Just saw this at the Traverse City Film Festival.

It was the best fiction film there – very funny, fresh dialog, and tightly edited. Alex Karpovsky plays the central character, and is a great new (to me) talent. He and Tarik Lowe (also co-writer with director Daniel Schecter) have a chemistry that compares well with the greats.

While it's ideal for people who love the movie-making process, anyone will like this. The guys are co-editors of an independent film, trying to save it while the director works out his neuroses mostly off-screen. (Kevin Corrigan seems -- based on his post-screening appearance -- more than a bit nuttier in real life than his character.)

Really hope it gets distribution.

Indie films, in general, are the main source to discover new talent, as exemplified in this surprising entry. Directed by Daniel Schecter, who co-wrote the screenplay with Tarik Lowe, it was a pleasant surprise. The film is a sort of homage to those people that make sense out the way the movie will be seen when it gets released to audiences. Of course, it is more than that.

"Supporting Characters" gives the viewer a glimpse of what really goes on behind any production. It is the story of two good friends struggling to show their immense talent. Nick is the man that organizes the way the ultimate product will be seen in theaters, but it is the genial Darryl who will do his magic putting all the pieces together. The idea behind the picture feels real, as we immerse ourselves in the conflicts behind the scenes.

Excellent work by Alex Karpovsky and Tarik Lowe, who compliment each other in surprising ways. Sophia Takal, Arielle Kebbel, Melonie Diaz make marvelous contributions to the finished product. Kevin Corrigan is wonderful as the clueless director, and Lena Dunham does a cameo as a bored technician. Technically, this film is on the par of other indies, made better by the cinematography of Richard Ulivella and the music score of Jordan Gallard. The director edited his own material. Daniel Schecter will probably go to bigger things, no doubt.

Watched this film after watching Ed Burns Newlyweds. What's the difference? First of all I could understand Ed. The lead actor here speaks so fast you can't make out all he says. I understand he's a director, but neither Ed or Woody don't have to worry. Ed's movie had a great cast who had presence while this movie has one actress with a little presence, the blonde "actress" in the movie. She seems more alive than the boring dinner conversations.

The movie lost me after 10 minutes but I stuck with it because I thought it had to get better. It didn't. I also didn't understand all the scenes with him and his wife in bed that really didn't push the story forward, in fact it slowed down to almost stopping. The lead seems to not really care, he carries an arrogance that is annoying as hell. He really think's he's Woody or Ed. Maybe better.

I don't like to diss movies, I know how hard it is to make good movies, I just wish they would have given the money to someone else.

Movies about movies don't usually work with the exception of Sunset Blvd and The Stuntman and a few others that don't come to mind. This one doesn't hold together and the lead's monotone doesn't help. Trouble is, nobody really cares about what movie people do, believe me, I know that all too well.