Good story, Not enough for a whole film

It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

I'm writing this while the movie is running on Movie Central in Canada. Gosh, this is terrible, terrible, terrible. I'm not talking about story or plot or acting: Just what the picture looks like. Yes, it's a low budget movie, but I've seen better -- much better -- visual quality in undercover documentaries and home movies shot on iPhones and GoPros. The framing of the shots in 16:9 is worse than bad (sometimes, half of the actor's heads were cut off horizontally -- one can tell that common top for concurrent release in 4:3, 16:9 or 1:2.35 formats was never a consideration), and often out of focus (ever heard of depth-of field or lighting control?). Shots and counter shots in dialogues lack integrity in terms of color, contrast and focus -- and, if it weren't for actors wearing the same cloths through the shots, one would guess that different scenes were hacked together. In inside shots, one can see the overhead microphone boom reflected in the glass of the patio door -- which wouldn't be all that bad if the mike position was static, but one can see how the mike was pointed at the actors as the dialogue moves along between actors, and seeing such visual artifacts totally took me out of the movie. Yuck.Oh, yes, and then there's tripod shot contrasted with jittery hand- held shots without steady-cam. It must be cool to say FU to an audience that is supposed to make work commercially viable. As I said: Terrible, terrible, terrible. But, hey, if you happen to be a visual masochist, you actually may enjoy a movie that looks like a failed high school project. I hope Goldberg gets a chance to make more movies -- but he needs (and deserves?) much better people behind the camera and in the editing room, specifically, he needs people with a sense of aesthetics, and enough trained skills to create visually pleasing images. For all I know, it's eye candy that sells movies even if the story is bad, but the lack of eye candy kills any good story. Else, it's just a radio play. In a nutshell: I believe that the people handling cameras and managing post owe it to the actors to make them look as good as possible -- which certainly hasn't happened here. That being said, nobody looks as bad (or out of focus) as much as Goldberg himself. The movie leaves me guessing if he wanted to commit visual suicide. Bad as it is, there were some (but not enough) good shots in the movie: The underwater shots in the pool consistently were very nice quality and better than the movie as a whole. OK, the movie's over. Here are the culprits listed in the credits:'A' camera operator: Mark Putnam 'B' camera operator: Jonathan Bruno1st assistant 'A' camera: Michael Gonzales 2nd assistant 'A' camera: Alicia Pharris 1st assistant 'B' camera: Ludovico Isidori Additional 'B' camera operator: Monika Lenczewska Additional camera operators:Greg Cotten, Ian Benham, Nich Musco, Adam Goldberg Additional 1st Assistant camera operators: Tyler Harrison, Justin Kane, Adam DorrisUnderwater camera operator: Boyd Hobbs (Kudos! As mentionend above).Digital Imaging Technician: Michael Halper Video Assist: Lou Spadaccini Additional Video Assist: Jorden Kadovitz

I'm not sure what kind of mid-life crisis Goldberg is having but this is 97 minutes of unwatchable rambling garbage through no real story line or anything interesting at all. It's very clear that the actors involved think their jokes are clever and funny but really they're all just laughing together and no one else understands a thing they're saying. I sincerely regret renting this, not so much for the $ I spent, but more for the wasted trip to RedBox. I shut it off at the 50 min mark while fighting back alternating yawns and nausea. I'd ask for my money back but I desperately want to avoid hearing or seeing Goldberg again. Ever. Steer clear.

Flop is the first word I thought after seeing this movie.Honestly I'm at a lose for words because Jose the main character in this story went from frustrated over aged rocker wannabe, to child molester, to chronic psychological neck pain patient, to inhibited boyfriend, to just a lot of talk with his fellow frustrated over aged rocker wannabe's.And then the constant news feed of crime and violence in Mexico where Jose and his former but still attached girlfriend wanted to go for their honeymoon but she kicked him out because she discovered a long ago 'mistake' Jose got in trouble doing, and what was the purpose of the half-sister, and the pool woman?The movie is like a balled up tangled string and all of Jose antics and talking can't undo the knots.

Jose lacks purpose and never committed himself fully to anything. He is singer in a band, Jose and the Joses, that plays at children birthday parties but refuses to write children's songs for example. He still borrows money from his sister who made moderate fame with You Tube make-up tutorials. When the real motives behind his name change to Jose come out and break up his relationship he has to re-evaluate his life. The movie works as an underdog character piece with pointy dialogue. It reminds slightly of Greenberg although less strong and slightly listless in it's execution. The performance of the cast alone is worth it though. O'Reilly and Goldberg deliver as a couple so do Siegel and Belknap as supportive friends. Being mediocre, it still has some true gems. Band membermGabe losing himself in solo is touching and Jose's conversation with his sister summer are truly phenomenal moments to name a few.