The Size of Watermelons

This movie was terrible on so many levels. It's basically a rip off of Kevin Smith's life. It's about a slacker who can't figure out what to do in life. So he decides to make a movie but has no idea how. I know there's a bit more to this movie but after the first 50 minutes I stopped watching. I don't know how Kevin Smith could allow this to be made. It's like watching the making of Clerks or something. Witless dialogue, stiff acting and just painful to watch. The only interesting character was Patrick played by Donovan Leitch.

So overall don't waste your time on this unless you have never heard of Kevin Smith, seen a Kevin Smith movie or you just like lame half-assed slacker movies. Which i guess you can't expect much from.

There are two great features of this movie: it's yet another great nihilistic slacker movie, this time about a pathetic no-nothing loser who is trying to make his first movie (one can only hope this is not self-referential). It also has a great title. When I saw it at the Toronto Film Festival, it attracted a mixed crowd: those who had read the reviews and those who hadn't. The latter wore trench coats and left after the first five minutes.

I have sampled and loved this movie for a long time. There is an understated elegance to the comedy.

I originally saw 'The Size of Watermelons' back in the late 90's when it hit VHS to date myself. I was a big fan of the 'Halloween' series at the time and Paul Rudd had appeared in the sixth entry in '95 which had something to do with seeing this. I remember thinking this movie was hilarious. I still appreciate its charm all these years later, but question what my younger self found so funny.

I think back then I found the characters zany and off-the-wall. I had no basis to understand them. To me the whole proceedings were some crazy not-real-life acid trip of a comedy. The fact of the matter is this movie perfectly captures a certain subset of young people at a standstill in the 90's. It just took me being older to recognize it. No focus, no deep drive. Wasting time. Failed relationships. Attending film school or playing music. Too much beer, too much coffee. Getting lost in fantasies about being in the biz, reading Variety, but not doing anything to make it happen.

Paul Rudd & Donal Logue give dialed in performances. Alex (Rudd) meanders around with his "bad haircut" and a fondness for getting beat up. Gnome (Logue) who's a big talker bordering on obnoxious with a fractured type of charisma and balls "the size of watermelons". They follow each other around. Talk about doing an alternative B&W political documentary about Gnome and his views on the illegal annexation of Hawaii.

By the end none of it matters. Things fall apart and you move on. You grow up. That's life. A decent throwback movie that's not for everyone, but I enjoyed it then & now. Recommended for fans of Rudd & Logue.

It starts like a fine goof movie, but the more you watch the more you feel like you will have an headache because of the endless dialogs and inner speeches.

That's OK to have too many dialogs in a movie about people who just talk but do nothing, but i would really prefer to see something really going on other then just listening. What I mean is, you hear the guys mention about playing pool to make some money once or twice, but you actually see them playing pool to the end of the film. Or you see the Alex guy talking to Lizzy about how he supported her about her career choice, but you just wish you had seen a scene about it. After all, you watch a movie to see things are happening, not listening, right?

I think acting was good, but I'm not very sure about directing. I understand the director has experimented some weird angles, but sometimes it becomes disturbing as it was in the pool game scene I've just mentioned above.