artpf Paul Miller, a self-described "failed actor," sets out for his final act and his ultimate role. The last two days of his life ending with his suicide on tape. He tries to reunite with old friends and family members to say one last final goodbye, all of whom attempt to coax him out of killing himself or dismiss his intentions as a joke.Paul Rudd never goes below a certain level of acting ability, which is why he's in so many movies. The big negative in this movie is that the secondary characters are not especially good actors and it brings the movie down.The movie runs the gamut from funny to dark and depressing, which also is a bit unsettling because you don't know what to think. There is also a real lot if filler material like introducing the crew -- who care? What you really mean is you couldn't come up with enough appropriate footage to fill a feature film.And therein lies the rub. We're interested in Paul but get a lot of the bad acting secondary characters. Also odd is that this is a video tape record but it sure looks like film. I could be wrong.In the end, the movie is brought down by way too much filler and bad acting. Oh, and a cop-out ending we were promised would not happen.

filmbuff20 TWO DAYS (US, 2003)Director: Sean McGinley Starring: Paul Rudd, Donal LogueI caught this movie on cable by accident and it managed to surprise me. It places Paul Rudd as a failing actor named Paul Miller who, having decided to commit suicide, hires a film crew to document his last days. A depressing subject, but handled beautifully. In the beginning, we are unsure if Paul is joking or not. He constantly whines about his life, yet from the friends who are interviewed in the documentary within the film, we feel that he may be doing it for the attention. At least they think so. The crew goes from best friend to ex fling to ex girlfriend to his agent, each trying to convince him not to do it, and each time he seems to soften up a little to the idea of life. After each visit, the crew asks if he still wants to kill himself. He seems not to be fazed.Why would someone want to film himself in his last days, culminating in his death (which would label the doc a snuff movie)? It's almost as if he wants them to talk him out of it, although throughout the film he simply shrugs and says to his new buddies with the cameras "I'm still doing it." And why not? We learn that his agent won't return his calls, neither will his successful actor friend who suddenly invites him to work with him. Also, in a fantastically touching scene where Paul demonstrates his acting ability (and a revelation from Paul Rudd as well) we can see how frustrated he has become. He IS incredibly talented, yet still no joy. Soon the crew members are rooting for him, they become his best friends after a period of only two days. This is as much a comedy as a drama and until seeing the film, it's hard to see how, but it is there. In the final scenes where Paul has to make his major decision, we are not treated to atmospheric music or flashy jump cutting that any mainstream film may use to create the right intensity. Instead the finale relies solely on Rudd's excellent performance and the alternating between the film stock and the video footage used by the documentary crew. Having said all that, there are some minor quibbles. In the film's midsection, it drags as dialogue is repeated as the structure of the first act recurs in the second. The filmmakers are trying to make the point that no matter how many people try to talk him out of it, he's not budging, but we got that, we understand without it, so it just seems like padding. That and a pointless subplot involving a relationship between Stu the producer's girlfriend and the sound man are a tad out of place and not in keeping with the story. In some films you need these subplots, maybe for comic relief or to set up plot devices for later on. This film is not one of them. That and Stu the producer gets on your nerves after a while. However, the acting is superb, especially from Rudd who really sinks his teeth into the role, the kind he hardly ever gets, and the direction is skilfully handled switching between what we see and what the documentary crew sees through their cameras. An engaging little indie flick.

arcst21 I won't say that this is an excellent movie...there are things that would have certainly made it better. I thought that some of the actual movie footage was distracting. There was so much footage of the documentary (and the documentary of the documentary) that I found the cuts back to actual movie distracting at times (yes, this was really a movie about a documentary and a documentary about that documentary).That having been said, I thought there was a lot to like about the movie as well. The acting was very very good (Paul Rudd was especially good). It was also (I thought) a rather novel approach to the subject matter. Definitely worth watching.

Salieri-3 I am a third-year film student. I recently saw this film at the end of its world premiere run at Rotterdam Film Festival. I was fortunate enough to meet director Sean McGinly, who told me that he cannot expect more than a very limited release for the film. This is unfortunate, but even more of a shock was finding that the current IMDb user rating is a mere 5.7!!I completely fail to understand what is going through the minds of the vast majority of the people who saw the film at Rotterdam. I urge anyone with a taste for intelligent, original filmmaking - that has the power to make you laugh, cry, and feel glad to be alive within the space of half an hour - to watch this film. A film whose satirical nightmare scenario, created by the competitive nature of Hollywood and the desperation that results, is ESSENTIAL viewing for wannabe directors and actors - more compelling than Robert Altman's THE PLAYER, might I suggest - and with twists and turns that recall Frank Capra's IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE. I also implore a distributor searching for high-quality, innovative American independent films to contact McGinly immediately!