Howlin Wolf The narrator was beyond annoying - show, don't tell! It's forgivable if the narrator is there to establish proceedings, or is in fact the main character commenting on his own actions, but neither of those functions were in use, here... If you can't create interest in a character without telling us what he's thinking, your premise doesn't work for me.The storytelling technique made the film as a whole insufferably smug; my opinion is that Baumbach has done much better work, and it's a shame, because I liked Stoltz and Sciorra together. The subject had potential, but was ruined for me by a framing device that only serves to keep the viewer at arms length from the characters, instead of preoccupied with them. I couldn't gain any satisfaction from the optimistic ending, because I was constantly being told who the characters were (or weren't!) instead of being afforded the luxury of discovering them for myself.

Andrew Boone Noah Baumbach's second film, "Mr. Jealousy", is a like an amalgam of François Truffaut, Whit Stillman, and traditional Hollywood romantic comedy. I'm not a huge fan of Baumbach on the whole, but he's a fairly good filmmaker, and of the five films I've seen by him, he's never delivered a bad one. "Mr. Jealousy" is probably the weakest of the ones I've seen, but overall, it's still an above average film that welcomely deviates in many ways from the norms of the genre.Noah Baumbach's quirky sense of humor reminds me in that way of other contemporaneous American filmmakers like Wes Anderson, Richard Linklater, and Alexander Payne. In fact, he co-wrote "The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou" with Anderson. Without a doubt, though, the American filmmaker that Baumbach bears the most resemblance to is Whit Stillman. Of course, the presence of Chris Eigeman in both directors' films certainly adds to this resemblance, but it's more than just that. It's that idiosyncratic brand of humor that they share. It's their focus on youth on the verge of adulthood, or young adults on the verge of having to become real adults. Both filmmakers were clearly inspired by the French New Wave, and I've always said that Baumbach is the François Truffaut of modern American cinema, while Whit Stillman is the Eric Rohmer of modern American cinema.Truffaut's influence on Baumbach's cinema is immense. It's incredibly obvious, and like Brian De Palma with Alfred Hitchcock, he makes absolutely no attempt whatsoever to hide it. We can feel in Baumbach's films the very same carefree abandon that permeated most of Truffaut's work (apart from his stretch of films in the mid-'60s when he put a ridiculous amount of effort into imitating Hitchcock's style and tone — "The Soft Skin", "Fahrenheit 451", "The Bride Wore Black"). The quirky male protagonist (so often portrayed by Jean-Pierre Léaud in Truffaut's films) and his clumsy attempts at romance and intimacy will all be very familiar to anyone who knows the work of François Truffaut.The problem with a filmmaker being so heavily influenced by another filmmaker is that he's ultimately so busy imitating the source of his inspiration that he fails to develop any real, unique, individual identity as a filmmaker. He adopts someone else's vision of life, and therefore fails to develop his own vision. This, of course, is not entirely true of Baumbach, who certainly has his own identity as a filmmaker, to a certain extent. Still, I would much rather see him drop all the Truffaut emulation and start making films that are more his own. Truffaut's presence is felt so strongly in many of Baumbach's films that it can really be quite a distraction. "The Squid and the Whale" — especially its ending — was almost embarrassingly similar to "The 400 Blows", and although I think it was a very good film overall — probably the best I've seen by Baumbach — the lack of originality at times was off-putting. And then, of course, "Frances Ha" was a complete Truffaut ripoff (or we can be nicer about it and say "pastiche"). I'm not as big of a Truffaut fan as a lot of people to begin with, and so I'm even less enthused by a director who is attempting to emulate Truffaut. Nevertheless, as I've said, I think Baumbach is a quality filmmaker, and I'll never protest to watching one of his films if I haven't seen it."Mr. Jealousy" stars Eric Stolz, whose first non-television role was in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High", and who had also shown up in Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" before taking on a role in Baumbach's debut film, "Kicking and Screaming". The female lead in the film is Annabella Sciorra, who I'm not very familiar with. Chris Eigeman costars, as does Peter Bogdanovich, who I love. Bogdanovich is a filmmaker (he directed the fantastic 1971 feature, "The Last Picture Show"), a film scholar, and a bit of an actor. Bogdanovich has taken a shine to Noah Baumbach. I'm not sure why he's picked Baumbach out of the bunch, but he's played roles in several of his films, and seems to serve as a somewhat of a mentor to him, from what I can tell. He had high praise for "Frances Ha", as I recall, and seems to be a big fan of Baumbach's work in general.The plot of "Mr. Jealousy" revolves around the relationship between a jealous man (played by Eric Stolz) and a "tarty" female (played by Annabella Sciorra) with a long list of past lovers. The film reminded me a bit of "Love & Sex", released three years later, although I think "Mr. Jealousy" is without question a better film. Both films start off with flashbacks to youthful romantic mishaps that traumatized the protagonist and led to his or her current problems with romance. "Mr. Jealousy" also reminded me somewhat of Payne's film school thesis film, "The Passion of Martin". Baumbach's film progresses with a plot line that is a bit far-fetched at times, but it's fairly entertaining all the way through, the performances are solid, and it's basically an enjoyable film.I'll continue to look for a little more substance and thematic depth from Baumbach than I've found in films like "Mr. Jealousy" or "Frances Ha" — "The Squid and the Whale" is probably closer to what I'd like to see from him. "Mr. Jealousy" plays very much like a standard romantic comedy at times, and yet, at other times, it achieves a new, fresh take on the genre and, for those who know Baumbach well enough, his hallmarks will certainly be recognizable. For fans of his films, "Mr. Jealousy" will probably be satisfactory at the very worst. On the other hand, for those who don't care for Baumbach, there's probably nothing here that's going to change your mind.RATING: 6.33 out of 10 stars

Amy Adler Lester (Eric Stolz) has a new girlfriend in Ramona (Annabella Sciorra). She is a beautiful lady, with a swell job in a Brooklyn museum, and she is continuing work on a graduate degree at Columbia. Substitute teacher Lester, however, is obsessed with Ramona's past relationships. He was burned by a couple of former girlfriends and fidelity is paramount to him. When Ramona actually gives Lester a book to read, written by a former boyfriend, Lester is stunned. Not long after this, Lester stumbles upon the nouveau-celebrity author at a therapy group. Ah ha! If Lester assumes an alias and becomes part of the group, he has a chance to find out more about Ramona's past and her predilections for loyalty. Yet, even as Lester discovers revelations about his new girlfriend, he may be endangering his own chance of survival with Ramona, by not living in the present alone. Should he continue? This film has an offbeat charm that makes it attractive. The script is thoughtful, clever, and original, daring the viewer to listen closely to every word and idea presented. The actors, in addition to the two stars, are very fine, with Chris Eigeman giving a nice turn as the newly famous author, and Bridget Fonda, Peter Bogdanovich, and others on hand to help out in a big way. The costumes are attractive and the NYC setting always a winner. However, this is not the typical romcom by any means. It has a slower pace and its commitment to dialogue over action makes it a hard sell for the ADD crowd. This said, do catch Mr. Jealousy at your earliest opportunity, if you like to vary your viewing habits. Here is one movie that offers charm and intelligence without losing its own unique identity.

jtur88 The downfall of nearly all comedies is that Silliness is so often used as a substitute for humor. In this film, I never felt embarrassed for any of the characters, who were allowed to seem like genuinely real people in the context of a genuinely humorous development. It was also literate, which was nice given the thread of narrative running through the thing. I felt that simply reading the script would have been a nice rainy-day read, but at the same time, the lines were not literarily pompous or turgid. Altogether, this was not a great film---but nicely, nothing happened in it to make it a bad one, either. If you're fed up with variations on same-old-same-old, sit back and just let this film flow over you.