discourageo i should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not "good, clean fun." the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made.

SteveM-6 I had the pleasure of seeing this little independent comedy at a recent film festival in Southern California and found it captivating.The two leads are charming, talented and worthy of further exposure in films. In fact, while Burt Young (ROCKY 1-4) was the only familiar face in the cast, I thought the other performers were uniformly good in their roles, which is rare in a low-budget independent film, where often friends and family are pressed into service. Clearly, this was a cast of professionals and they served the film well.The premise was something unique and I always respond to originality when I see it in films. A likeable man-child, still pining for his lost love and looking for his place in the world, starts a dating service in the family-owned supermarket where he works. There are numerous funny sequences involving how people are put together in this highly unusual context. A subplot involving a threat to bulldoze the market for a parking lot, while not as engaging, still works well as a counterpoint to the dating service aspect of the story.Director/cinematographer Mark Foggetti gives a thoroughly pro look to his film. Low budget movies usually look like it, owing to poor production values, underlit scenes and amateur level acting. CHECKOUT has none of these faults and indeed, looks like a studio-produced feature.If you're looking for an evening of light entertainment, you could do much worse than CHECKOUT.

mooncalfe okay, i'm not writing this to be a jerk or anything, but i felt so strongly about this movie, i felt that i must. i saw this movie without knowing anything about it, aside from that it was shot locally (to me) in Webster. i knew it was about a guy who sets up a dating service in a supermarket threatened to be bought out by an evil businessman. i didn't really know what i expected to see, maybe a cheesy movie to laugh at, or a hastily put together b-movie that would also be funny in its own right, or maybe something that was genuinely funny and good. i have seen many terrible, terrible movies. most of the movies i really love are "bad" movies, crummyhorror and sci-fi flicks. but 'checkout' was /the/ worst movie i have seen thus far in my life.i love romance, i am an utter and total fool for sap, and i love weepy romantic drama. but this movie demonstrated every cliché and pitfall of every romantic comedy that has been put out by Hollywood in the past decade. it was totally predictable, smarmy, badly acted and written. the good-hearted lovable loser: he's there. the girl-that-got-away-but-comes-back: she's there. the quasi-rebellious-lewd-jerk-who-reforms-later: he's there. there was even a homosexual character who's seemingly only purpose was there as comic relief and crude stereotypical jokes based on the fact that he's gay. these particular jokes weren't offensive, per se, but just the fact that the character /was/ so stereotyped and generic was offensive in its own right. anyway, the evil business man: he's there also. the girl's-new-fiancé-who-can't-handle-her-old-family-and-friends: he's there. everything works out perfectly in the end of the movie, characters who had previous tiffs make up with moving dialogue, as they understand the wrongs they have committed. there's even a part where a male character dresses up as a woman that's seemingly a part of the plan to save the supermarket. i expected this to go somewhere, but afterwards, there was /no/ apparent reason for it whatsoever. /why/ did he have to dress up as a woman?? besides just as a stupid, cheap gag???the film's humor is all over the place and bland in every avenue: there's some bathroom humor in the beginning, some sexual jokes, fart jokes (which i will admit i laughed at, i can't help it when farts are involved), and then the aforementioned cross-dressing joke. none of it was original or unique, it was all derivative of countless dull, overused jokes in comedies today.anyway, at the close of the film, i felt completely victimized and raped by this movie. yeah, i got in to see it for free, but that didn't help. this was an independent movie, free of lording hollywood producers and corporate limits. but why did it have to fall within those limits? why would it not have an independent flair instead of safely doing the same things that have been done in that genre a million times before? argh! every minute of this movie, from the cheesy animated title and comic-sans lettered credits, to the horrifically hokey ending and consistently flat characters, was pain. at parts i did laugh, but only out of the sheer agonizing need for release of my anguished emotions. i could only laugh because i could not believe my eyes and ears that this film was actually produced by a seemingly well-meaning, passionate filmmaker as-of-yet unconcerned with profits and pandering to the public. but this movie is the embodiment of pandering, safe, publicly accepted stories. then again.. it has caused a violent reaction within me and my friends. i guess that's good for something. but in any case, if you want to see the same romantic comedy you've seen a trillion times before disguised as a shamelessly hackneyed, corny, utterly mediocre and oftentimes senseless film, see Checkout. as for me, if i hear "a dating service? in a supermarket??" one more time, i shall die. case closed.

tdw4444 I went in to this movie thinking it was going to be the next Clerks, but left feeling let down. The humor was weak and the characters fairly flat. That isn't to say it was all bad, the idea of the dating service in the grocery store seemed like pretty fertile material, but the director switched focus to the cliche'd "save the Mom-and-Pop store from the evil corporation guy". I felt like if he would have just stuck with the dating service plot, he would have come out with a much more memorable movie. Now, to do the film justice, I am from the Rochester area and loved the way he portrayed Webster. In fact, the best Kevin Smith (of Clerks) homage here was giving props to his hometown. Webster, NY is to Checkout what Red Bank, NJ is to Clerks. The director wisely threw in a date at Nick Tahou's. Trust me, as far as things to do in Rochester, a garbage plate is at the top of the list. I was lucky enough to see this film at the Little in Rochester so everybody knew when the odes to the town came up and appreciated them.