I saw someone compare the director to Ed Wood, but no. Ed Wood was ignorant regarding what makes a good film (and in general--see how he talks about "primitive" people in Glen or Glenda), but I've seen his films and this director's, and I can at least say Ed's were more interesting and ambitious. He tried and dared a lot more than James does. How many times must we retread awkward, boring software salesmen (representing himself) giving absurd discounts and romancing vapid blondes? How many times must the female lead wear Asian dress and the couple go sightseeing? How many times must the director shoehorn in Hitchcock references? Props to James for making his films semi-diverse (there are never any minority leads, just cameos or minor characters); so, that's at least one advantage over Ed. For all Ed's daring in his era, he didn't really cross racial lines like James does.
ETA: Upon watching it again, I have to say that even though the two leads are not good actors in this, they have chemistry, and there's something sweet about Jack. He doesn't seem to be too bright, nor does he seem to be good at anything (aside from some pretty good detective work), but the character is a patient and kind guy with an endearing earnestness. (He's also good-looking.) Also, you can see the leads really trying hard to give it their all. For all the awkwardness and the terrible execution, at least the actors play off of each other WAY better than the leads in Replica. In Replica, the actress is worse than the actors in this film, but she has a charm to her even in her vapidness. If she'd be placed opposite someone like the main actor in this film, I would have been able to buy the Replica couple being together. But I digress. It's still not good, but I can give the movie that much. And there is a message in this one somewhere. Also, I've seen far, FAR worse movies recently that make this film look like a Best Picture contender by comparison, so it's softened my view somewhat.
