those pocket dogs that are the size of cats. The rest all smacks of storytellers who can't tell the difference between clever and funny, while not being all that clever in the first place. A character, or that damnable narration, is always telling the audience things about other characters' background and motivation. That's usually the surest sign of lazy, incompetent writing. Here, though, it strikes me more as some sort of meta-commentary on the whole clichéd conceit, but done by people who've only heard of the whole "meta" concept and don't actually know what it is. There's almost nothing of any value in this thing.Let me give you an example of how the writing in The Extra Man isn't nearly as smart as it was intended to be. Toward the end of the movie, Louis asks his co-worker to go with him to a wedding. She turns him down. That's followed by a scene of the co-worker and her boyfriend where she's essentially shamed into reconsidering her decision. That scene is the only one in the whole production without Louis. No other character has a standalone scene like that where Louis isn't at least present. This entire motion picture is centered on and orbits the character of Louis Ives. If that's the kind of story you're telling and then you, all of a sudden, have to throw in a scene that totally breaks from that convention in order to advance the story, you're not actually writing. You're swinging the Almighty Plot Hammer. Big Hollywood studios produce a lot of loud, dumb, self-indulgent crap. Independent cinema produces a lot of quiet, dumb, self-indulgent crap. If you don't want to admit that, you might fool yourself into enjoying The Extra Man. If you prefer the cold light of truth to ego-gratifying delusion, keep looking for something better.

This little gem is structured and unfolds like an F. Scott Fitzgerald novel (complete with continual Gatsby-esque references to Hamptons-like settings), which we are informed at the very beginning when the two principal characters, Kline and Dano, are introduced as lovers of and teachers of Gatsby period literature. I don't quite understand some of the negative comments in other reviews, since this offbeat character study is well-scripted and certainly well executed with Dano, Kline, and Riley. The only problem I can see is the lack of a back story at the beginning that explains the many quirks upon which rest the narration and the character development. SPOILER: Are we so jaded by Hollywood banality that we can't wait till the end of the film to see that Kline's character Henry has been telling the truth about himself all along, that he is a Rosenkavalier (the theme is underscored by the subplot whether or not the young Louis will marry the old rich woman's niece)? The end, in fact, cleverly establishes the ambiguity that seems to dominate the movie, but in fact is a precise and well-targeted resolution. In fact, it is the contrast between the apparently shallow lifestyle to which he aspires with all his parasitical schemes and his brutal honesty throughout (for example, admitting that he is manoeuvring his roommate Dano/Louis Ives merely to get a ride) is what carries the psychological mechanics of the movie. This is made clear at the end by several scenes and twists, which I won't reveal here. In the end, we see that the socialite salon society to which the Extra Man aspires (extra, as in making up the balance in the boy-girl equilibrium of dinner parties) is not really lampooned nor the subject of parody, but is in fact a viable space where people can be just as real as anyone else who wears jeans and baseball caps – vain and narcissistic, yes, but also generous, honest, self-sacrificing and especially capable of living according to a strict code that obliges self-honesty in the midst of meaningless rituals of chivalric obligation and politeness. This film can also been seen as a kind of Bildungssroman, a voyage of exploration of a young acolyte at the hands of an older mentor, with a twist of course, since the young man in this case explores sexual paths not sanctioned by the older Kline. Yet in the end we are not sure if the older mentor or the younger disciple or even the court jester (Riley) is the motivating force for self-awareness. The film works on many levels, obviously, and this in large because the minimalist script is very efficient and in part because the actors are great. Worth the time and intellectual investment (helps to watch at least partly aware and awake). Kline should be applauded for an intelligent performance that transforms quirks, weirdness, and eccentricity into a believable portrait of warped but very real idealism.

I feel it to be my civic duty to express my opinion to spare the innocent people the agony of enduring this very forgettable train-wreck. The fact that this film was ever classified as a comedy, I will never understand, I didn't see so much as even a chuckle. It took a while , but finally Paul Glaser, Christian Ford, and Roger Soffer can pick their heads back up. This box office flop makes Kazaam look like CaddyShack. What were Sheri Springer Bernan and Robert Pulcini thinking? The entire plot of the Jonathan Ames novel is absent of any true substance. How they thought that it would ever transfer to big screen well is beyond my comprehension. The only good that may ever come from this film would be if president Obama implemented it as a prescription for insomnia sufferers, that would cut the national deficit for sure. Anyone who voluntarily associated themselves with the production of this garbage owes a sincere public apology. Redbox owes me a dollar for stocking the flop! You owe it to yourself to skip this extreme waste of time!

This movie actually took me by surprise.First of all, let me start off by saying that the story is so compelling and spellbinding that it will blow you away. There is just something about this movie that is so unique in every way.The characters in this movie are so fantastically unique, quirky and lovable. It all just came together for a greater unity. The role of Louis Ives (played by Paul Dano) was the quirkiest of all, struggling to find his place in life, dealing with his sexuality and the admiration of Henry and trying to find acceptance. And I must admit that Paul Dano portrayed his character in a very good way; he was awesome in this movie. And his resemblance to a young Liam Neeson is just uncanny.Moving on to the role of Henry Harrison (played by Kevin Kline), well his role was eccentric and strict. But, as usual, Kline put on a magnificent performance. He is very charismatic and have a good voice. He is indeed one of the better actors of recent times.And also, not forgetting, the strange character of Gershon Gruen (played by John C. Reilly) was also very memorable and lovable, especially his voice.In all fairness, then this movie worked so good on all levels. However, I think that a share of people might be put off by the movie, as it does have that certain epic cinema moment to it, and also dealing with (and I use this term in lack of better) sexually deviant behavior. For me, I found that aspect of the movie to be one of the driving factors, because it showed how Louis Ives was struggling to find himself and dealing with his needs.The movie is very beautiful in more than one way. The story is beautiful, the cinematography is beautiful, the music is beautiful, and so forth. This is one of the better movies I have seen in a while. It is a fresh breath of change in the movie scene for me. Nice with a movie that stands out from the mainstream comedies, and dares to be so unique as it is.If you haven't already seen "The Extra Man", then you owe it to yourself to do so, especially if you are (like me) a lover of the cinema and movies. This is a story that will stay with you for a long, long time.Thumbs up, way, way up from me!