Ceticultsot Beautiful, moving film.

Dynamixor The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

Kaelan Mccaffrey Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Kimball Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Cosmoeticadotcom In order to be a good critic one has to rise above one's personal biases. Period. If one cannot get past hating love stories or action films, then one should not practice the craft, because there are good films that are mere love stories or action films. It is the excellence of the film, and how it achieves its excellence, that is more important than what sort of a film it is. This basic lack of understanding how to separate one's likes from the objective ability of art to effectively communicate, is why most critics fail in their task. On a related plane is the inability of many critics to distinguish between when a film is something, and when it is merely about something. A good example of this is the 2001 independent film by actor/director Frank Whaley, called The Jimmy Show (nothing at all like the Jim Carrey vehicle, The Truman Show); his second directorial effort after 1999's lauded Sundance Festival film Joe The King. It is a very good, albeit not great, film about the depressing life of a working class loser. Yet, the film itself is never depressing, despite its being damned to obscurity by critics for that very fact. Again, the point is that film critics claimed something about the film that is about what the film portrays, not how it portrays it…. In many ways, Jimmy O'Brien is like George Bailey, from It's A Wonderful Life, save for two things- the first is that he's a miserable person whose own misery has cost him everything. He has no Mr. Potter as antagonist, and although George Bailey's choices also result in his depression at the end of that film, all of his choices have been selfless, not selfish. Jimmy O'Brien, on the other hand, has been behind all of his failures, because he has tried to please no one but himself. The second is that Jimmy O'Brien is beyond help and hope. Even were a guardian angel, like Bailey's Clarence Oddbody, to intervene, Jimmy would never pay attention long enough to learn. He has no need for others' counsel, and cares not to hear it.In this way, The Jimmy Show is the ultimate realist film, for there are far more Jimmy O'Briens in the world than George Baileys. But, it is the life of the fictive Jimmy O'Brien that depresses one, not the film about him, for this little film can make one feel much better about the lives they've lived, not only because how well the portrait of him is crafted, but if only because a viewer is not as badly off as the lead character. How many DVD viewers lead lives that have far too much truck with aspects of the characters from this film? I would say too many- most of whom would not want to admit it, which is the answer as to why this film was so unfairly panned upon its release. Looking into a mirror, when one does not like what one sees, is always a downer, and The Jimmy Show is a filmic mirror for far too large a portion of an American audience for it to have ever had any great financial nor critical success. But, it is the failure to look at what the mirror reflects, rather than what the mirror is, that was the cause for much of the hostility that this good little film engendered. But, with that knowledge in mind, take a second glance into the looking glass of The Jimmy Show, and Jimmy O'Brien's life. It's worth a bit of redemption, if not for him nor you, then for art.

Paul Morris A portrait of a "regular" guy, who spends his days barely getting by in a series of dead-end jobs, and his nights perfecting his comedy routine in a series of sparsely-attended "open-mike" sessions at local comedy clubs, this film fails to deliver anything but a depressing series of vignettes centered around it's main character, played by Frank Whaley (who also wrote and directed). How any would-be stand up comic could keep trying to be funny, and yet be so patently unfunny, and for so long, is beyond me; I've seen my share of mediocre comedians, but they all pale in comparison to Jimmy, whose depressing routines consist of what appear to be confessionals, centered around his miserable existence. And then we get to experience this miserable existence first-hand, as the film cuts between Jimmy's stand-up routines and his personal life. What is the point of this sorry exercise? Otherwise effective, and at times touching, performances by Carla Gugino, Ethan Hawke, and Mr. Whaley himself are wasted here.

dlamanti I kept waiting around for something redeeming to happen - it doesn't. As far as I could see, this was a totally pointless movie about a loser who never learns anything about himself. He is a self centered, self pitying person who never "gets it" - i.e., he is the problem. It makes me wonder - Who would put up money to make a movie like this? This was so bad!!!

Pepper Anne what a depressing film this was! frank whaley stars as jim, a guy who finds himself narrating his his dwindling life saga to a near-empty room of strangers at each open mic night in a small town new jersey bar. he almost forces the crowd to listen to how each day seems as bad as the one before, with him getting fired from his job, his wife divorcing him, or having to care for his ill mother (although that doesn't seem to both him as much).i have always enjoyed frank whaley in comedy (although he does almost none of that anymore) but this does not really qualify as comedy, no matter how dark or satirical. although, there is one scene in the movie where jim is working at swamie hots, an Indian fast food place, where you get a little comedic shine on an otherwise horribly depressing film.