The Truth About Average Guys

As long as you are not easily offended (and if you are, you are likely missing out on a ton of great comedy), this movie will definitely tickle your funny bone. It's like a super-amateur production of a Judd Apatow type movie. The best part is, the miniscule budget very rarely hurts the movie because the script is filled with hilarious interplay and dialog, so even shoddy acting, lighting and cinematography can't bring it down! It's not just "good for it's budget," it's just good. It's squarely aimed at guys in their mid twenties, and it makes the most of its one-joke premise by not making the faux-retardation scheme the actual focal point of the movie. Rather, the main character's relatable group of friends, combined with awkward interplay between male and female, and a playful, almost surreal tone, is where the movie really succeeds. While it is most definitely a stupid movie with a stupid title, "The Truth About Average Guys" is an absolute treat and if it had bigger names and a bigger budget, it would have been a hit that could sit comfortably in cineplexes alongside such movies as "Knocked Up" and "The 40 Year Old Virgin."

Most of these reviews are in the vein of "Oh what a great job you guys did for such a low budget. Way to go, little guys, hey your movie is in focus and well lit, so I give you nine stars". Sorry if I don't jump onto the band waggon. In the interest of balance I will now tear the movie apart.

While the shots are properly lit (overall a little flat, betraying it as video), there is barely ever any movement in the interior scenes. Some of it is very weak. The concert scene lit day for night (?) or possibly under lit. The framing is often pretty boring which carries over to the cutting. The editing really has no rhythm. The film (already at 83 minutes) could easily be cut down and made tighter and funnier. (In the commentary the film makers admit that they had a lot of seven pager scenes in the script which you are not supposed to do, and they cut down to four on set. "We make our own rules" one of them brags). The sound is flat and un enhanced. It has no depth with practically no effects to deepen and create ambiance. There is very little underscoring. Music is used for transitional effect or for the montage sequences.

The direction lacks inspiration from a technical standpoint. There are a lot of annoying amateurish details that jumped out at me. The actors are framed head on, which is visually uninteresting. Notice all the closed doors in the background of corridors of the office scenes. The location would have benefited being opened up and given depth. Same location too obviously re-used as a gym five minutes later when Katie and her friend are working out. The bar scene at the end is excruciating.

I guess establishing shots and reverse angles would have required more money.

The film needed a stronger director to stand up to the actors and push them further along. They obviously have potential and sometimes come up with truly inspirational moments but at least half their performances are either pedestrian or "actorish". It looks like they would do two or three takes and then say "good enough lets move on".

Some of the "guy buddy ensemble scenes" should have been trimmed in the editing and at least two of the characters cut out completely at the writing stage. They add nothing to the movie. Its educational to listen to the audio commentary. These guys think their (awfully bad) montage scene is good because the dinky little sight gags they improvised go "great with the music".

The film struggles between over the top sight gags, caricatures and more naturalistic, topical humour. It cannot make up its mind between the two and in the end should have gone for the latter.

Bad sight gags... The guy who feints when he finds out Jason is dating Katie. The introduction of the female protagonist in slow motion with wind blowing her hair back. The blah office co-workers, again too many of them get too much screen time. In the commentaries the two main actor-producers admit there was too much nepotism. The whole scene when Katie's friend introduces the two guys in the bar. And on, and on, and on...

Best stuff: Almost everything involving Jason Schaver. He comes up with little gems in almost every scene. The book end hammer scenes are wonderful.

Too bad the movie is in fact about Ken Gayton's character. He doesn't come across as the really "average guy". Meanwhile Erika Walker doesn't come across as the super hot chick. They both look good enough and at the same time ordinary enough that they look suited to each other, which doesn't fit with the theme.

You can tell they were learning as they went by comparing the ending they re-shot and added with a lot of the earlier scenes. It plays a lot better that most of the rest of the movie.

I took the time to write this very long review out of respect, not contempt. So four stars for actually getting it done and adhering to the first of Billy Wilder's ten commandments of film making. "Thou shalt not bore".

So, it took three attempts to try and make this film. Why does it look so amateurish? The framing of the shots is terrible, awful lighting, cheap audio cuts, and poor acting. I guess the acting is excusable, since indie flicks using local talent aren't known for their breakout performances.

I don't know why people like this movie though. I laughed only once, really. The whole mentally-challenged angle was old as soon as it was introduced. The writing stalls often. You can't just coast on a few good lines for an entire movie. Also, the main dude is such a whiny bitch, seriously. Girls *hate* insecure, non-confident dudes. They should have never gotten together in the first place.

A for effort to actually get the movie written and filmed and edited and sent out. Great, phenomenal. But the actual movie itself really isn't a super strong debut.

This clever comedy is "Sexual Perversity in Chicago" for the millennial set. Like that predecessor, it features raw dialogue about men and women and love and sex, with a challenging modern romance at its core.

During the all-guy scenes I felt like someone stumbling upon a secret primitive culture in their native habitat...a place far, far away from the female sphere where its natives try to figure out how to conquer that mysterious land. It's been done before but this film gave its male characters more freedom and more moments dedicated to their unfiltered, atavistic riffs.

There's much humor in how these "average guys" attempt to figure out how the navigate the land of Hot Chicks (a female sub-culture that is hilariously skewered in a memorable scene).

The story nicely balances the central romantic relationship with relationships among family and friends to provide a deeper well for drawing fresh laughs. It's fun and funny and kept me engaged. There are elements that overly sensitive people may find politically incorrect, but for me they enhance the unflinching, unprocessed style of humor that I like and that this film delivers in abundance.

ya this is pretty bad. i admit i really couldn't sit through the whole thing there was allot of fastforwarding. its basically someones high school project that got on the IMDb. the premise is another recycled hackneyed idea only done poorly. if your doing a comedy on video you also have to have good actors or otherwise its like a porno without the sex and thats what we have here. the lighting is terrible on half the scenes and it looks like they reused locations that are supposed to be different locations lol. the lead girl is supposed some 'super hot babe' but shes not in anyway. some of the lines were pretty lame. i would be embarrassed to say them if i was in this. it is just a bad production in every sense and frankly im amazed it was able to get on the IMDb.