Provaci ancora Jose

I'm not sure what kind of mid-life crisis Goldberg is having but this is 97 minutes of unwatchable rambling garbage through no real story line or anything interesting at all. It's very clear that the actors involved think their jokes are clever and funny but really they're all just laughing together and no one else understands a thing they're saying. I sincerely regret renting this, not so much for the $ I spent, but more for the wasted trip to RedBox. I shut it off at the 50 min mark while fighting back alternating yawns and nausea. I'd ask for my money back but I desperately want to avoid hearing or seeing Goldberg again. Ever. Steer clear.

The story, so-called acting, soundtrack / music, unfunny dialogue, directing, cinematography, etc, etc Sucked major big time. Trgic, tragic, tragic, tragic and totally pathetic. AG and the rest of the crew actually paid themselves? Oy...

Jose is a bearded man who plays in an indie rock band. He is encumbered by commitment and behaves like a 20 year old who fears commitment. The soundtrack is bland and also appears to be prepared by exactly who you would expect, a hipster bearded man who is too old, too proud and too distanced from audiences. Resulting in this vanilla, pretentiousness of music that did in no way compliment the film.

His relationship with his fiancé is frail and the chemistry is off. Their love story through the use of flashbacks is sloppy. The banter between Jose and his 'quirky friends' is even worse.

I am a firm believer in watching a film until the end to see whether or not it can redeem itself. When people say "Nothing really happens." This film is it, look no further. The self awareness in this film is hauntingly void.

I question who thought this script was a good idea. I question how he managed to get Gillian. This film left me so confused and unsatisfied. What a terrible way to end a Sunday night.

I'm writing this while the movie is running on Movie Central in Canada.

Gosh, this is terrible, terrible, terrible. I'm not talking about story or plot or acting: Just what the picture looks like. Yes, it's a low budget movie, but I've seen better -- much better -- visual quality in undercover documentaries and home movies shot on iPhones and GoPros. The framing of the shots in 16:9 is worse than bad (sometimes, half of the actor's heads were cut off horizontally -- one can tell that common top for concurrent release in 4:3, 16:9 or 1:2.35 formats was never a consideration), and often out of focus (ever heard of depth-of field or lighting control?). Shots and counter shots in dialogues lack integrity in terms of color, contrast and focus -- and, if it weren't for actors wearing the same cloths through the shots, one would guess that different scenes were hacked together.

In inside shots, one can see the overhead microphone boom reflected in the glass of the patio door -- which wouldn't be all that bad if the mike position was static, but one can see how the mike was pointed at the actors as the dialogue moves along between actors, and seeing such visual artifacts totally took me out of the movie. Yuck.

Oh, yes, and then there's tripod shot contrasted with jittery hand- held shots without steady-cam. It must be cool to say FU to an audience that is supposed to make work commercially viable.

As I said: Terrible, terrible, terrible. But, hey, if you happen to be a visual masochist, you actually may enjoy a movie that looks like a failed high school project. I hope Goldberg gets a chance to make more movies -- but he needs (and deserves?) much better people behind the camera and in the editing room, specifically, he needs people with a sense of aesthetics, and enough trained skills to create visually pleasing images. For all I know, it's eye candy that sells movies even if the story is bad, but the lack of eye candy kills any good story. Else, it's just a radio play.

In a nutshell: I believe that the people handling cameras and managing post owe it to the actors to make them look as good as possible -- which certainly hasn't happened here. That being said, nobody looks as bad (or out of focus) as much as Goldberg himself. The movie leaves me guessing if he wanted to commit visual suicide. Bad as it is, there were some (but not enough) good shots in the movie: The underwater shots in the pool consistently were very nice quality and better than the movie as a whole.

OK, the movie's over. Here are the culprits listed in the credits:

'A' camera operator: Mark Putnam

'B' camera operator: Jonathan Bruno

1st assistant 'A' camera: Michael Gonzales

2nd assistant 'A' camera: Alicia Pharris

1st assistant 'B' camera: Ludovico Isidori

Additional 'B' camera operator: Monika Lenczewska

Additional camera operators:Greg Cotten, Ian Benham, Nich Musco, Adam Goldberg

Additional 1st Assistant camera operators: Tyler Harrison, Justin Kane, Adam Dorris

Underwater camera operator: Boyd Hobbs (Kudos! As mentionend above).

Digital Imaging Technician: Michael Halper

Video Assist: Lou Spadaccini

Additional Video Assist: Jorden Kadovitz

Jose lacks purpose and never committed himself fully to anything. He is singer in a band, Jose and the Joses, that plays at children birthday parties but refuses to write children's songs for example. He still borrows money from his sister who made moderate fame with You Tube make-up tutorials. When the real motives behind his name change to Jose come out and break up his relationship he has to re-evaluate his life. The movie works as an underdog character piece with pointy dialogue. It reminds slightly of Greenberg although less strong and slightly listless in it's execution. The performance of the cast alone is worth it though. O'Reilly and Goldberg deliver as a couple so do Siegel and Belknap as supportive friends. Being mediocre, it still has some true gems. Band membermGabe losing himself in solo is touching and Jose's conversation with his sister summer are truly phenomenal moments to name a few.