Travis Mills' 2016 drama chronicling the life of famous local restaurant owner Jack Durant ultimately has its moments - but they are few, far between, and overshadowed by scene after scene of rambling dialogue with often no purpose to the greater story.
That isn't to say the film makers did nothing right. A few good things that stick out in my mind: good looking interior shots, Tom Sizemore's acting (though rambling, which much obviously improvised, it held the film together), and a fair amount of potential talent in writer/director Travis Mills.
However, the film overall does not hold up. Not as a true biopic (it's short, and doesn't go into much detail), not as a drama (the danger doesn't feel real, the conversations feel fake, and the music lends to a sappy vibe often), and certainly not as a comedy (though it has its moment(s)).
It seems the writer abandoned all sense of 3-act storytelling and instead wrote a series of often drawn-out filler scenes, occasionally one with some importance, that don't flow together smoothly into an engaging story, but instead feel like a jumbled rambling of partially coherent memories, often more art-house-esque than a film of this stature warrants.
Several scenes ended with me thinking, "Was that really needed?" Including one in which Durant sees an eye doctor. Another scene in particular involves Durant struggling to dial a phone with his hands tied behind his back with a belt. Between the belt coming undone and the actor pretending it didn't, Sizemore's increasingly obnoxious improvised "fuck"-heavy lines, and the length of the shot (about twice as long as needed), the scene is laughably bad.
A later scene in which a man is executed behind the restaurant was moderately cheesy, and it's significance was never explained or addressed throughout the remainder of the movie. Who was the guy? Who executed him? Why? And what happened afterwords (i.e. Were police involved or no?). Many such scenes left me shaking my head, and I don't I was alone in this.
The best thing about the film is the character of Durant himself, and even this has issues. For one thing he's a weak character. He talks a very heavy talk, but no less than three times do we see he is really just an angry old man who can't back up what he says.
He initiates a bar fight with two men, only to get hit in the stomach and call for his buddy to take care of them for him. Later, he attempts to throw a rude patron from his restaurant, but needs a gun to back him up. And when confronted by some robbers threatening his life, he weeps and begs like a little girl. Realistic, maybe, but still weak.
This wouldn't be a problem, except that there is absolutely no character change over the course of the film, an essential element of storytelling for thousands of years. He's a yelling, cussing, scrapper of a guy at the start, and the same as the end (clearly cemented by his last line: "Go f#ck yourself"). Maybe this is true to the real Durant, but it doesn't make for great storytelling, or much at all.
Ultimately, the film is worth a see if you're a local patron of the real Durant's, or if you're interested in the independent work of local Arizona director Travis Mills, of Running Wild Films, who has potential for quality work in the future.
However, if you favor more than just a sliver of substance in your stories, this is one meal you'd be better off skipping. Now get the f#ck out of my restaurant.
That isn't to say the film makers did nothing right. A few good things that stick out in my mind: good looking interior shots, Tom Sizemore's acting (though rambling, which much obviously improvised, it held the film together), and a fair amount of potential talent in writer/director Travis Mills.
However, the film overall does not hold up. Not as a true biopic (it's short, and doesn't go into much detail), not as a drama (the danger doesn't feel real, the conversations feel fake, and the music lends to a sappy vibe often), and certainly not as a comedy (though it has its moment(s)).
It seems the writer abandoned all sense of 3-act storytelling and instead wrote a series of often drawn-out filler scenes, occasionally one with some importance, that don't flow together smoothly into an engaging story, but instead feel like a jumbled rambling of partially coherent memories, often more art-house-esque than a film of this stature warrants.
Several scenes ended with me thinking, "Was that really needed?" Including one in which Durant sees an eye doctor. Another scene in particular involves Durant struggling to dial a phone with his hands tied behind his back with a belt. Between the belt coming undone and the actor pretending it didn't, Sizemore's increasingly obnoxious improvised "fuck"-heavy lines, and the length of the shot (about twice as long as needed), the scene is laughably bad.
A later scene in which a man is executed behind the restaurant was moderately cheesy, and it's significance was never explained or addressed throughout the remainder of the movie. Who was the guy? Who executed him? Why? And what happened afterwords (i.e. Were police involved or no?). Many such scenes left me shaking my head, and I don't I was alone in this.
The best thing about the film is the character of Durant himself, and even this has issues. For one thing he's a weak character. He talks a very heavy talk, but no less than three times do we see he is really just an angry old man who can't back up what he says.
He initiates a bar fight with two men, only to get hit in the stomach and call for his buddy to take care of them for him. Later, he attempts to throw a rude patron from his restaurant, but needs a gun to back him up. And when confronted by some robbers threatening his life, he weeps and begs like a little girl. Realistic, maybe, but still weak.
This wouldn't be a problem, except that there is absolutely no character change over the course of the film, an essential element of storytelling for thousands of years. He's a yelling, cussing, scrapper of a guy at the start, and the same as the end (clearly cemented by his last line: "Go f#ck yourself"). Maybe this is true to the real Durant, but it doesn't make for great storytelling, or much at all.
Ultimately, the film is worth a see if you're a local patron of the real Durant's, or if you're interested in the independent work of local Arizona director Travis Mills, of Running Wild Films, who has potential for quality work in the future.
However, if you favor more than just a sliver of substance in your stories, this is one meal you'd be better off skipping. Now get the f#ck out of my restaurant.