User Reviews

This looked like a documentary about someone who's intentions were quite serious. However, at the end the doc takes a bizarre turn when he takes viagra and starts chasing women on the street. I guess the maker lost me there, as well as my interest.

Just saw this at Prince Charles Cinema in London followed by a lengthy Q&A session with the director (and subject matter) of this heart-felt but sometimes forced documentary.

The film starts with a good introduction to the trials and tribulations of Chris Waitt's past relationships. He seems genuinely confused as to why he has such a long list of angry ex's and attempts to interview them to figure out and learn from his previous wrongs. The subject matter was engrossing and as the documentary goes on, the viewer gets a sense that through all the stoic British dryness and sardonic wit, the protagonist's predicament is actually quite serious and you find yourself really feeling for the guy (even though you think he's a total loser).

However, all this build up is then let down by a few farcical seemingly-staged sketches including a painful dominatrix skit (boys, you might want to bring a hanky to wipe away those sympathy tears), and an overstretched scene suggesting Viagra over-dose will turn you into an indiscriminate sex maniac who will prowl the streets of London Borat-style. Chris Waitt mentioned in the Q&A that previous test-screenings left audiences entirely depressed so it's understandable that they played to the comedy side of the film when editing. Of note is that one of the editors - Chris Dickens, also edited Hot Fuzz, so this documentary really does have a playful comedic edge but unfortunately this also leaves some parts feeling rather fake or forced. Towards the end of the film you are left confused and wondering if this really was a documentary or a carefully stage mockumentary and as Chris admitted, the epilogue of the documentary is more than a bit Jerry Springer Thought of the Day. I would be interested in seeing another cut of the film, with less slapstick and more exploration of his past relationships and what he'd learnt from them. Apart from the significant epiphany Chris has on his journey, he brushes off all his other ex's accusations with witty comebacks and nonchalance which I feel is just for the camera.

On the positive side, during the more subtle parts of the film, of which there are many, the audience were left either roaring with laughter or having their heart-strings severely tested because of the honest portrayal of the situations. However, we may have been a more sympathetic audience having 'met' Chris when he introduced the film. As other comments have shown, it may be harder to sympathise with him/the character had we not seen him all witty, humble and scruffy in the flesh.

Overall, this documentary is well worth going out of your way to see. No one can deny how brave Chris has been to go on a journey into the painful past that most of us would prefer to forget. Chris jokingly said that the moral of the film is 'Don't overdose on Viagra' but I would like to rephrase that and say it is about how everything that happens – good or bad – ultimately brings you to the present, and in the here and now, you should always seize the day and not let something/someone slip through your fingers.

After such a promising start of a film asking some intriguingly deep and personal questions whilst at the same time being absolutely hilarious, why are we left with an hour of staged penis and erection jokes? The amateurish/improvised camera work and rough editing seemed to form the perfect window into Waitt's world, and it was easy to accept his lazy talking head style for leading us through. It all seemed a perfect extension to his personality, explaining as much about him as does his grimy flat. We aren't watching a Fellini masterpiece, we're watching a graduation film by a student who woke up 10 years late for hand in. This extremely personalized style, together with the enthralling subject and Waitt's amusing personality, promises to entertain on many levels.

The initial few meetings with ex girlfriends are great, seeing how they have moved on with their lives compared to him (you don't even stop to think that he's a filmmaker). We start to hear his faults as he turns the camera on himself in the most personal way, asking them what they remember from the relationships, what went wrong, why they split-up, etc. There is a beautiful and strange melancholic humour as we watch this character faced with a lost past that he seems to be stuck in and unable to face in a mature way (forget the film-making). This is accentuated by the fact that hardly any of the ex girlfriends want to be there or even see him (one talks from behind a screen, via a computer).

This section culminates in a scene where he meets a girl who left him after he couldn't perform sexually. He does this in the hotel room where it happened and we feel we are in a crime scene as they talk it over. A great and funny scene and all the more hilarious as we realize the woman from the hotel is there, looking annoyed with this fact (and the fact that he is there at all). She gives her advice on the matter. It encapsulates and accentuates the feeling of the whole film to this point. He is in a place where he is unwelcome, revealing his most personal faults to whoever will listen. Brilliant.

After this the film gets preoccupied with his erection problems and something that could have been a funny subplot is turned into the main event. We are then faced with a number of staged scenes that force us to totally disregard any pretense of sincerity the film has previously suggested. He goes to the doctor and the persona we saw when he confronted his ex girlfriends: cheeky, oblivious schoolboy, is turned into a Euro Trash presenter as he sees how rude he can be whilst getting away with it. The following scenes just get worse. He goes to a psychiatrist and rather than talking about his problem he sings her a song about wanting to f*@k all the girls in the world, whilst not even being able to f*@k her. Following this he goes to a dominatrix to have his penis whipped. As a final solution he overdoses on Viagra, which takes him to the streets to ask 300 women if they will f*@k him, and as a result spends the night in a cell. I couldn't think of a more effective way to lose an audiences sympathy for a person. These scenes belong in Jackass and made me wonder why I expected more. It seems to me that his comments about not having the material for a film were true, but desperate to keep it at feature length he sacrificed the initial brilliant idea for a much lesser one.

So, in the end, when Waitts finally visits the one girl who really meant something to him but finds out she is pregnant with another man's child, how are we meant to believe his feelings for her and as a result feel sympathy for him? Through the entire middle section of the film we are faced with numerous staged scenes where he only just stops short of turning to laugh at the camera, so why accept this as real? We're left feeling that he has been mocking everyone who took part...apart from her? I have to admit that the end scenes did strike a chord: The moment of a man realizing he has missed out on something special with someone he loves, a kind of tragic awakening, whilst at the same time meeting someone new. But to give it any credibility I would have to forget a large proportion of the same film.

This documentary starts out interesting enough, the honesty of Waitt and the vicious rejections of his ex girlfriends are disarming and lead us to feel In tail empathy towards the thirty something film maker. From here on in though, as Waitt turns the film from a meditation on failed relationships to a discourse on his impotence, he himself becomes vulgar and comes across as an entirely obnoxious person. Furthermore Waitts interview technique comes across as cold bordering on ignorant and even passive aggressive.

Its impossible to tell if this is a persona that the film maker dons to illicit frustrated responses from the participants he tracks down or if this is actually how Waitt is in reality. Its clear that by the time Chris Waitt is staggering the streets in a Viagra induced stupor asking as many girls as he can if they will sleep with him in the most uncharismatic manner that we have lost all empathy for him and completely understand the hostility shown to him at the start of the film. I found myself hoping that one of the girls approached on the street or one of the men with the girls would end up lumping him. Clearly Waitt feels that wielding a boom Mic a la Nick Broomfield gives him the right to be completely offensive. The stunt itself is pre empted by a childish and phony sequence in which Waitt takes six or seven Viagra pills while waiting for the first to kick in, feigning ignorance of what taking a large amount of Viagra might do.

As stated Its clear that Chris Waitt has taken a Broomfield / Louis Theroux style approach to his material but he simply does not have the charm to pull it off. The aforementioned film makers are famous about making films about diverse subjects but in the process also making films that say a great deal about themselves and therefore making themselves the principle players in the unfolding drama. Here Waitt has got the balance horribly wrong, he is making a film about himself, so conversely it would have merited the final film to step back and be more objective and let others speak about him. But Throughout the film Waitt discredits the participants (calling one ex girlfriend a psychopath is one such example) and and is constantly pushing his own interpretation about himself. Its is all him and what he wants. This all makes for a very ugly spectacle, entirely self consumed and entirely cold and unflinching. When his behaviour gets notable bad at points in the film Waitt is quick to insert a validation and some ponderous music but it all feels very mechanical, like an inserted unsubtle disclaimer. The only part I did relate to was the end when Chris meets his ex who is now having a child, this seems to be the only time that the mask slips and we see Chris as a sympathetic character. It is a shame that this interview is edited to the point where it is just a very few exchanges between the pair before showing an emotional meltdown. but it is too little too late and the film fails under the weight of all that has gone previous and the final 'happy' ending and new relationship feels trite. disingenuous and unpleasant. What Nathan Barley might have made given a video camera. Gets only minimal marks for being polished.

While I have some admiration for the concept underlying this movie - a filmmaker retracing his steps to try to establish why he has been such a sexual failure, filmed as a documentary - and, while I found some of it quite funny, it suffered fatally from three things:

1. It was a one-note joke, which became stale quite quickly;

2. The fact that much of it seemed genuine, but some (at least) of it was quite clearly set-up meant that you couldn't fully accept it as either genuine or fictitious, as a result of which it failed to be valid as either;

3. The protagonist became, quite frankly, a complete pain in the *rse after a fairly short while.

Sorry, but no thanks.

This could have been interesting, a guy is dumped by yet another girlfriend so he decides to contact all his exes and see why he is dumped so often.

***SPOILER*** I save you the tedium of watching this to find out why - they dump him because he's a narcissistic, lazy, scruffy idiot. With someone who is more likable, sympathetic or interesting it could have been funny, particularly when he overdoses on pills, gets a day-long erection and runs around trying to find someone to sleep with him, however at this stage he's become irritating and doesn't seem to have learned anything about himself.

1 for the concept and the bravery to try something like this, but 0 for the rest

The premise of this documentary sounded funny. But it soon became clear that there's not much more than the main character goofing around with he's videocam. A womanizer and self-centered mama's boy, I don't know how women sees this character, but as a man I didn't felt any sympathy from him. So not for men, maybe some women find his character cute (as some clearly do in real life), but for rest of us there is not much to see. His gonzo-style methods trying to help himself is done before and funnier and the whole erection problem seemed very fake. At the end this film is just a another way to boost filmmaker's ego. Not funny as a comedy and not touching as a drama.

I can't believe anyone thinks this "documentary" was legit!

Apart from the fact that nobody could be that narcissistic, or could be that unattractive and yet apparently attract a number of very attractive women (at least until they find out what a total loser he is, as if that wouldn't be obvious from his appearance), the film contains a number of pretty obvious clues.

For starters, there's the scene where his psych-nurse ex-girlfriend mentions his "mental issues", reminding him (when he seems to find this a surprise) that he used to be completely convinced he was really Jesus. If you were scripting a cliché of a mental patient in the kind of institution where she might have worked, could you have come up with anything more archetypal?

And can anyone really believe the attractive new girl he goes out with on their first date complete with camera crew (or at least digital video camera), would be so turned on by his unbelievably crass and dull conversation as to accompany him and his camera back to his pigsty of a flat and then have sex with him and his camera?

Then there's the scene where he overdoses on no less than seven Viagra tablets (enough to put him in intensive care – look it up on Google) and then, only mildly incapacitated by his supposedly-massive erection, runs around the streets clumsily propositioning multiple women, including one who ends up being his new girlfriend.

Then there's the phone call, ostensibly with the producer of the film, where said producer gives him a bollocking and tells him to stop making the film he is making and make something else, but he goes on making the same film. As if that refusal to follow instructions from the man putting up the money wasn't unbelievable enough, the same producer has apparently allowed this recording to be used in the final version of the "documentary".

And I won't even mention the dungeon scene with the S&M mistress, especially in a British "documentary".

As a parody of documentary style it's just not that funny, perhaps because the target has already been savaged so effectively by such great mockumentaries as This Is Spinal Tap, or even by such current TV shows as Modern Family. I guess it gets marks for having fooled so many people, including just about every reviewer on this Board, and for that massive boom mike he carries with him everywhere, the visual equivalent of Spinal Tap's turning the amplifier up to 11.

I've known people like Chris...I mean, his personality, not his sex life. He's droll, witty occasionally, but has long bouts of silent staring, obviously in thought and you just want to say OUT WITH IT ALREADY, but I still like him because he's a weirdo like me. We like the same music, i.e. he used Beck's amazing 1st (or 2nd?) album songs and I like him just for that. Also, I imagine he'd be fun to take to a party because he'd be more socially awkward than me. He lives in a really messy environment like me and is a musician. However, he is not like me in the fact that he has dated a lot of women although I'm probably as attractive. He has insane guts to make a film like this while I probably never would. However, I have the ability to be witty, quick-minded and make people like me, while he just sits there and blankly stares all the time. Still, I think we could be friends because I don't think he's as big a narcissist as he makes out to be and we both take criticism fairly well...sometimes.

Crap. There's your spoiler. Only the Brits would give this garbage an award. Funny for 10 minutes. Annoying the rest of the time. This doesn't seem like "director's vision" it seems more like a low-budget spoof of nothing. This is one of those films that you feel obligated to like just because of the fact that so many other people do. IMO, it is a movie worth watching for as long as you can sit through it just to understand why mass film-making capabilities are just that. If I had to sum it up, you just don't feel any emotion for the director/main character/actor/whatever he is. I wish I could write you a short essay explaining the merits of this film, but, watch it and maybe you will know why I can't.