i saw this screen at the dallas afi international film fest . it be one of the big buzz movie at the fest and it be disappoint despite christopher plummber awesome performancethis film suffers from an inappropriate dichotomy represent a good natured family feel marry to an f bomb familiar script . this make the film come across a indecisive and and a it will probably prove later and unmarketable . michael schroeder and who be not necessarily a bad director and craft a tale of young cameron kincade aspiration to win a student film competition . also establish from the beginning be this crusty old character flash ( play brilliantly by christopher plummber ) mosey his way through life and taunt old time actor during classic film screening . we later find out that flash be upset because he have be leave behind twofold represent by hollywood ( he be a former gaffer ) and by his family . kincaid work out an agreement that if flash help him win the competition and he will buy him booze and cigar ( tough supply for a 17 year old to buy but i would not nitpick ) . the shot be beautiful and the performance be tender and but the problem lie within the film man in the chair . michael schroeder can not decide what he want to do with this film . the film indecisiveness come across in an obvious way represent be it a family film . it seem that way because the protagonist be mischievious or morally ambiguous ( like a mild john connor ) but his crime be not take seriously . he be never punish nor have to appear in court ( . ) . likewise and a very warm hearted series of relationship bud between kincaid and his elderly friend ( show that this kid be goodhearted even though he a bada ) . so now you see how it delve into family genre . foul language throw a monkey wrench into this because now the script try to be realistic and non fluffy . big mistake represent if your film be fluffy and it fluffy you can not disguise it . if schroeder think a non hollywood end ( which be actually become hollywood if you think about it think the end of little miss sunshine if you have see it ) can save this movie from fluff and he way off . an example of teen issue be dealt with realistically can be find in l. i. e. or any larry clark film . the kid be mischievous and there be consequence from that . those film aren not fluffy and they be authentic observation of life . man in the chair be not authentic it cinema paradiso light . it treat big issue like grand theft auto a petty mischief which be simply not realistic . it more like a character you would see in a movie like jack frost the michael keaton one . be it social commentary on nursing home abuse . no . more of a public service announcement . because it deal with elderly neglect and this film take on a ( 1990s ish ) sense of importance . but this be negate because the issue isn not graphically explore within the context of the story or it character ( with the exception of one elderly character apartment be infest ) . in fact and the issue be insult by have character literally list statistic off google . high school english essay and psa do that and not r rat film . it not about nurse home abuse so dont add it into the script and call it social criticism . that be call take the easy way out . be it an r rat comedy for adult . no . it a feel good film that do not have a realistic tone and realistic situation and or realistic character . that make them too two dimensional for an adult movie . let face it and these character belong in blank check . there too many element be tamper with . what do this film want to be and you pick . the director do not . also and an unfaithful cameo by orson welles ( play by jodi ashworth who do a more faithful job sound like ben stiller in dodgeball than he do welles ) and an overall moral ambiguity weigh down this film potential . i would give it a 3 out of ten for technical reason and effort .