Supporting Characters

Watched this film after watching Ed Burns Newlyweds. What's the difference? First of all I could understand Ed. The lead actor here speaks so fast you can't make out all he says. I understand he's a director, but neither Ed or Woody don't have to worry. Ed's movie had a great cast who had presence while this movie has one actress with a little presence, the blonde "actress" in the movie. She seems more alive than the boring dinner conversations.

The movie lost me after 10 minutes but I stuck with it because I thought it had to get better. It didn't. I also didn't understand all the scenes with him and his wife in bed that really didn't push the story forward, in fact it slowed down to almost stopping. The lead seems to not really care, he carries an arrogance that is annoying as hell. He really think's he's Woody or Ed. Maybe better.

I don't like to diss movies, I know how hard it is to make good movies, I just wish they would have given the money to someone else.

Movies about movies don't usually work with the exception of Sunset Blvd and The Stuntman and a few others that don't come to mind. This one doesn't hold together and the lead's monotone doesn't help. Trouble is, nobody really cares about what movie people do, believe me, I know that all too well.

Just saw this at the Traverse City Film Festival.

It was the best fiction film there – very funny, fresh dialog, and tightly edited. Alex Karpovsky plays the central character, and is a great new (to me) talent. He and Tarik Lowe (also co-writer with director Daniel Schecter) have a chemistry that compares well with the greats.

While it's ideal for people who love the movie-making process, anyone will like this. The guys are co-editors of an independent film, trying to save it while the director works out his neuroses mostly off-screen. (Kevin Corrigan seems -- based on his post-screening appearance -- more than a bit nuttier in real life than his character.)

Really hope it gets distribution.

I have never felt the need to make comments on a movie. Artistic integrity and all that I guess.

However, the main characters are EDITORS... And I am in the poker world. So the fact that on the cab scene after the poker game they are arguing why he lost the hand... Somehow you missed the fact that a FULL HOUSE BEATS A FLUSH!!!

Your character is complaining that he lost a huge pot because his opponents flush beat his full house. It's like that "one tiny little error" that I'll that I'll always remember when asked about this movie. Otherwise I really enjoyed it. But dam..... Boat losing to a flush? Cmon Man!

What would have been a great, is if we find out that he thinks he is good at poker and has no idea why he loses so much!! Then he is told by someone that "a flush doesn't beat a full house man" . He then has his "Ah Ha" moment as to why he never wins