Danny Roane: First Time Director

The only reason I didn't get out of my seat and leave was because I was at the East Coast premiere and didn't want to be rude to Andy Dick.

There were a couple funny parts in the beginning of the movie, but that's about it.

You, yes YOU, could make a better movie just by using the video feature on your cell phone.

He admittedly had no storyboard, no plan at all of what direction the movie was going, or anything. It was just him making it up as he went along. And that is OK for a bunch of high-schoolers wasting time, but not for a theatrical release.

(Oh, and at the questions and answers forum after the screening, all Andy Dick did was make fun of everyone who asked a question...yes, he called a student a crack-head and another young woman fat).

Andy Dick's new movie doesn't truly feel like a movie. It wanders from scene to scene with Dick's often funny, unmistakable brand of humor. A lot of the jokes don't work, but there more laughs then you'd expect. To enjoy it, think of it more of an extended episode of "The Andy Dick Show". But an episode of his brilliant (but short lived) series this isn't, and as a movie it's pretty awful.

Dick's "mostly autobiographical" story follows the title character, a down-and-out former sitcom golden boy who is quickly slipping to the F list. We learn through a horribly filmed, lazily directed "News Radio" spoof that it is wasn't Andy/Danny's proudest career moment, even if it was of his most successful. With a muddled motivation, he puts together a movie about his substance abuse problems.

With this story, Dick able to make jibes at the industry and these are the best moments of the film. Starting with the untoppable "Late Night With Jimmy Kimmel" sequence and continuing with hilarious scenes ripping apart empty-headed execs, intense crew members and naive actors, Dick is able to stick it to the industry. He is also able to make fun of himself and his colleagues in the process (Ben Stiller, Jack Black, James Van Derbeek and more are all able to make fun of themselves in assorted scenes).

There's no doubt "Danny Roane" is filled with some great moments, but they are strung together with bad camera work, platitudinous scenes, and plenty of unoriginality. Not to mention none of it feels consistent or effectively planned out. Dick and producer/star Marshall Cook admit to not following many conventional film techniques, and it really hurts the film. It wouldn't be so much of the bother if the script wasn't such a banal rip off of "Bowfinger" and "Living In Oblivion".

With more work, higher talent in crew and a bigger budget, "Danny Roane: First Time Director" could have been a hit. As it is, it far too often descends to bomb territory and gets tired out too quickly. In all, it's a pretty awful debut, but that's not to say there's some laughs to be had.

Note: I attended the Northeast Premiere of this film, where Andy attended obviously drunk. Although I reviewed his film with as little bias as possible, he was disrespectful to even the fans in the audience. Seems pretty contradictory of the final words in the credits ("Thanks to my fans who stuck with me through the bad times.") It was hard to tell if Andy was really acting in this movie-and if he was intoxicated while shooting most of it. With his film, one can tell he's pretty jaded from the industry- but it seems he's jaded more so from himself.

Please, let's not get into a battle of the films here. "Bondage" and "Danny Roane" are two separate pieces of work. They were each made for different reasons and both deserve to be judged on their own merits.

There is an art form to getting a reaction from an audience, especially one that is controversial - meaning that it possibly has people confused, upset, enraged, etc. Oscar Wilde once said (in the preface to "A Portrait of Dorian Gray") that all criticism is in fact a form of autobiography.

I saw "Danny Roane: First Time Director" while at South By Southwest. The audience had a strong reaction to the film. And just like anything else in the world or in this country, their reaction was not all the same.

Liking or disliking someone's artistic expression is only one form, in a vast array of forms, in which one can evaluate a piece of work. If we are to remove "like" or "dislike" as the simple-minded binary means in which we look at this film, there is a lot there that cannot be denied. Undeniability is one of the hardest things to achieve in any art form.

Andy Dick, whether consciously or not (although I suspect consciously) blurs the lines between fiction and reality - an art within itself. He shows the audience the baffling and overwhelming power of not only alcoholism per se, but what happens to a person when they are in the grips of a spiritual crisis.

Everyone thought it was funny when we read in the press that Chris Penn got drunk at the Sky Bar and got into a fight with a midget, throwing him into the pool and getting tossed out himself. Now he is dead at 40.

There is something tragically haunting about Andy Dick's film. It is hard to watch, I agree. But I wouldn't dismiss it so quickly for that reason. If you look at his resume, Andy Dick has made a zillion movies and television appearances. His has a certain mastery over his craft, which is to say that he knows what he is doing. You may or may not "like" it, but clearly a lot of insight into his personal, real life struggles went into creating the film.

Regardless of your opinion of it, this is a movie that cannot be dismissed or ignored - just like Andy Dick himself. There are people who will like it for the wrong reasons, and there are people who will dislike it for the wrong reasons. But either way, there is no denying it. This movie, or this phenomenon rather (as Andy blurred the lines between the movie and real life afterward) clearly demonstrates that there is intelligence in the meltdown - a general dissatisfaction. And when one is courageous enough to face the dissatisfaction, intelligence is no longer restrained.

Personally, I'd like to know what "Indyfan1983" is referring to in the film "Danny Roane" when he rants about it having "more scat than a scat film and more blood than and stag film (sic)". Maybe I am confused. Besides his comment being grammatically incorrect, just what kind of stag movies is this guy watching where blood is an element? Also, how many scat films does one need to personally watch to be able to make a scat film/"Danny Roane" comparison?

What exactly is going on in this movie? What is so bad or horrible? I am an Andy Dick fan and want to see it, but some of these posts are so disjointed. What is the deal? Is it funny or not?

God Bless, Susan

Many years ago my roommate was laughing at a movie that he was watching and I asked him what it was. "Danny Roane First Time Director" was his answer. For days he was laughing about it. I didn't get a chance to see it for myself until several years later. At the time I saw it, Andy Dick was still regarded as funny and relevant. The truth about his hand in the situation that lead to Phil Hartman's murder was not as widely known as it is today.

Andy Dick today is a sad tortured man. It's like James Baldwin said: "People pay for who they are by the lives they lead." It's true for all of us, but especially true for Andy Dick. That being said, this movie would get a zero from me but there are a couple funny parts with the guy from RENT where he is questioning the safety of the equipment they are using and I am laughing just thinking about that part. There are some terrible parts in this movie that I wish I could unsee.