CURRENT REVIEW


FROM: http://www.filmfestivals.com/cgi-bin/shownews.pl?obj=ShowNews&CfgPath=ffs/filinfo&Cfg=news.cfg&news=general&text_id=27253


February 9, 2005



Dave Barry Turns Movie Star at the Santa Barbara International Film Festival

The Santa Barbara International Film Festival has always been a bit adventurous with its selection of films. Along with the requisite slate of solid international and American independent features, the festival does a great job supporting local films and filmmakers.

This year, midway through the 20th edition, more than two thousand people packed the Arlington Theatre for the Centerpiece screening and World Premiere of “Dave Barry’s Complete Guide to Guys,” a fairly short movie written and directed by Santa Barbara resident Jeff Arch, the Academy Award-nominated screenwriter of “Sleepless in Seattle.” David Shor and Labrador Pictures, a Santa Barbara-based company, produced.

Arch based his screenplay on the fairly short book of the same name by Dave Barry, the Pulitzer Prize-winning humorist for the Miami Herald. Barry, whose syndicated column appears in more 700 newspapers, also turns movie star playing “The Guide,” essentially himself, with trademark Hawaiian shirt, bad haircut, and all.

Anyone familiar with Barry’s 25 or so books knows that you can jump in anywhere and find something to laugh about. Barry is a keen observer and superb chronicler of the human condition, albeit from the comic’s eye. By casting Barry as himself, the audience can see firsthand the kind of goofy persona that affects his writing and makes it such a joy to read.

Arch’s screenplay maintains a close relationship to the book, which is really a series of short chapters attempting to explain stereotypical male behavior, that is, “guy behavior,” throughout the ages.

The film, shot on digital video and set in Miami, revolves around Roger, the “Ultimate Guy,” played by comedy vet Lochlyn Munro. Munro’s toothy grins and vacuous stares are perfect foils for Elaine (Christina Moore) as we follow them from courtship to home ownership. A couple, Gene and Kelly, are the best friends, played by Khalil Kain and Megan Ward respectively.

In one scene that is particularly illustrative of a guy’s understanding of relationships, as they drive, Elaine tells Roger that they’ve been going together for six months. When Roger doesn’t immediately respond, Elaine imagines all sorts of relationship issues culminating with her rationalization that there is no knight, no horse. Roger, on the other hand realizes that at six months he’s way overdue for an oil change and that he’s probably screwed with the maintenance warranty as well. The next day, in a pick-up game of basketball with Gene, Roger asks if Elaine ever owned a horse. Meanwhile, Elaine and Kelly spend hours dissecting the conversation.

Arch’s storytelling relies heavily on sketch comedy. Sight gags are plentiful, as is a running gag about a favorite baseball player traded from the Marlins to the Yankees. In fact, since guys are drawn to sports like magnets, there are loads of sports related scenes including cameos by ESPN regulars Dick Vitale and Hank Goldberg. In what has to be great timing, 2005 Pro Football Hall of Fame inductee Dan Marino teams up with Barry to “telestrate” protocol in the men’s room.

For a “desperate housewife” moment before there were desperate housewives, Elaine comes to terms with Roger’s inability to fix all things broken in their new home, and calls Steve, the super-suave fix-anything repairman played by the equally suave Carlos Ponce. Steve merely has to lay hands upon the afflicted appliance for it to be healed, endearing himself to all the women while the guys idly stand by.

John Cleese, another Santa Barbara resident, also stars and is over the top in Pythonesque way, playing four different medical experts who offer no real scientific explanations about guy behavior.

After the screening, Cleese joined Barry and Arch on stage for a short Q&A.

“I’m still not an actor as you can see from the movie,” said Barry. “I liked every part of it except the part where you have to go on camera and say certain words in a certain order—which turns out to be a really big deal to the director.”

Before heading off the after-party, Barry and Arch managed to dump the contents of their water bottles on each other much to the delight of the audience.

As Barry made his way through the crush of partygoers, posing for the occasional photo, the early buzz was mixed. A technical glitch in the sound system clearly bothered a lot of people as half the theater had to strain to hear and the other half had too much sound.
“The moment an audience has to sit forward, they stop laughing,” commented Cleese in the Q&A.

Santa Barbara filmgoers are among the most knowledgeable and discerning who attend film festivals. “Dave Barry’s Complete Guide to Guys” will likely find its core audience among staunch Dave Barry fans that want to catch the master himself on screen, and of course, guys, who are—guys.

by James C. Davis
photos by Ray Mickshaw

reply

That sounds a lot more like the movie I wrote and directed, not the one these other guys seem so intent on warning people against. And how come anytime someone wriites a favorable comment they get accused of being planted there, but other people can trash it - and then keep coming back time after time to re-trash it, and their motives are not suspicious? The movie was not a masterpiece but a hell of a lot of people liked it and so did several distributors so far. We all had a blast, we all enjoyed making the movie and are proud of it, and that includes Dave - so whoever got the idea he must have been humiliated, and felt the need to broadcast that, you were wrong. If you didn't like it, I'm glad you came anyway, and thanks for your thoughts. If you want to write to me personally, the address is [email protected]. If you want to keep coming back every day or so and tell people my movie was lousy I guess you're free to do that too. There's still a 1st Amendment in this country, but it might not last long, so go to town while you can.

reply

I'm not sure who you are, sb1544, but if you are the writer/director, then I would say your message would fall under the "plant" category.

You may or may not be, but you admit to it here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407680/board/thread/8886838?d=9000600#9000600

reply

Wow, busted. I guess I was right about the plant thing, huh? I think that you getting caught writing plants is actually funnier than the movie. Better luck next time...

reply

I agree with frosteey. This movie was bad. not funny and extremly boring. I'm tired of seeing such awesome first reveiws for a film that are most likely from people involved in the production. Later when the general public views it, it falls down to where it should. If this movie was so great it would be out there and people would be watching it.

reply

I'm sorry you are so tired, but I am tired of people like you trashing movies they have not seen or saw the first cut of. The movie will be released on May 30, 2006, and I can assure you that people will be watching it. Perhaps you should save your comments until after you have seen it. As for the reviews you are referring to, the writers and publication credits were included with them. Take your issues up with those publications, but I can assure you that neither the Reno Herald Gazette or filmfestivals.com were involved in the production of the movie, and I resent your preposterous accusation.

David Shor
Producer

reply

So how do you know I haven't seen the movie? I made it at least 40 mins before I fell asleep on two tries. Resenting the accusation about fixed comments seems to be proven by the fact your the producer. The opening of the movie is lame and sets the tone for the rest of it. This would have been better suited as a one hour special on cable. If you can't take the heat for bad comments about your work then stick to your other endeavers and leave producing to the pro's.

its available on the internet. but its so bad no one wants to steal it,,, lmao

reply

Dude.
I'll say it once, and say it clearly:
A plant is someone who pretends not to be associated with a picture, but is, and gives the movie a good review. What we have here, both times, is someone who CLEARLY STATES that they ARE CONNECTED to the film. If you're going to use a term, learn what it means first.

reply

They didn't state anything clearly till their reviews were all over this piece of crap. A plant is somthing that grows,, this poor excuse for a movie died a long time ago

reply

Just to clarify, they re-edited their posts to include the part about being associated with the picture after they were busted for planting, below is a copy of the original post before they edited it:

by - sb1544 (Fri Feb 18 2005 23:48:33 )
That sounds a lot more like the movie I saw, not the one these other guys seem so intent on warning people against. And how come anytime someone wriites a favorable comment they get accused of being planted there, but other people can trash it and their motives are not suspicious? The movie was not a masterpiece but it was fun, and goofy, and - well a lot like Dave seems to be. Just because I don't have a history of postings, I'm suspicious? How about I just recently learned about IMDB? It's a decent and fun and clean movie. It's different. Let go of the dime and enjoy it.


After they were busted, he edited the post to show as it is now, saying that they are connected with the film. It was very dishonest and really unnecessary if you ask me.

Andrew
www.andrewnixon.com/movies - Short Reviews, Top Tens by year/decade, etc

reply

Apparently if you like the review of the version that was shown at SBIFF, then it's okay...but if you don't like the review of this version you claim we only saw a 'first cut' of the moview. It was advertised as the 'World Premiere' and tickets were $17.50, the most I've ever paid for a movie. Lord knows I wouldn't have paid that much if I had been told it was a 'first cut' and not even finished yet.

I seem to be in the minority thinking it was a mediocre movie...seems like many others either think it was GREAT or HORRIBLE.

Andrew
www.andrewnixon.com/movies - Short Reviews, Top Tens by year/decade, etc

reply

That complaint should be directed to the Santa Barbara International Film Festival. The filmmakers made not a penny from that screening.

reply

Well, you and Jeff claimed it was the Premiere here on this message board. So I hold you responsible for the false advertising as well.

Here is another post here on IMDB where Jeff advertised the SBIFF showing as the world premiere:

antfarm (Sun Jan 23 2005 17:46:03 ) Ignore this User | Report Abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World Premiere is in Santa Barbara Feb 2. There is no distribution yet, and the producers have received film festival inquiries from all over the USA and the world. Right now everyone's efforts are focused on the premiere, and all other decisions and strategies will be discussed starting Feb 3.

Andrew
www.andrewnixon.com/movies - Short Reviews, Top Tens by year/decade, etc

reply