Sadly Over-hyped

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

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.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

I was constantly beaten about the head and body with the motivations for this film and it wasn't to shine a light on old people.It was to shine a light on the director and his apparently feeble career, to somehow prop it up and hide it behind the resolve of art or perseverance.Now this a double-edged sword. Anybody who wants to be in the film business wants the jobs this director had. But I've reviewed his resume and they are all very poor films.Which brings me to this film (which was his first after an 11-year gap and nothing after '07). Some very good acting talent but then it stopped there. The director himself is competent but the "flash" effect was WAY overused. The script was ham-fisted and unrealistic, even if you apply dramatic license. It was clear to me that the director had messages and intentions but no story. He then grabbed the first devices he could find and tried to cram those circles into square holes. He wanted us to have respect for old people but I wasn't buying it. I didn't hear the sincerity in it all. I did hear the bitterness. It was just a vehicle for this hallow and familiar film. If there still was afterschool specials, then this would have a place. As it is, I don't know where it would go.I don't think it's right but especially in the movie business they err on the side of the young. I don't see the surprise in it all.

I won't criticize this movie, since others had done it superbly. It's just a couple of issues I'm interested in. First one: I find praiseworthy to make a movie with very old people. The world population in general is getting older, and even so, we continue to avoid the issue. We are terrified by old age. But if we continue to live, we'll get there, whether we like it or not. So, better start to face reality, the sooner, the better. This issue is so very well presented with the character of the gaffer (Christopher Plummer) and the script writer, that it gives you the creeps. Their loneliness (old folks become invisible to society), their aimlessness in life (they lost their jobs to retirement without finding a healthy replacement for it), and all of a sudden, by chance, this young boy comes across their sunken lives (elderly homes) and gets them to help him to make a 10 minutes movie. All of a sudden, people that were almost growing moss out of their ears, become alive, they have a motif to live for now!! the whole bunch of elderly people starts making projects, and with their lifelong experience in their profession, they put together a remarkable film (the producer --Robert Wagner-- is very impressed with the final result). Now, the painful question: The 10 minutes film is done, are these old folks going back to their miserable living at the elderly home? wouldn't it have been better for them that the young man never came their way? after all, they were resigned to that life. But now what? This question makes me think that EUTANASIA should be legalized so when we decide that enough is enough, we can take our own life, at the precise moment we think it's better.

Despite a compelling theme, some truly sparkling dialogue, and terrific performances by misters Plummer, Wagner, and Walsh, this film comes across rather uneven. The direction is heavy-handed, at times bordering on trite, the production design doesn't contribute much, and the photography is pretentious and annoying -- more appropriate to a music video, than a heartfelt drama. An older, more experienced DP could've made this infinitely more watchable! The script has a lot of potential, but could have, definitely, used another re-write (or two) and a bit of patching of some truly gaping holes, before going into production. The editing is, likewise, uninspired -- most of the shots linger a couple of beats too long, making the overall pace just tedious enough to lose tension.

Dear Michael, Thank you again for sharing your amazing film, Man In The Chair with my audience last week at the 12th Annual Stony Brook Film Festival. The film was tremendously well received as was your exciting Q&A following the film with Christopher Plummer and Emmet Walsh.As I mentioned, your film received one of the highest marks from the audience in our twelve-year history and your five-minute standing ovation was the first ovation we've received for a screening in six years and certainly the longest in our twelve-year history.In a field of exceptional films and high marks from the audience, Man In The Chair was the clear winner, receiving a 1.22 rating (with 1.0 being the highest possible rating) from an audience of over 1,020 with 758 patrons voting. 627 of these individuals gave Man In The Chair a vote of Excellent (1) and represented the highest percentage of excellent votes in our history.People continued to talk about your film all week and the joy from the audience as your film was announced as The Audience Choice Winner at the Closing Night Awards Reception, was a clear indication that they got it right.We were so honored to have your film at Stony Brook this year and delighted to have met your team. We greatly appreciated the first New York screening and the opportunity to have you and the tremendously talented cast members at our screening. Man In The Chair will stand out as a Stony Brook Film Festival highlight for many years to come.I wish you great success with the upcoming theatrical release and you can count on my staff and I to support this film in any way we can.Most sincerely yours, Alan Inkles, Director Stony Brook Film Festival