1947 - The Fitzgerald Family Christmas

First holiday film of the season!  Kind of.  It's more of a family drama about a dying man who walked out on his wife and (7?) kids 20 years earlier, and has decided that he wants to spend his last xmas with them, and whether or not they'll take him back.  I like Ed Burns.  I like what he stands for, I like how he works.  This film, however, doesn't work all that well.  First, it's just a bit flat.  The actors are all fine, but it just lacks some kind of thematic cohesion, instead it feels like a bunch of loose stories smashed together.  To be honest I don't really have a strong opinion about this one way or the other.  The kind of film you might want to check out on a day when you're trapped in from a blizzard.

1774 - The Groomsmen

For some reason I completely forgot that I owned this film and here I've been looking for it on VOD all around.  This is one of the last films that Edward Burns made before he decided to go the extremely low-budget route in his filmmaking.  This film absolutely has more polish than his current work (although his newest film looks pretty slick).  Burns tells these extremely watchable character pieces.  I'd argue that this film starts to feel long - and given that it's barely over ninety minutes that's a bit of an issue.  It's the story of a man about to head into a shotgun wedding and where he and the men in his life are currently at.  There's a lot to like about this film - Matthew Lillard is a stand-out for sure.  I found it a touch uneven and also that a good deal of the conflicts in the film came up at random as opposed to organically.  That said it's full of a lot of heart and honesty and really "gets" men and our fucked up issues.  It was lovely to see Brittney Murphy again - goddamn she was lovely.  Still missed!
So while this film is by no means essential viewing, if you're going through Burns filmography it's not one you want to skip over either.

1701 - Conception

I rented this film through iTunes based on a recommend from Ed Burns, which I think was solely based on his friendship with cast member Julie Bowen.  This is the kind of film that I am programmed to love.  An ensemble rom-com about couples getting pregnant.  In fact going into it I was a bit worried that it would be a bit too close to my current project.  But sadly, love it I did not.  And now I'm trying to figure out if I liked it…
The cast is pretty damn solid with highlights from Julie Bowen, Alan Tudyk, Jonathon Silverman and Jennifer Finnigan.  But a lot of the cast just aren't given very much to do - people like Pamela Adlon and Sarah Hyland just don't have any room to flex their chops.
The film ultimately centres around… geez.. I can't even remember how many couples… I want to say six… on the day/night that they conceive a child.  Some are trying, some are not.  But the problem is that I couldn't even remember how many couples - mostly because they just kind of blend together in a lot of ways.  They are all in unique situations and environments, but they just don't stand out.  Some do - there's a story of a teenager trying to convince her boyfriend to give up eating meat by giving up her virginity - that stands out.  Another story wherein the issue in the relationship seems to be that they don't like each other when they're sweaty, do not.  I think this film would have been far stronger if they had just picked the most unique of the stories and fleshed them out a lot more.  There are some really wonderful little nuggets about people and relationships inside of here, but they almost seem to be by accident as opposed to by choice or design. 
Maybe I'm just crazy, but I think that they you do an ensemble story centring around a common theme that you should be attempting to say something about that theme.  Using the ensemble design to explore the issue from different angles.  This just felt like someone wanted to make a film and had access to good actors.  The actors do the best with what they're given. 
So I can't really recommend this one unless you want to see the actors in a different role from how you normally see them.  Otherwise this film is just a bit of a mess for me.  The tone was all over the place, and even the audio was noticeably bad in a few scenes (which is nit-picky, but if I noticed it enough to comment on it - that's a problem 'cause it took me out of the film).  Oh, and I don't know why people think that David Arquette is funny… am I crazy and missing something about that guy?

1684 - Newlyweds

I finally got this film to work after having a massive pain in the ass with the iTunes video rental store.  It's a service I've used only when the films I buy come with a free digital download and I've never had a problem with that, so hopefully this doesn't speak ill again.  If it happens again on another rental, I won't bother and use a competing service.

I've had Edward Burns on my mind a lot lately.  He's, without question, the current King of truly independent cinema.  And it's because as smart and talented he as as an artist, he's just as smart as a businessman.  He knows that the theatrical audience for art house and indie cinema is gone, they're not going out to the theatres like they once were - they're at home on their couch.  And so what Ed's been doing is delivering the content directly to them.  It's brilliant.  And all it takes is for the filmmaker to accept his situation and forgo theatrical, which is really a big cost suck anyway.  Many people say that Ed Burns can get away with making films for next to nothing because he's Ed Burns and so people will watch his stuff anyway - sure I think that there's some truth to that.  But I think the smaller your budget, the less people you need to see your film anyway.  I guess the bigger problem is that ultimately it's hard to make a living this way, and can really only be done as a side thing… regardless - Ed has inspired me - and so instead of waiting for someone else to tell me that I can make my second feature film I think I'm going to start trying to put together something using this model and the great contacts I already have in the Canadian film industry.

Now, to the film.  Either you like this kind of film about people and relationships and ideas, or you don't.  And those that like those kinds of films will love Newlyweds.  It has a great look and feel to it, that is clearly a bi-product of the budget, but it adds to it rather than taking away.  It compliments the subject matter in a way that's very of-the-moment.  I love it.  It's about a couple, both on their second marriage, and their attempts to get it right this time despite the insanity of their families on both sides.  It's a really lovely little story about the fragility of relationships and what can and does happen to them over time.  I think, for now, it's only available through iTunes, so give it a shot.  It's cheaper than leaving the house to see a film!

1629 - Nice Guy Johnny

It's hard to talk about this film without talking about the approach that Edward Burns took to making it.  However I'll separate them as best I can.  Hell, I'll even use titles to do so!

The Film
Okay.  So I really quite enjoyed this.  For a guy who just made his first feature on the cheap, I was pretty impressed by just how cheap this was made, and yet it didn't feel like they were skimping and saving.  Burns has truly utilized all he could to put this together without it feeling like a shoestring budget.  It's a genuinely sweet coming-of-age film, the characters are interesting, the actors well cast.  It's just a really solid little film - and it's brand spanking new and already on Netflix! 

The Process
So this film was made for $25K.  For those that don't know - this is not an easy thing to do.  It makes me jealous as shit.  It makes me just want to take one of my cheap scripts and grab some people and just make a damn film.  It's inspiring in that way - but that way also leads to danger.  A film like this can work because Edward Burns has a name for himself already.  He can make a film this cheap and insure that people will see it because he himself is a name, especially in the indie world.  It's easy for Burns to say that more people should be doing what he's doing, because for him it can't be that hard.  He doesn't need to make money on his own films because his acting roles pay the bills (I assume).
All that being said, good on him.  I'd like to think that down the road I'll get to a point where I can just make whatever film I want to and that'll be it - there's something freeing in that. 
However, my advice to young filmmakers, realize that this process works for Burns because is Edward Burns, people know him as an actor, he has made multi-million dollar films as a director as well.  He is able to make a film at this price and get it out into the world because he, himself, is a commodity.  If you want to take your own hard earned money and make a film out of it, please just do me a favor and treat it the same as gambling - only play with what you're willing to lose.

1619 - She's the One

What I'm about to say is going to sound horribly vain, but it takes a fifteen year old film to remind you just how smoking hot both Jennifer Aniston and Cameron Diaz were when they burst out into the screen.  That's not to say that they aren't still attractive, but there was a noticeable difference.  Here they are sex on a stick, now they are really beautiful women.  If that makes any sense at all.
I haven't seen as many Ed Burns films as I should, his catalogue is pretty impressive in terms of the cast and tiny budget - and what he does now is even moreso.  Any young filmmakers out there, you'll find time well spent searching out articles with Burns talking about getting films made and out there in the world.  He's one of those "just fucking do it" guys that I greatly admire.
This film is about the nature of love as explored through various relationships intertwined with two brothers and some unlikely partners.  Can you know someone a short period of time and know that they are the perfect match for you?  Or do you painstakingly look for the perfect somebody knowing that it could very well end in heart break?  These are the kinds of question that the film isn't afraid to ask it's characters. 
With some great performances, writing, and directing all around I think it's pretty easy to recommend this film for those who like rom-coms in the guise of an indie film.  Check it out if you can find it.

1529 - Sidewalks of New York

I've been meaning to watch this film for years now.  I was always interested by reviews of it that would say stuff like "It lives at a cross-roads between Woody Allen and Sex and the City" or "It fails to be interesting but is impossible to dislike".  And now having seen it - both those reviews are kind of true...
First off, this film has a phenomenal cast.  As an ensemble film it's really important to maintain a balance and making it so your audience enjoys each story that they are currently in and not always wishing that they were back in one in particular.  Burns has a knack for characters and dialogue that's honest and refreshing.  The situations and insights aren't particularly original or unique - but they still hit home nonetheless. 
It's hard to classify a film like this - I'm sure some would burn me at the stake for suggesting it might fit under the intelligent rom-com banner - it's more amusing than funny (but then again when were most rom-coms ever concerned with being funny?).
While not a date film, this is a film I can easily recommend.  Lots of strong characters that you enjoy spending time with.  Give it a whirl.  It definitely makes me want to dive further into Burns' work.
Sidewalks of New York