Sympathy for Delicious

The title makes no sense unless you know the main character's DJ name is "Delicious D". With this, there should be little confusion as one watches Sympathy. Sympathy for Delicious is well-respected actor, Mark Ruffalo's (The Kids Are All Right, Zodiac, Shutter Island) directorial debut and it was penned by one of his long-time friends who happens to play D (Christopher Thornton, a paraplegic who wrote the screenplay because of the lack of roles available to him in Hollywood).

D was an up-and-coming music DJ in the rock world of SoCal until he is injured and finds himself confined to a wheelchair ... the story begins after this has happened and we find D living out of his car on Skid Row where he comes to the attention of a local priest played by Ruffalo. After a chance encounter with a fellow homeless man suffering from both gout and Alzheimer's, D finds out he has been given a Divine gift and can miraculously heal others (but alas ... he is unable to heal himself).

Upon this discovery, the priest briefly puts Delicious to work doing God's will ... until D gets it into his head that he should be making TONS of money for healing others and so he makes a name for himself with the help of an odd rock band that decides to cash-in on his abilities. Orlando Bloom (Lord of the Rings, Elizabethtown, Haven) and Juliette Lewis (Conviction, Cape Fear, Strange Days) play fellow band mates while Laura Linney (The Truman Show, Kinsey, You Can Count on Me) co-stars as their icy and conniving manager who readily admits to exploiting their Divine find. By making such a public, high-profile spectacle of himself and telling everyone he's only doing everything for $$$ ... D opens himself up to all kinds of scrutiny (and he isn't up to the task of taking it all in). It doesn't help that his lone friend in the band, Lewis, sees him as a sell-out which causes things to spiral out of control. And, well, BAD things happen ...

I didn't believe much of what unfolds on screen (I allowed myself to buy into this premise ... but come on) which makes THIS story that much harder to accept. My primary problem: if there are some major stretches taken early-on, why is there no leeway later in the film when the "stretching" should still be allowed?! Sympathy wanted to "have it both ways" for dramatic effect which is simply the error(s) of screen writing 101 I am sure.

This is a VERY difficult story to make humorous (the film is classified a "comedy" on IMDb). I viewed it as much more of a tragedy as it is a film about some VERY lost individuals; but I am sure some might find it funny/hilarious (I didn't ... laughing at an actress pretending to have cerebral palsy isn't laugh-out-loud funny). Sympathy for Delicious has some good moments and it is a promising debut from a new director; but the subject matter is simply too tricky. Had it presented/sold itself differently from the outset, I might have viewed it differently ... but there is a bit too much ultimate trite-ness here for me to appreciate (not to mention D isn't very LIKE-able -- which, in turn, makes the film difficult to like as well).

I saw a screening of this movie at Sundance 2010. I was very impressed with Mark Ruffalo's directorial debut. I told him afterward that it seemed effortless. He laughed and said it was anything but.

Sometimes with first-time directors (though he's had some TV directing experience), there are jarring points that make you realize you're watching a debut. But there were no such moments for me with this movie.

Christopher Thornton, who also wrote the script, was great. He explained after the screening that he developed this with Ruffalo after Thornton complained that there are no good roles for paraplegics.

Though I was told beforehand to expect a dark film, it really has more moments of levity, which Ruffalo said was intentional.

It's a film worth seeing!

at first sigh, a religious movie. out of ordinaries rules of genre. in fact, precise portrait of society. a lot of problems in a honest manner presented. the homeless case, the artistic success, the healing industry, the faith, the miracle, the pain, the love's sense, the need of fame, the good intentions, the God will, each in a special way examined . a film who must see. as good occasion to discover pieces from another works about same problem. for the inspired script and for the good acting. for the questions. for the status of parable of film. for the image about every day reality. for the cold poetry of few scenes. for the silences. more than a good movie, it is an useful one.

...about society, faith, healing industry. great work of a good actor who proofs his director skills, for first time. a film about the other. the appareances, the interests, the fame, the show, the compromises, the gift and its price. at first sigh, one of the most inspired Christian films. in fact, a beautiful pledge for a careful [erspective about life. a curagious film. and, in same measure, an useful one.

This piece of cinema exhibited abeyance to the great maxim "you can't always get what you want." A great cast, a compelling story, and a first time directorial debut from a well-regarded actor seems to create the formula for cinematic magic. Unfortunately after two hours that seemed more like three days in a third world airport this was not the case. I wish there had been one area to praise but this again was not the case. The cast a group of distinguished actors were uniformly without character,off key in delivery, and spouting embarrassing dialog. The storyline is hokey and filled with clichés. To top it off the predictable ending is an over the top contrivance. A gritty opening shot in a area of homeless people winds its way to a thoroughly improbable story by a very unappealing and unlikable character. Everyone else is sleepwalking through this disaster. I have no idea what some of the other reviewers thought they were watching but I know for me it was a poorly crafted film.