After the recent theatrical release of “Saw V,” I decided to write my thoughts on the series since we really don’t have enough time on the show to discuss these things. I feel this is an important topic of discussion because this series has become a yearly event, and it’s also a very accurate representation of what the business of Hollywood does to movies. I’ve offered my analysis on each film, and the series as a whole.

Enjoy!
the Movieguy

Saw
In the early winter of 2004 I attended the Philadelphia premiere of a very interesting film called “Saw.” I had seen a few trailers in a couple of low budget films over the summer, but otherwise, the film was not advertised or hyped in any way. It was directed by Malaysian-born Australian film school graduate James Wan, and featured a very interesting premise: someone is abducting people and putting in them in intricately planned situations in which they have to essentially torture themselves (and/or others) to stay alive. The film’s minimalistic premise and raw production value made it come to life in a very big way. When I saw the film, I was blown away. I felt that Wan had tremendous potential as a director, storyteller and creator of incredible suspense. The film’s biggest problem was its acting. Wan had a budget of only $1.2 million to work with, and was unable to cast actors who were capable of carrying a film so heavily dependent on raw acting power. Leigh Whannell, Wan’s co-writer delivered a horrendous co-starring performance along with the talented, but horribly miscast Cary Elwes. Amazingly, the power of the film’s suspense, direction and storytelling made its acting failures pale in comparison to everything it accomplished. Complete with a brilliant ending, this was one of the best horror/suspense films released since “The Ring.” Relatedly, “The Ring” was was one of the best such films released in a great many years at that point.

“Saw” made over $55 million in the box office. At the time I was pleased that Wan and company were rewarded for their imagination and hard work. I had no idea that this small and surprising taste of success that would create something so despicable, pathetic and wholeheartedly embarrassing.

Saw II (2005)
Yes, “Saw” left a lot of people wanting more, including yours truly. As a critic, I’ve endured my share of terrible sequels, and honestly, I wasn’t sure what to expect. James Wan was not directing, which I felt was a very bad sign. Some of the original cast members were back, and Whannell was co-writing once again, so perhaps my concern was mere apprehension? After all, “Saw” caught me by surprise just like the rest of you, so I didn’t want a good story ruined.

Though the film did not contain the same magic as the first, it was intense and told a very compelling story. This time around, the acting was vastly improved, with Donnie Wahlberg providing the sort of strong leading performance the first film desperately needed. Perhaps Wan would have given it an edge by directing, but all in all, it was a solid film that fit very well with the first movie.

Saw III (2006)
I don’t know why, but I kind of thought “Saw II” would be the end. No, I am not that naïve, but I truly thought the story ended when I walked out of the theater. Little did I know, the end wasn’t even a topic of discussion.

From the opening scene of this film I knew what was to come would be neither pretty nor enjoyable. Darren Lynn Bousman, the director of “Saw II,” was back at the helm; I’m not sure that was a good or bad thing. Bousman directed the second film with style and intensity, but in retrospect, he really didn’t have to try very hard. Wan set everything up in the first film and all Bousman had to do was not screw it up.

“Saw III” film pretended to have a strong connection to the recurring characters while essentially fostering none at all. Like I said, I thought the story actually ended after the second movie. It was with this third “chapter” that the film became more concerned with finding clever ways to kill and torture people and basically kicked everything else to the curb. It’s impossible to say that the first two films weren’t extraordinarily gory, but from there, the gore had nothing to do with story or characters- it was disgraceful shock value and a complete waste of time.

Saw IV (2007), Saw V (2008)
When I first heard a fourth film was being made, I thought it was a joke. I thought it was simply impossible to continue a story that had already ended. Twice. I was obviously wrong, because as I did more research, I found out that Lionsgate was going to keep making these movies with no intention on stopping. Get ready to step into a world of useless absurdity in which only once classic horror films live.

Jason.

Freddy.

“Halloween.”

“Hellraiser.”

Enough said? These used to the best horror films around, but now all I want is for someone to tell me that they’re done making them.

“Saw V” was essentially the same as “Saw IV,” and was as bad as one could expect. Obviously the story had been over for quite a while, and the film was essentially just a repetitive music video montage of torture scenes, dark camerawork, quick cutscenes and heavy metal music in the background.

If you look at it from a business perspective, this series has become a cash cow. Take a look at the American box office numbers for the first four movies. We’re not even getting into rentals, merchandise or worldwide sales numbers.

Saw
Budget: $1,200,000
Gross: $55,153,403

Saw II
Budget: $4,000,000
Gross: $87,025,093

Saw III
Budget: $10,000,000
Gross: $80,150,343

Saw IV
Budget: $10,000,000
Gross: $63,270,259

Saw V
Budget: $10,000,000
Gross: $30.1 million opening weekend

As the money continues to pour in, Lionsgate is realizing they have to do less and less to promote the films, because everyone has now grown accustomed to seeing them every year around the same time. I own the first two films and have watched them quite a few times over the years, usually back to back. When I’m finished, I pretend that the other films don’t exist. I pretend the series ended after the second film and the other pathetic attempts to squeeze money out of a series that died years ago. I do the best I can to keep Wan’s vision alive, even if just in my own head.

So, how long will the torture continue? Films number six and seven are in the works now, and it is likely that we will even see number eight in the theater. After that, if history is any guide, we’ll probably see a wellspring of straight-to-DVD ripoffs for the better part of a decade, then reoccurring every so often every decade or so.

It pains me to say this about a film I love, but I wish James Wan never made “Saw.” I’ve never said that about a great movie before, but this is what Hollywood does to great ideas. It turns them to filth.

Hello Everyone-

It’s the Movieguy here with a immensely important announcement.

Today I awoke to find an email message from Mike Nigro (of “Mike and Mary”) who is the current program director at WVUD. The message informed me that “Standing Room Only” “had to be displaced” from its normal time slot on Wednesdays at 7pm or 7:30pm and instead be moved to Tuesdays from 6:30 – 7:00pm. This change will be effective as of September 23rd, which will be our first show at that time.

As Mike pointed out in his message, “one upside is that the number of sports preemptions you will have on Tuesdays will be significantly fewer, as college basketball games usually fall on Wednesdays.” As many of you remember, in the past few years, “Newark’s Premiere Movie Show” has been absolutely hammered by sports blackouts, and hopefully this will be a positive change. The irony, however, is that “Standing Room Only” is being “displaced” for a sports program called “The Sports Roundtable.” Sports wins again, it seems.

I asked Mike about our immensely popular hour length broadcast during the winter and summer months. He said the following: “It is very possible that you will be able to do an hour show in the winter and summer, as you have in the past. My best guess as to the time it would run is either 6 or 6:30. I will keep you updated as the Winter Schedule approaches.” When he gives me more information on this I will be sure to pass it along.

As some of you may remember from years past, I have always wanted the show to be an hour indefinitely. I have tried to make this happen on numerous occasions, and once was actually promised a 90 minute show while Danny W. was here, but it has never panned out. I spoke with Steve, WVUD’s new station manager, and he said that it’s not out of the realm of possibility for an hour segment. No promises were made, but we’ll see what happens.

Mike has indicated that this “displacement” is not temporary. Tuesdays from 6:30 – 7:00pm are our new home. I want to take this opportunity to bid farewell to the wonderful Wednesday slot, which for a variety of magical reasons, fit marvelously (almost magically on more than one occasion) into my various work and school schedules over the years. Wednesdays have held a very special meaning to me over the time I have done this show, and I know that Tuesdays will as well.

The show was here long before I was, and as far as I have been told, Wednesday has been its home for years and years before the Movieguy. I want to thank all of the wonderful listeners who have helped to make Wednesdays such a welcoming home for “Standing Room Only” over the many years it has been on WVUD.

Now, I want to take this opportunity to invite those listeners to make Tuesdays as special as Wednesdays. Woody C. and I will do our very best as always to bring you the best movie banter we can, and I hope all of you can join us at our new time of 6:30 in the PM Eastern Standard Time next Tuesday, September 23rd for the first ever episode of “Standing Room Only” on a different day.

There might even be a special surprise for you when you tune in, so you don’t want to miss it…

Tell your friends. Spread the word. We’re going to make Tuesday the new Wednesday!

Happy Viewing!
- the Movieguy

Hello Everyone- I wanted to first apologize for not being on the air last week, and secondly, explain why.

As many of you know, I am very devoted to being there each week and do the very best I can to keep the movie banter coming. However, on Wednesday shortly before I left, I became quite sick from something I had eaten that day. No details necessary, but it was unfortunately impossible to make it. I tried to call the station, but the computer was running the programming at that time and no one was there to answer the phone before it was too late.

I humbly apologize again, but want to make sure you know that we’re going to have a great show next week. We’re going to have an ENTIRE hour of reviews of new films in theaters. There should be about six films in all, so you don’t want to miss it.

See you all next week!

Happy viewing,
the Movieguy

WEBSITE UPDATE, WEDNESDAY, 7-30

Well, I’ve finished part of the website. While it didn’t come out as I would have liked, I think it looks pretty neat. I hope everyone out there likes it as well. The other points on the list of website to-dos will come next. Be sure to send me an email at movieguy@hotmail.com with any feedback or suggestions you might have.

Don’t miss the show tonight!

- the Movieguy

Things I’m still working on…

- Making an archive for all of the interviews I’ve done over the years, so that you can just go to one page and listen to any of them and look at the pictures from them.
- Making an archive for old posts that are worth saving.
- Deleting all old posts that aren’t worth keeping.
- Changing the visual apperance of the site, which I’m sure most of you are getting tired of by now. I know I am at least.
- Other stuff I’ve forgotten.

With the release of “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” I’ve decided to write detailed reviews of the first three films. I’ve also included their release dates and some important financial data. If you look at the numbers, you will understand why Hollywood would want to make a fourth film starring a 65-year-old Harrison Ford 19 years after the trilogy had concluded.

Stay tuned next week to hear my analysis of the new movie!

Enjoy the reviews,
the Movieguy

Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Budget: $18,000,000
American Box Office: $230,329,080
Worldwide Box Office: $384,140,454
American Rentals: $115,599,000
Worldwide Rentals: $399,200,000

Movieguy’s Analysis: Hollywood action/adventure films have copied this film for years, attempting to capture its high levels of lighthearted fun, excitement and adventure. The film won four technical Oscars, as well as earning nominations for Cinematography, Director, Original Score and Picture. I’m not sure Best Director and Best Picture were deserved, but that’s another argument for another day. The Harrison Ford was at the height of his fame and popularity at this time, as “The Empire Strikes Back” had just been released a year earlier, “Blade Runner” would come out the following year (1982) and “Return of the Jedi” would hit theaters in 1983. Needless to say, his performance was simply fantastic. Ford was very possibly main reason for the film’s success, as he played his character with such pristine ease that even in the film’s corniest moments he maintained an air of pristine authenticity. His co-star Karen Allen was equally good, though I’m not sure people realize just how good she was unless they compare her to the putrid Kate Capshaw in the second film. Allen’s character was indeed a walking cliché and could have possibly been omitted all together, but her excellent performance made her character work almost flawlessly. Steven Spielberg’s direction would eventually serve as the model for most other Hollywood action films. Upon further reflection, Spielberg’s Oscar nomination probably had more to do with the financial success the film experienced. Regardless, you should view his handling of the film with a sense of scale. His camerawork was strong, which blended nicely with high quality special effects and stunts. There were times when the film was corny and cheesy, which was mostly the result of John Williams’ overly expressive score. Hollywood action movies routinely place too much music in their films, attempting to accent every scene in grandiose fashion by relying on music to create moods that a typically feeble and flawed screenplay cannot. Williams’ forced and overly grandiose score was as corny as a movie soundtrack can get, and made the film seem much less sincere than it actually was. Needless to say, he didn’t deserve his Oscar nominations. Nevertheless, Lawrence Kasdan’s writing ranks among the higher caliber screenplays for Hollywood action/adventure movies. Though he did incorporate some of the unnecessary and corny dialogue the genre is famous for, he established characters well and, most importantly, developed a multi-tiered story with logic, mystery and excitement. He worked seamlessly with Spielberg to develop the Indiana Jones character with great detail, never forcing any aspect of his personality on the audience and ultimately allowing Ford to use the full range of his talents. There have been many copies, but there is only one “Raiders of the Lost Arc.”

Movieguy’s Verdict: 3 / 4 Stars

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Budget: $28,000,000
American Box Office: $175,083,524
Worldwide Box Office: $333,107,271
American Rentals: $109,000,000
Worldwide Rentals: $211,000,000

Movieguy’s Analysis: Three years after the first film’s monumental success, this sequel was released upon the world like a cholera epidemic or increased sales tax. From the very first frame, it was clear the film was a monumental step in the wrong direction for the Indiana Jones character and the adventure genre. In the first 20 minutes, the audience was bombarded with unspeakable corniness spewing forth from a totally useless musical number, moronic writing and one self-indulgent stunt after another. At some point I assumed this would end and a story would eventually begin, but I was mistaken. It was clear that Steven Spielberg, the Harrison Ford and writers Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz tried to take the successes of the first film and magnify them. Their goal was apparently to make the Indiana Jones persona larger than life, widening the scope of his environment and abilities to make him some kind of James Bond hybrid. There wasn’t just one reason why this film was unwatchable. Rather, it was a combination of horrible decisions centering around a story that was almost too weak to even classify as a story. Huyck and Katz wrote a brutally awful screenplay which consisted of a barrage of clichés, failed attempts at humor and countless horribly created characters. Disappointingly, the film had no arc connecting it to the plot developments of its predecessor. Actually, it was set chronologically prior to “Raiders of the Lost Arc,” which was a downright awful decision. You could call it a prequel with nothing to do with the sequel, if that makes any sense. If it doesn’t, you’re not alone. Spielberg directed the film with the extreme corniness and tremendous fanfare of an amateur filmmaker attempting to convince the audience that sensory overload can substitute for a story. Though Spielberg put more effort and money into the film’s visual effects, the poor narrative and horribly created characters turned his efforts into a flamboyant and purposeless exercise in excess. Composer John Williams, who possesses a similar penchant for exaggeration along with a complete lack of discretion, delivered one of the most exaggerated scores in film history. Inexplicably, it was still nominated for an Oscar. When all was said and done, the worst part of the film was its ridiculous supporting characters. In “Raiders of the Lost Arc,” you could argue that Karen Allen’s character was at least partially unnecessary, but she added an additional dimension of personality to the film, which, in turn, improved the Indiana Jones character and the story as a whole. In this film, the female lead was violently butchered by Kate Capshaw, who delivered one of the worst Hollywood action performances in history. Furthermore, her character was as useless and nails-on-a-chalkboard annoying as a character can be. To make matters worse, the writers added yet another waste of space in the form of an annoying child named Short Round. Played by Jonathan Ke Quan, the only function of this character was to spew vacuously obvious background dialogue in an attempt at comic relief. With about an hour to go, the film smartly abandoned its fledgling attempt at an adventure story with an objective and assumed a role it seemed more comfortable with: amusement park ride. The only positive aspect of the film was the Harrison Ford’s performance. The forces working against him were powerful, yet he managed to craft his performance into something watchable, and, despite the childish amateurism surrounding him, oddly enjoyable. I think they should sell the Indiana Jones box set without this film to improve the image of the series because, really, this is everything that a Hollywood action film should not be.

Movieguy’s Verdict: 1 / 4 Stars

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Budget: $48,000,000
American Box Office: $197,171,806
Worldwide Box Office: $494,800,000
American Rentals: $115,500,000
Worldwide Rentals: $322,000,000

Movieguy’s Analysis: If you get one thing out of this film, it should be it was a near exact replica of “Raiders of the Lost Arc.” After the abominable conditions of the second film, Steven Spielberg and company decided to return to what they knew. It’s actually odd because this series has the reputation for being inventive and original, yet most don’t notice how little this film accomplished that “Raiders of the Lost Arc” did not. The series has never had a major or even minor story arc, and as the popularity of the series grew, people wondered about Indiana Jones and his childhood. Casting River Phoenix as young Indiana was a good decision, but the oddly isolated inclusion of a childhood flashback sequence was actually quite unnecessary, and, when viewed in the context of the film’s overall story, achieved very little. Casting has always been a weakness of the series. Its failure to provide the Harrison Ford with any marquee talent was a shortcoming from which Spielberg has learned in a big way. Casting Sean Connery as Indiana Jones’ father was ultimately the best decision in the entire history of the franchise. Connery was the most talented actor Ford had worked with while playing Jones, and the exchanges between them were pure cinematic gold. This was aided largely by the writing of Jeffrey Boam who, along with Spielberg’s direction, achieved a very strong synergy between all characters, but made doubly sure to allow Ford and Connery to coexist in perfect harmony. Spielberg’s special effects were more experimental than in “Raiders of the Lost Arc,” but thankfully he did not display the same amateurish lack of discretion as in the ill-fated “Temple of Doom.” Though this series has been paramount in Hollywood’s obsession to include a useless female character regardless of plot, Alison Doody’s character was slightly more believable and relevant to the overall plot. Her performance was a vast improvement over Kate Capshaw (not difficult to achieve), though thankfully her character had a bit more to do with the outcome of the film than each of the previous female leads. Supporting performances were all but guaranteed to be good because the film included Denholm Elliot and John Rhys-Davies, two of the excellent co-stars of “Raiders of the Lost Arc.” Sure enough, the two provided additional personality and talent and took more pressure away from Ford. This film contained the same amount of corniness and clichés as the first one, and was equally predictable. Additionally, there were several scenes in which Ford and Connery were guilty of rather severe overacting. Still, the two delivered great overall performances. Not only did the film feature the same enemy, it carried the same themes and overall message as the “Raiders of the Lost Arc.” I suppose it’s never good to be so lacking in creativity, but in a way, it’s actually quite perfect. The film was intended to be a fun and exciting guilty pleasure, and what better way to achieve that than making a copy of the film that all but started the trend. There aren’t many instances where I condone the blatant copying of a movie, but when you compare it to “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” I welcome anything that won’t make me cringe.

Hello Everyone!

Well, I have good news for a change. Next week we begin our summer schedule which puts us on the air for an hour! So, starting next week (May 21st), we will be from 7:00 to 8:00pm. Get ready for some interesting discussion topics, new segments and the same great reviews!

Happy viewing,
the Movieguy

The following is a review of a documentary titled “Playing Columbine,” which centers around a controversial videogame, videogames as an art form and violence in the media.

Do videogame creators not have the right to express social issues like writers, musicians, artists or filmmakers? It’s interesting because as a society, we really haven’t been able to process and ultimately accept games like we have with the aforementioned mediums. A documentary entitled “Playing Columbine” attempts to address this point, as well as other issues surrounding the media, and a controversial videogame called “Super Columbine Massacre: RPG!”

The creator of that game is named Danny Ledonne, who was a sophomore in high school at the time of the fateful shooting. Some time later, Ledonne created “Super Columbine Massacre: RPG!” which, as you can imagine, created quite a stir of controversy. He posted the game on the Internet anonymously and did not charge money for it. Why? He felt the game would serve as a tool for understanding and social change. With similar intentions, Ledonne has created a documentary.

If you were wondering why the hell anyone would even get the idea to make a videogame about a school shooting, perhaps it’s because we consider games as a lower level of entertainment that really isn’t supposed to contain any legitimate messages. Think about it- can you imagine using a videogame for any artistic and social purpose that isn’t escapism? I didn’t think so. That’s because the media seems to vilify anyone who makes games about these issues as deranged profiteers without consciences. Of course, there are those who do it to make a quick buck and stir up publicity. I recall a game about September 11th several months after it happened, and the film listed a few other examples.

I think this is an important issue, and it’s very easy to see where controversy and social friction would exist. It’s a fine subject for a documentary, but “Playing Columbine” was not without problems.

As far as production value was concerned, I had no complaints. The film was nicely shot and professionally edited, also including a quiet musical backing that added a more artistic flair. Unquestionably, “Playing Columbine” brought up important points regarding social and psychological development related to videogames. Do videogames cause violence? Do they enhance violent tendencies? Do they grease the rails to violent acts? Interesting indeed, but these are questions that have been argued for decades, the data being skewed and manipulated to either extreme over and over again. Take a few communication and psychology courses in college and you’ll see what I mean. Ledonne didn’t really introduce much new information, instead offering reiterations of the same few arguments.

The subjects interviewed in “Playing Columbine” consisted mostly of videogame developers and enthusiasts, professors and students with a few lawyers and politicians thrown into the mix. They provided a barrage of information, which is always a plus for a documentary. Unfortunately, that information did seem quite one sided. Supporters of the issues were given ample screen time whereas the individuals who offered differing opinions and/or philosophies were given small blocks of commentary that were quickly met with an onslaught of well-constructed rebuttals. Documentaries always have a point of view, but Ledonne’s passion for the issues clearly hindered his ability to create balance. Balance is one of a good documentary’s most important qualities.

Additionally, while the film offered intelligent arguments and theories, it never seemed to be moving toward any sort of conclusion. There didn’t seem to be a journey or path of any kind. It was divided into chapters, but they were much too far apart and failed to give the information any sort of scale. The film inserted small stories that helped break the monotony of information, but nothing close to a large, film-wide arc was present. This threatened the impact of the thesis, however redundantly it may have been presented.

Over time, the inclusion of contradicting views became more and more rare. It slightly reminded me of a film called “America: Freedom to Fascism,” which explored a truly fascinating and strongly important issue, but was ultimately killed by its overwhelming amateurism and boldly one-sided narrative. This film was not amateur by any means, nor did it come across as aggressively biased. Simply, the film could have benefited from more research, more opposing arguments and a more flowing structure.

The film wasn’t about “Super Columbine Massacre: RPG!” or creating publicity for it as much it was about the argument that videogames can be used for artistic and social purposes, and how the media affects violence. Though the film could have been better, it was thought-provoking and worthy of discussion. This is the kind of documentary that you can talk about with your friends over coffee, which is, ironically, the polar opposite of the childish escapism that videogames are perceived to provide.

The Movieguy’s Verdict of “Playing Columbine” = 2 / 4 Stars

Danny Ledonne’s Official Website:
www.playingcolumbine.com

After posting the review, Ledonne had this to say about my thoughts on the film:

“On the matter of ‘balance’ - what seems to be the sticking point of your review:

You recognized the importance of the topic and I think you appreciate the broader implications of the film so I am satisfied with your understanding of the future games for change can have in a world that is ready for them.”

Hi All- I wanted to thank everyone for the messages welcoming Standing Room Only back to the air after our very lengthy sports imposed exile. There were many positive comments about the Oscar segment, but apparently I struck a chord with my Final Thoughts this week, because my inbox has been receiving a steady stream of positive feedback.

So, to show my gratitude, I’ve decided to post that Final Thoughts segment in text form online for everyone to read.

Thanks for your kind support!
the Movieguy

Final Thoughts, aired February 6th

I went to the dentist recently, and I’m not happy about it. No one looks forward to going to the dentist, in fact, I don’t know anyone who really likes it. However, you might find it interesting that I actually like my dentist very much. He’s a nice guy and a very good doctor. The reason I make every effort not to see him has nothing to do with him, and everything to do with whatever failed human rights lawyer has decided to become a dental hygienist that week. I used the title of human rights lawyer in a tone of sarcasm. It is sarcastic because they are sadists who are evidently trying to show off to other sadists.

In the spirit of technological advancement, maybe they’ll come up with a machine that you can stick your head into and it cleans your entire mouth for you. That would be nice, but with my luck, it would be programmed by sadists.

Well, our sports-imposed exile from WVUD ends this Wednesday, after over a month kicked off the air. We’ve got a big show planned, as well as two big surprises to unveil. Tune in on the 6th at 7pm when Standing Room Only comes back in style!

Also, my Oscar predictions are out! To view them, click the link on the left side of the page with the title “The 2008 Academy Awards [Predictions]” to check out my thoughts on every category and every nominee!

You don’t want to miss it!

- the Movieguy

Many moons ago I had Bill Page on the show to promote his new film “All Along,” in which he stars. Since then I’ve viewed the film in several versions, and had a chance to see the film in its finished version. Right now, Page and his film are traveling the film festival circuit, and I decided to review the film on the site.

You can visit the film’s website at www.allalongfilm.com

Hope you enjoy my review of “All Along,”
the Movieguy

Over the years, I’ve come to know that Delaware has a rich underground of filmmakers, and the latest independent film they have produced is “All Along,” which tells the story of a man experiencing a mid-life crisis. Interestingly, the film tries noticeably hard to achieve a consistent level of offbeat comedy with a variety of gags and stunts, and succeeds in select scenes. However, what the film does best is achieve a tender sense of nostalgia, asking the audience what to ponder could have been. What’s most frustrating about the film is Krista Allen’s performance. Allen plays a psychologist who, for one reason or another, giggles after every line. Why does she do this? I’ve seen and liked most of her film and television appearances (especially her role in the brilliant TV series “Unscripted”), and she’s never done anything like that before. The only explanation I can think of is that inexperienced (or possibly distracted) director Robert A. Masciantonio just didn’t know enough to tell her to stop. Though the film’s screenplay could have been more detail oriented, it was easy to identify with the characters and their struggles, which meshed well with the film’s overall tenderness. Leading man Bill Page is an inexperienced actor, but his personality and workmanlike performance achieved a fine level of believability. Additionally, Page let the scenes happen rather than forcing things or exaggerating his lines. Overall, the film could have been funnier but didn’t seem lost without a consistent level of comedy. With a good musical backing and characters you can identify with, this small film was not without flaws, but achieved its goal with emotion and creativity.