Momma's Man

A cinematic endurance test, tethered to a weakling character that nobody, mother included, would miss if he blundered into the bleak NYC winter night and never returned. Nice to see Richard Edson pop in; pity he had nothing to do.

The problem with this film is not the acting, editing, and direction. Those are fine. The problem is the story. I found it aggravating.

A married man living in L.A. travels to New York City on business. He uses the opportunity to visit his parents in Manhattan. Reunited with his old bed, toys and comic books, this presumed mature man makes a gradual psychological descent into adolescence, reclaiming his status as momma's boy.

The whole film is taken by this slow and gently grinding descent. I simply could not connect with such a narrative. The only thing that kept me from exiting the theater were the parents, the sane side of this story. The mother is naturally happy to have her son back and be a well-meaning pain-in-the-neck while the sensible father becomes progressively more concerned with his son's infantile behavior.

This film is certain to draw radically opposite opinions. When I saw it, a number of people left after thirty minutes. Friends, associates and fans of the director gave him a standing ovation.

I saw this movie at Sundance Film Festival last night and it was horrible.

This is the story of a guy with no life and no personality who can't face his own problems and instead refuses to leave his parent's apartment.

The plot drags along and the characters are painfully boring and uninteresting.

Dozens of theatergoers walked out in the middle of this film and I wish I had, I'm not going to be getting that time back.

Do yourself a favor and go see one of the other great independent films traveling the film festival circuit and dump this disaster.

This is simply one of the finest independent films I've ever seen, a story told with minimal dialogue but maximum heart and soul. Anyone who can't understand why Mikey is scared to leave his parents' home (and there seem to be a few of those shallow folks writing on this board) should get into therapy right away. In any case, Azazel Jacobs has remarkable insight and considerable writing and directorial skill, and his parents are wonderful as the parents in the film. Meanwhile, Matt Boren seems not to be getting enough praise for his amazing performance as Mikey. He's a fine and resourceful actor with a very expressive face. This movie is marvelous, and a completely must-see.

In order for me to enjoy a movie, I require things like character development, plot, a beginning, and an end. This movie contained none of these things. There was absolutely no way to empathize with the lead actor. I can't even call him a protagonist since there's no reason given for his inner conflict or a viable antagonist. My wife and I were left guessing throughout the film about the reason for this guy's sudden regression. With none given, not even a subtle hint, we're left to assume that this is just a jerk abandoning his family to act like a giant baby. I understand an independent filmmaker's desire to make a movie that asks more questions than it answers, and to portray realistic dialogue and human suffering, but at what point does it cease to be a subtle drama and become a confusing mess without character development? Must a writer/director fail as an entertainer in order to succeed as an artist? I think not. I say movies can be thrilling, funny, sad, frustrating, and totally engaging without sacrificing artistic merit. In the end, the writer of a movie is a storyteller, and it's lazy film making to think one can just throw a specific emotional state on screen and call it a movie. Don't waste your time.