Suffering Man's Charity

Sebastian St. Germain (David Boreanz) is a struggling writer who isn't familiar with Becket (the writer of "Waiting for Godot"). This angers his host, the opera fanatic Jon Vandermark (Alan Cumming). When Sebastian can't make any payments and his writing career appears to be going nowhere, Jon takes drastic measures to get even.

This is a first film for writer Tom Gallagher, and is directed by the star, Alan Cumming. The writing and acting is excellent. For the right people, this film is going to hit home. I personally enjoyed it, and my girlfriend was liking it as well, despite not generally being a fan of movies. Where the film runs into snags, I fear, is the subject matter.

The dialogue is very heavy with references to Becket, various operas, and other pieces of literary and "high" culture. By no means do I consider myself sophisticated, but I do have a basic background in the liberal arts. I am not sure if those with less interest in literature or the arts would take much liking to the movie. The plot is pretty basic, and Boreanz is an amazing actor (Cumming is great, too). But without the dialogue, the film falls somewhat flat -- particularly in a scene where Sebastian is quizzed on a variety of topics, such as Jack Kerouac.

I would like to give the film a second viewing now that I know where it ultimately goes, and if possible get more insight from the creators. I feel the film is meant to be very deep despite being a relatively simple storyline. If there's some deeper sense, I have missed it. Perhaps it is an homage to some great literary work? This would be appropriate, but if so it was over my head.

I recommend this film for horror and thriller fans, although you won't get much in the way of gore or many scares. It's more of a violent drama. (The film is classified as "horror" or "black comedy", but it's hard to fit it neatly into either slot.) If nothing else, this film is worth your rental... you may be surprised where it goes.

Before watching this film I thought it could go one of two ways, either be genius or be awful. It did neither and both.

The plot was thin and not particularly rewarding, the character David Boreanaz played was weak and his acting was, as to be expected, fairly mediocre.

So why have I given it 8 out of 10? Alan Cummings' performance was pure magic. In the previous review this was a criticism which surprises me. The reviewer is correct, it is dramatic, overblown and extremely theatrical, and as previously said, he isn't and is not meant to be a likable character but that doesn't make him any less of an interesting character to watch. You're given the sense that as the character becomes more and more dramatic and over-the-top, he couldn't stop himself if he tried or wanted to.

The entire performance is an interesting portrayal of passion, rejection and obsession that in my opinion makes up for the weakness of the plot and surrounding characters. More theatrical than big screen but a fantastic performance by Alan Cummings regardless.

This movie is pure grand guignol with obvious references to "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" and "Sunset Boulevard." If you enjoy shrill, histrionic, over the top, morbid, nasty, vicious humor you'll love Alan Cumming's directorial debut.

Purely on the technical merits, this film would deserve no more than 7 out of ten stars, maybe even a mere 4, but it has the madness, the idiosyncratic verve to become a camp cult classic. Cumming's performance is a bit of PeeWee Herman as Norma Desmond, but when you think he's pulled out all the stops, Karen Black takes it to the next level, and then.... well, it just gets madder and madder.

While it is clearly not for everyone, "Suffering Man's Charity" is an absolute treat for the right -- or perhaps a very wrong -- mindset.

There is only one reason to see this film - David BOREANAZ! The plot seems typically reasonable, but writing or directing over the top should not impede a good play or movie. There is no need to act as though everyone is without morals or merit. A well-executed comedy should be able to reach everyone without using one expletive word. Seinfeld's comedy was always outrageous, but within the acceptable guidelines, and this is the kind of comedic writing that many new artists never understand. Without vulgarity or graphic violence, most writers have no idea how to entertain people anymore. David is always wonderful in whatever he does. He has timing, looks, charm, and savoir faire. Cummings, go back to Creative writing class 101 and this time, pay attention.

This film needed some combination of the following : a separate director that was NOT starring in the film, sympathetic characters, multi-dimensional characters, less overacting, a bigger budget, more people involved in the creation, and/or FILM source with good image quality. Any of the listed items could be overcome in different circumstances, but here they are all piled on.

I appreciate that the main character was meant to be someone who acts out his own life in overblown, dramatic excess. I appreciate that this character is intentionally not a likable person. Such things are valid and interesting choices to try, but they are challenges that require a LOT of feedback and careful planning to make a film that works. That seemed absent.

Instead, what we have here is a piece which leaves the impression that the actor (and director), Alan Cumming, does not know how to tone it down.

We only see one side of each character, and none seem to progress or change in any meaningful way. And no, changing address or circumstance does not count -- the characters never seem to learn anything.

All the audience gets is nasty people who never get better as they do things we can not care much about, and doing them in a somewhat absurdist way. Yes, there are some amusing scenarios, but all the negatives overwhelm occasional positives.