Overrated and overhyped

Fantastic!

Boring

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

If you are a writer/director and your projects are intended as a vehicle to launch your acting career, please stop. Woody Allen is not a good actor. He should not be your model on how to get into the movie business. If you can really write, do that. If you can really direct, do that. If you can really act, do that.Nothing In Los Angeles is poorly written, adequately directed and amateurishly performed. It is the same drivel every 'independent' filmmaker falls into when they overestimate the value of their voice saying nothing. Being moderately funny in your day to day life and immensely interested in 'films' is no reason to subject the viewing public to half-baked Larry David-esque crap. Any review praising this film comes from the camp that produced it. Shame on you.

So if you can imagine for a moment that Woody Alan and not Steve Martin wrote LA Story. Then take a little of Jim Jarmusch's Coffee and Cigarettes, you would have Nothing In Los Angeles. Alexander Tovar, who wrote, co-directed, and starred in the film, takes it one shot further and scores it as well. Nothing In Los Angeles is absolutely a stylized Woody Alan version of LA Story. Luckily Tovar's character Quinn cannot come close to the paranoid neurosis of where Alan might take it. Instead Quinn succeeds in becoming the LA everyman, who wants to succeed and create something legitimate and real, but finds himself digging through the plasticine everyday of people and circumstances that is Los Angeles. The LA basin is spread thin. The grass is always greener on the other side of the street and one of the biggest underlying themes is finding that other someone special that really gets you up in the morning. There is a joke about a dog with bone staring into a river… but I digress.The comedy in Nothing In Los Angeles is expertly dry. The story is engaging, the acting is well done and most of the characters and themes are well brought out. As far as length I have a couple schools of thought. On the one hand twenty minutes could easily be shaved out of the film and loose absolutely nothing as far as the story or its pregnant angst. Shaving would tighten the film pick up the pace and make it more engaging. Then again the pacing is slow and contemplative, like many independents. The audience is treated to the gradual coming of middle-age that Tovar's character goes through. I would have liked to see more of HMS group, less of the movie group, and really have brought LA the city out as a character, which the film attempts to do, but doesn't succeed with very well. Overall I give the film an eight out of ten. Nothing In Los Angeles is definitely worth a watch and for a first attempt the film will most certainly become a classic.