Crazy Richard (2002) User Reviews

easily the worst film I have ever seen

[jvframe · 1/10 · 23 December 2004]

Crazy Richard screened in Brisbane in February 2003 as a fundraiser for a local gay and lesbian community group.

I feel I owe my opinion of the film Crazy Richard to the world, because for me it has set a new precedent as the worst film I have ever seen in my life.

Making a pretentious film about a pretentious character doesn't result in a "double negative" result. It doesn't necessarily bestow any value in terms of cleverness.

Basically I believe the film combines the following elements: the characters were boring, the script was awful, dialogue unintelligible, filming poor, editing sloppy and music despicable. It could have been an acceptable 5 minute short - but to force more than that on an audience should constitute a crime against nature.

Everything that is done in Crazy Richard has been done dozens of times before by others - but these people succeed in doing everything worse.

The ideal way to make money from this film as a fundraiser is to have free entry, but charge $15 for anyone wanting to leave early.

Also note that the three glowing reviews that are listed here for "Crazy Richard" are by people who have only ever submitted one review. How suspicious is that?

Well...it is a gay movie.

[inthecorner77 · 6 April 2005]

Premise: A child star turned drug addict seeks a comeback on a gay-themed TV show.

Conclusion: Don't bother! I have seen some real stinkers from this studio and this one is right up there.

The only redeeming factor I saw was the actor portraying the main character, whose name, apparently, really is Richard Viede. He had some shining moments, particularly some facial expressions and glances, that could rival any of Hollywoods younger stars. Unfortunately, he does not have good enough looks, at least not with the makeup & hair they gave him for this.

The directing was non-existent. The gritty, hand-held cinema-graphic style was unrelenting. And the acting, save the lead, was worse than you find on the local community theater stage in Terre Huate, IN.

All that being said, the editor did the best they could with the material given. And that alone makes this not just a train-wreck, but the kind you can at least sit through.

A big disappointment

[salmineo · 1/10 · 6 October 2004]

The mock documentary starts out well enough. A pre-teen child star overdoses on drugs and ruins his acting career. Flash forward to the present, he is now seeking a comeback by starring in a late night gay comedy series. He claims to the media he is straight when he's obviously a flamboyant gay young man. He allows a camera crew to follow him around in hopes of creating a buzz that will make his series a hit and himself a star again. Problem is, he is still on drugs, caught making out with guys at gay clubs, and acting desperate for attention. The idea sounds hilarious. And the lead actor is cute in a very odd sort of way, and he delivers his lines very convincingly. But after a very funny start, the film starts to fall apart. Things that probably looked funny on a script didn't translate well onto film. The main problem here is the dark humor ends up not being funny. It just ends up being dark and tragic. It also pokes fun at drug abuse, desperation and death in a way that simply is not funny. It also seemed rushed and didn't allow enough time to tell the story or focus enough on the main star, who is the most talented actor in this film. That is a big mistake. I really was looking forward to this film and rented it on netflix the first day it was released. The description said the film was over 80 minutes, but the DVD ran just under one hour. No extras/bonus features are included either. I feel if you are going to make a comic take on such a dark subject, the story needs to be fleshed out and treated as a dark comedy without exploiting things that simply are not funny. In the recent past, way too many real life tragic events have happened to famous people and it's simply not funny to me. Think Dana Plato for example: nothing was funny about her fall from grace into drugs and death. It's tragic. It's almost like making a comedy about a murder or a horrible car crash and poking fun at it. I do hope the lead actor gets more parts in films. He's an interesting actor that I'd like to see more of. It's not his fault the writers and the director didn't know how to properly flesh out the story, instead of rushing it to a finish the last 15 minutes of the film without leaving the viewer satisfied. What a shame. Also, the actress playing the director of the documentary was so annoying, I wanted her to just shut up. She has a complete lack of any talent and whines and screams 4 letter words the entire time. I hope to never see her in a movie again.

A cult classic in the making

[xebedie · 10/10 · 11 September 2006]

This film is truly something special. I wasn't sure if it was real or fictional from the word go. The editing style is seat-of-your-pants, if a little chaotic and the music really makes you wonder if the filmmakers were telling a serious heart-on-your-sleeve melodrama or taking the Micky out of reality TV. Having watched it many times, I have come to the conclusion that this film is very much tongue in cheek and certainly not based on a true story! (in fact, the filmmakers and actors aren't even American!) At the heart of this tale is a universal journey - a desperate individual who will do anything to feel validated. His dilemma is amplified by the fact that he's an ex-child star who has grown up in front of the public and his outcome is far more extreme. This is great, dramatic low-budget Indy film-making. If only those Hollywood big wigs would take a leaf out of these guys books. Can't wait to see what else they come up with. But a warning: it is not a film for the faint hearted nor is it one for those who take their films too seriously!

Mock docudrama about a fallen childstar

[qfolk-1 · 7/10 · 22 May 2005]

I thought it was a well done movie. There a bit of a discrepancy in the supposed age of the child actor, but other than that I was moved by it. It's genre is supposed to be comedy, I guess, but I would view it more as a drama with certain comedic elements. Often times one can find the humorous even in extremely traumatic or disturbing situations. The lead actor, Richard Viede does an outstanding job in this movie and I look forward to seeing more works by him. The use of the camera was very authentic and never lost the feel of being authentic. The performances seemed natural and unforced. I think one can see Richard as an example of how so much fame at such a young age can have a profound influence on a child actor or actress.

Out there indie mockumentary

[this_is_the_thing · 7/10 · 15 November 2005]

I thought this film was excellent, like a roller coaster ride with lots of really interesting technique. Perhaps not that polished, but the guys who made this will be definitely worth watching to see what they come up with in the future.

Essentially the story goes a documentary filmmaker starts to film the comeback of Richard (he's quite special!), who was (allegedly) a child star in the 80's. Anyway he tries to come out as gay, coz no one seems to care about him anymore. And it all goes wrong when (spoiler warning...) he's found dead one day and the documentary maker has got footage of it. Suddenly the media attention is turned on the responsibilities of a filmmaker. And the vultures become the prey....

Very low budget and at times the sound was hard to hear but worth the effort if you're after something a bit different to the norm.

A Wretched Mess of A movie

[gsbltd · 26 October 2021]

It's hard to fathom the filmmaker's intent here. Were they illustrating the desperate need for social acceptance many young Gay people feel as they turn to drugs for solace after life's multiple rejections? Were they just out to hustle a few quick bucks from the Gay film festival circuit or were they sincerely trying to craft a little opus that exemplifies that old scripture, "what does it profit a man to gain the whole world only to lose his soul?"

My guess would be it's a hodge-podge of all three but it fails on so many levels it just becomes a stridently boring exercise in really bad filmmaking. They clearly had a budget large enough to do better, but either didn't know how or didn't want to which brings me back to my opening questions. There are a multitude of cinematic sins here from hammy, amateurish acting to incomprehensible dialogue, murky lighting, jarring music and downright psychedelic editing that an exorcism at the Vatican could never vanquish. But at least the sets and costumes are nice!

In all fairness this was an Australian production and the Aussie concept of entertainment can be -shall I say- skewed at times as their indie filmmakers take extreme measures present a social commentary or simply hold your interest. And in the hands of a true craftsman like Peter Jackson, even their crudest works shine can like a cinematic LED [Jackson's early titles like BRAIN DEAD, MEET THE FEEBLES and BAD TASTE prove this]... still harshly glaring and in-your-face, but peppered with little nuances that make the entire experience at least a little worthwhile. Okay: Jackson's actually from New Zealand but you get my point!

Again, CRAZY RICHARD just doesn't cut it and by the end you really hope this pair of Ruby slippers are so heavily padded so they never click and return to OZ... or at least a movie screen near you. On second thought: somebody needs to slam those scarlet heels together pronto and send this one-hour waste to time back to the deep Aboriginal outback where it belongs.

On another review forum, one contributor hailed CRAZY RICHARD film as a future cult classic if viewed through the "proper" lens. My answer to them would be only if that lens was smeared with a thick layer of Vaseline that totally obscured the images.