Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Some other reviewers comment positively about this film. I will not mince words. I can't stoop so low. I have to tell the truth about it. This film was a total waste of my time from beginning until the end.Others write that this film is Surreal. Yes it is. They accurately report about the actors and the sadness of much of the story, the drunken writer, his continuing battles with his ex-wife, his deadbeat best friend.Where these other writers fall short is their failure to mention that the story line and the director develop no connection between the audience and the characters. No sympathy. All these characters are just pitiful people, failures on different levels but all failures. Just bums. Gritty, yes. Believable, no. They say it is painful, yes. But then they falsely claim there are rewards. There are none. One writer admits that it is uneven. Understatement. There are creative "dreams" or day dreams, but they do more to interrupt the flow of the movie, than promote it. The day dreams are the best part, so it may be more accurate to say the movie interrupts the flow of the dream sequences.There is nothing wonderful about this movie. Don't waste your time. If it comes in your TV guide, turn on a different channel, any channel. Or turn the set off.

I loved the "writer genre". "Take the Highway Son." I found this film sad and depressing and LOVED it anyway. The character of Leon Barlow is extremely well drawn out. His deep love for his ex-wife and writing always seemed out of reach, yet, in the end there is hope as he finally finds success in getting published and then -- who knows! The boxcar HAD to roll off at the end! It was a metaphor for the load of false "JUNK" that had blocked his success. He had worked the Monmouth monument of boxed up pain over and over trying to make it "normal." Eventually the time came for it to move on and roll away. At last he blooms! Joni Grawe, Pawnee, IL

Incredible. I need to see it again. Mississippi, Faulkner, searching for redemption, crying out "corpsman" in his sleep ... there is a very lot packed into this film. Arliss Howard is perfect for this role. Did the boxcar have to roll off at the end?

While I'm as happy as anyone that Pvt. Cowboy of "Full Metal Jacket" is alive and well and married to Debra Winger, I wasn't as thrilled with this film that he -- or rather, actor Arliss Howard -- decided to star in, co-write and direct. I was at Cannes in 2001 when he premiered it; my feeling was that while it wasn't a complete disaster, it came close. But I do believe it serves a valid purpose: as an effective demonstration that some people can act, others write, and still others direct -- but very few can do all three at once (Orson Welles and Jerry Lewis being two notable exceptions)."Big Bad Love" probably looked good on paper. The basic premise is okay: boozy backwoods writer with hyperactive imagination and Vietnam past struggles for literary acceptance (think "Barfly" meets "Five Easy Pieces," set in rural Mississippi) while coping with nagging ex-wife, p***ed-off mom and goofy- but-lovable friend.But Howard overdoes things from the very start. Instead of working in an honest, straightforward manner -- as Bob Rafelson did in "Five Easy Pieces" -- he tries to prove he's a movie director with jump cuts ("if Soderbergh can do it, why not me?"), grammatically funky titles (too cute to be entertaining), surreal flashbacks (more powerful 30 years ago in "Midnight Cowboy"), and confusing fantasy sequences (Richard Lester cornered that market half a century ago with the great "A Hard Day's Night;" Howard fails to improve upon it here). In the wake of such recent cinematic failures as Ethan Hawke's "Chelsea Walls," Kevin Spacey's "Albino Alligator," and Nicolas Cage's "Sonny," I find it ironic that the actor-turned-director bandwagon continues rolling, and that these and other young stars continue doing what the majority of their more experienced forebears never managed: taking the directorial reigns of a motion picture. But hip Hawke, Academy-Award-winning Spacey, successful Cage and lesser known but respected Howard all stumbled when finally given their shot, despite the masterful tutelage of Weir, Nichols, Coppola and Kubrick . Gee... maybefilmmaking isn't so easy after all!The problem lies in the basic approach. Unlike the successful debuts of more experienced actors-turned-directors, such as Clint Eastwood ("Play Misty ForMe") or Charles Laughton ("Night of the Hunter") -- who was smart enough notto act and direct his first time out -- "Big Bad Love" (terrible title, incidentally, taken from the writer's book or not) functions not as a dramatic narrative, but as an artsy actors' showcase.Eastwood transcended his career by considering himself a director first, actor second. Not so here. As Jack Warner might have said, this is what happenswhen the inmates take over the asylum, the result an incoherent exercise instudent filmmaking and pull-out-the-stops method acting (undoubtedly moreenjoyable for the performers than us).To his credit, Howard assembles an excellent cast (though all have seen better days and parts): Debra Winger, Rosanna Arquette, Angie Dickinson, Paul LeMat. Le Mat plays best friend Monroe-- or Billy Green Bush's Elton to JackNicholson's Bobby in "Five Easy Pieces." Unfortunately, with he and Howardmoving and speaking like the mountain men in "Deliverance," the charm factoris somewhat limited, not nearly approaching the oddball friendship Rafelsondepicted three decades ago.The tragedy is that these fine actors could have brought much more to the table. But without a strong leader, they flounder; scenes drag on endlessly, no oneseems to be in charge. This movie wants to be about redemption, but it's too lifeless for us to care. Even the "American Beauty" montage at the end lands with a dull thud. To paraphrase one of the "fantasy" scenes: cliches, blah. Film school tricks, Actors Studio emoting, blah, blah. Meaningless voiceover, growling Tom Waits soundtrack, unending literary recitations, blah, blah, blah. SPOILER ALERT*****An effective post-mortem might begin with what should have been a major scene: the writer opens what he believes will be another rejection letter, only to learn he's finally going to be published. A triumphant, joyous moment, right? But do we see or feel elation? Teary-eyed wonder? Heartbreaking relief? Not even close. He lifelessly retrieves his discarded typewriter, goes back to work, and the audience couldn't care less.Now let's backtrack 35 years to a similar scene in Francis Ford Coppola's "You're a Big Boy Now." Peter Kastner's nerdy teenager opens an envelope to find a letter from the woman he worships, Barbara Darling. In the blink of an eye, his whole world changes. Clutching the cherished note, Kastner deliriously rollerskates -- almost flies -- through the streets of Manhattan, heart soaring. We share in his jubilation. It's one of the high points in the movie, and a perfect example of externalizing internal emotion. This is what we call cinema, Mr. Howard. You may want to study it a bit before trying something like this again (and where the hell were all those wacky fantasies when we needed them?!?!?) If I seem to be coming down hard on a decent guy and a project many people consider worthy, it's only because I care about good filmmaking, and Howard as a potential filmmaker. One must analyze failure if one wishes to succeed, correct? And I'd honestly like to see this guy succeed (at least there's nowhere for him to go but up).But even if he never directs again, I'll always respect Arliss Howard as an actor. Even in a secondary role, he was fantastic in "Full Metal Jacket." He immersed himself in the part. And sometimes -- without uttering a single word -- he expressed all the pain, humiliation, anger and confusion missing from "Big Bad Love."But "Full Metal Jacket," of course, was the work of a master; this is the product of a beginner. But don't take it too hard, Arliss. Hang in there, baby! Ifsimultaneously acting and writing and directing was easy, everyone would bedoing it. Right?And don't forget -- no matter what, we'll always have Pvt. Cowboy.