A review of this film must be some kind of joke. It's the kind of film that never should have been made. Just because Adrian Mack chooses to review it doesn't mean it has any redeeming value what so ever.

What happened to people with talent? Paul William has had much more than his fifteen minutes of fame. Are there there no films worthy of review except his film? Actually there are but the reviewer obviously lacks knowledge of such films available.

I have paid two see only two movies in the last decade and both were a total waste of money. I fail to see how paying to see this film could be an exception.

Judging by the lack of comments here, this film review is of very little interest.

There are so many documentaries about a vast array of people. Whether you find it interesting or not matters little to not at all. Paul Williams was a mainstay of a certain era, the rise and fall and supposed rise again sounds interesting to me. It's usually a compelling story to millions of people in general based on the many movies that use that narrative, whether it be fiction or non-fiction. The fact that you've only paid to see a movie twice in your life means you were probably born yesterday and you know very little about cinema. You certainly don't have an open mind. And for the record, I can't stand Paul Williams or his music.

Andy, keep in mind that boredom is totally aubjective. What one person finds boring another person finds absolutly riveting. That principle applies to movies, music, art, food and many other areas of life, it is subjective. However to live with a narrow field of vision and thinking so that you feel his life is of no interest to others, well... that is rather boring. I will say seeing "Phantom of the Paradise" when I was 15, I thought it was a great movie, however now that I'm 51 its a piece of crap!!!! Also I do not get the comment about only paying for 2 movies in your life??? That comment indicates that you have no interest in film and cinema, so why would you comment on a subject where it seems you have no interest? I might have even taken your comments more seriously if you had at least seen the movie.

Andy was one of those two movies you paid to see called Troll?

Is it worth it to add a comment here? Probably not but I will attempt to clarify because I have been deliberately misquoted.

My criticism involves the total dumbing down of culture related to cinema. This film to me is another example of that. The problem is that I have seen too many really good movies in my life and now see the film industry to be a ghost of its former potential.

I have seem many fantastic movies. Most people haven't seen the excellent films I've seen. For example, Fritz Lang's Metropolis, DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation, Gone with the Wind in 70mm, and 2001 Space Odyssey in Cinerama. I've seen those films because I have been interested in film from an early age. However in the last ten years have paid to see only two. One was called the Good Shepard with Matt Damon, an obvious propaganda piece about the CIA. The other was True Grit with Jeff Bridges which wasn't bad but I later saw for free on the internet, therefore money wasted.

My point is that apart from a few exceptions, the vast majority of films made today are not worth paying to see. Perhaps that has always been the case but now this total dumbing down and lack of creativity is becoming more and more oppressive. That oppression is rather stifling. Apparently I have no right to have an opinion about that.

Apparently the comment writers haven't noticed, cinemas are being abandoned in large numbers. They are closing their doors. They are closing because what being shown is not interesting and not worth paying to see and people are watching movies from other sources like the internet. This may beyond the understanding of Mr. Mack whom I suspect it the actual troll of his own column trying to generate the impression of interest in own writing.

If I don't feel film about a forgotten song writer whose music was popular to a narrow range of Americans and Canadians of perhaps 0.0001 percent of the world population to be an of interest should I say nothing or pretend that I do? Not only is that culture completely dumbed down but those who disagree are attacked. Whatever.

We know that that Georgia Straight is a free paper. It's free because advertisers pay for advertising. If they charged a dollar for the Straight would people pay for it? I think you know the answer. So the advertisers influence the writing and not the readers.

Well it's a free paper and you get what you pay for.

Andy:

I'm not sure why you think you "have no right to have an opinion" here.
Are you referring to the fact that some readers might disagree with your opinion?
Or don't you want them to have the same rights as yourself?
Regardless, judging by the arguments you have put forward, you may have a hard time getting any positive reinforcement at all from the peanut gallery.
Maybe that's because your opinions are free.
And you get what you pay for.

Martin:

Thank you for clarifying that. The reason why I got the absurd idea that I have no right to have an opinion here was based loosely on the comments I received from above. No, I am not referring to people who might disagree with my opinion. In fact, I enjoy learning from people.

I am referring to comments which are ludicrous nonsense attacks from people who obviously totally disagree with my opinion like I:

"was born yesterday" (how could that be possible?)
"know very little about cinema" (yes and no. Compared to whom?)
"don't have an open mind" (I will certainly entertain that idea, thank you..)
"comment on a subject where it seems you have no interest"(really?)
"Troll" (Do I live under a bridge?)

Actually none of those apply, thank you very much.

Mr. Mack

Please enjoy your excellent film about Paul Williams. When the next group of movie theatres shut down, I will be reading a book or perhaps watching a Fellini film. Forgive me, for I was just expecting too much.

They say when all else fails, just lower your expectations but I don't feel like doing that. I won't be needing "positive reinforcement from the peanut gallery" either, thank you very much. Kindly give my comment a thumbs down.

One last response to Mr. Chen (who may just be a troll messing around, I don't know). Andy, your comments are just a tad bizarre: Adrian Mack's job is to review films that have just opened or are currently playing in Vancouver - which is what he did with this article.

Perfectly understandable if you didn't care for the film - but it's a bit odd to criticize the reviewer for not discussing the classics of cinema. There should be room for all kinds of films, including oddball little documentaries like this one.

I caught it this evening mostly out morbid curiosity, as I remembered Paul Williams being on TV incessantly when I was a kid in the 70's. I never quite understood why he was so omnipresent. This little doc mostly answered my questions and provided a nice shot of childhood nostalgia at the same time. I also came away liking Williams more than I expected to.

It may not be the most brilliant piece of cinema verite, but it's not responsible for the death of important cinema either. Relax! Go see a movie!

Andy...you may be a really nice guy, and I bet you are...but the thing is, what you've typed sounds very arrogant. It has nothing to do with being, as you call it, dumbed down. I agree, Fellini's great! This is not Fellinii, nor does it pretend to be. It's a doc about a songwriter, who's been a songwriter his whole life. Good on him! I plan on seeing it for the same reasons as Cheezwiz.

@Andy

"I have seem many fantastic movies. Most people haven't seen the excellent films I've seen. For example, Fritz Lang's Metropolis, DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation, Gone with the Wind in 70mm, and 2001 Space Odyssey in Cinerama. I've seen those films because I have been interested in film from an early age."

What? You sound like a teenager discovering cinema to rattle off a pedestrian list like that. Any half-assed film buff would have seen those films and probably would have grown out of bragging about it as if it constitutes some rare pinnacle fine taste. In fact, in this embryonic stage of film snobbery one would probably wonder what such a populist blockbuster melodrama like "Gone With the Wind" is doing on a list of supposedly highbrow fare. If you were truly interested in film from an early age, you would have evolved by now to thoughtfully consider the wide, varying range of film and appreciate that there's room for everything even if all of it doesn't meet your personal criteria for greatness.

In short: grow up.