Manhood (2003)

Wonderful character development!

Best movie of this year hands down!

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

This thing is all over the place. Bobby Roth wrote and directed and clearly had too much on his plate.The late John Ritter, in one of his last movies, showed a maturity of talent, with swerves and layers to his performance. Perhaps most disturbing to watch, particularly in the daylight scenes, was the light purple hue that had worked its way into his complexion. This, more so than the weight gain of middle age, was a visual sign of the pending cardiac trouble that eventually claimed his life. Still, he played the pathetic cad with out the over acting and indicating that hampered much of his earlier work. It showed a sign of growth, sadly. That, coupled with the flimsy material he was working with was even more commendable. Janeanne Garofallo, when not tanking her career by spouting off about things political, seems hell bent on uglying herself up when she is an attractive, charismatic woman, albeit a very diminutive one. Still, she does her best to appear as bitchy, and dispassionate as possible. When a character is completely unlikeable, audiences tend not to care about her at all-like in this work. I'm thinking she took the job for a new in-ground pool.Finally, there's the talented, handsome, Nestor Carbonell, who was the lead and constrained with the wealth of expository dialogue that crammed the scenes between character affectations. Nestor, who should get better parts, was wasted here. The guy is a stud. I wonder if the geniuses who cast films see him as "too ethnic." That his character managed to put the brakes on his sex addiction and became the good guy was completely unbelievable.Why do I waste my time? Please learn from my mistake, and give this one a pass.

I agree with everyone else, this movie was not a comedy; not even a black comedy. Maybe if it was categorized as a DRAMA, it may have got better reviews or any reviews at all. But the movie wasn't all that bad, I'll admit that the acting wasn't to great, but for what the had to do it was alright. Maybe its the director telling them what to do and they have to act to the best of their ability. Some of the casting choices weren't the best choices. John Ritter as the bad guy just didn't seem to fit. And the the movie info describing the actor playing Jack as a former "womanizer", I didn't see that at all. But the choices for Andrew J. Ferchland as Sam and Nick Roth for Charlie were great. Andrew looks like that small kid, not popular but not unpopular, always having to get straight A's for his parents, and he would look up to someone older who is the complete opposite of him. That opposite person is Charlie, not that great of an actor but got the slacker walk and attitude down perfect. He reminds me of my friend Ed, totally slacker and totally hot.

For starters, calling this film a "black comedy" is like calling the Holocaust an "unfortunate incident." There wasn't anything comedic about it, in ANY scene, in ANY respect. It was a very simply plotted slice of suburban life where each lead character's life sucks worse than the next. The film contains all sorts of stupid continuity errors. (Example: Jack shows up at his home, late one night, expecting his teen-aged son and nephew to be the only ones home. He sees police cars at his house, lights flashing, and a long queue of young people being hauled away by angry parents. So Jack CALMLY, SLOWLY walks into the house to ask what the problem is. Like, if it was YOU, wouldn't you have, at LEAST, look CONCERNED? Mightn't you have RUN into your house?)Also: The "bad guy" is John Ritter. Great casting, eh? Jeez...I LOVE Janeane Garofalo ... when she's funny. There is NOTHING funny about this tragic, ill-conceived film.