jamesg-14

This is a wonderful treat for Paul Williams fans (of which I am one), and it's also a semi-serious portrait of recovery and survival from 1970's celebrity and the excesses that often came with that lifestyle.

My only problem with this film is that the director, Stephen Kessler, a self-professed fan, is a presence in the film the same way Michael Moore often is in his movies. Kessler is likable and it's apparent that the film probably couldn't have been presented without some insight as to how and why he made it (no way he could have been invisible). And some of the film's funniest moments stem from the awkward and sometimes intrusive presence of Kessler and his crew.

But I would have liked a better sense of Kessler as an individual and a passionate fan rather than a challenged documentarian (he's a constant presence but we don't get to know him well enough). His approach also left me wanting a more linear treatment, like that of an A&E Biography; Williams' output was so extensive that much of his career retrospective here seems rushed. Kessler includes a lot of awkward cinema-verite moments, many of which are entertaining, but for me there's not enough coverage of Williams' acting, writing and recording work and I would have liked more focus on that.

Still, I'm grateful that he made the film, and that Mr. Williams was a (sometimes) willing subject.

Every Christmas my wife and I make a point to watch as many Hallmark, Lifetime and ABC Family holiday movies as possible. We have sat through a lot of dreck and truly painful, endless, tiresome TV movies. This came as a genuine surprise. As much as I've come to expect the hokey, predictable story lines and cliché characters, this movie doesn't exactly break from all that completely, but I was impressed by how entertained I was. Here are some of the reasons: (1) This takes place in real central California locations, not a Canadian city or town pretending to be "Christmastown, Anywhere." (It's usually part of the fun guessing if the locale is Ontario or BC, and here it's actually where it's pointed out to be, which is unique.) (2) There are three or four comic lines of dialogue that made me laugh, even howl, out loud (with the movie, not at it, which is also unique). (3) Gammon's performance as the dad; he has made a career out of this type of character and he is spot on. Actually, all the actors do a great job with their roles; even the contemptible ex-boyfriend is done so well he's actually enjoyable. Jason London is perfect. (4) I was able to sympathize with both the "city boy's" situations and "country folk's" reactions to him. (5) There are a couple of animals (vicious dog and wild horse) whose depictions are very well handled and convincing. (6) What starts out as a probable "Meet the Parents" rip-off goes instead in its own direction to tell a different story. (7) Though it is predictable, the reconciliation between father and daughter (in the shadow of her late mother's memory) is handled so well that it actually brought a tear to my eye (something NONE of these TV movies has EVER accomplished). Yes, there are a couple of lame elements: blatant product placement for Kay jewelers, a tree-lighting ceremony that takes place in daylight, three brother characters that aren't developed, and a career/life decision the protagonist makes at the end that isn't too believable. But the joys far outweigh the problems. I wasn't expecting to enjoy it nearly that much.