This is a coming-of-age story with a twist. There is more than one person coming-of-age.

In a nutshell, it is the story of an angst-ridden thirteen year old boy whose troubles are doubled by his pending bar mitzvah.

His father (Jeremy Piven) is a Hollywood agent intent on turning the bar mitzvah into a recruiting event to keep and grow his client base. This is complicated when his former partner, played by Larry Miller, throws a mega bar mitzvah for his own son, with the same intention in mind.

Piven's angst at creating the perfect bar mitzvah/recruitment event is made worse by the arrival of his hippy-like father (Gary Marshall), who is attached to an early 40-something New Ager (Daryl Hannah) and teaching English to children on the Navajo reservation. I guess it's supposed to be funny, just looking at Marshall and Hannah. Marshall's and Piven's characters are estranged, the father having walked out on Piven and his mother (Doris Roberts) 26 years earlier.

We have an angst-ridden triangle between the three men: grandfather, father, and grandson. (The trinity in a Jewish story?) Indeed, the only struggles in the story are between men. The men have no plot difficulties or unresolved issues with the women, or the women with each other. Frankly, there is no way men can have unresolved issues and not emotionally involve the women in their lives. It's just not realistic, not even in a satirical sense.

I gave this film a "4" because of the story. It has a significant flaw. There is just no moment when I felt a human connection with the three men. I was shown all the events that led to the all-important climax, and then I felt nothing. It was like discovering I had swallowed a Chicklet instead of Viagra. No emotion. No "ah ha!" moment. I was more concerned that there wasn't enough butter on my popcorn. And because I felt no emotional connection with or between the three men, I did not feel their catharsis. And that's a real problem for a coming-of-age film. There were a few nice moments between the grandfather and grandson, but that was it.

Not good.

Regardless of what several "mainstream press" critics wrote and to the writer's and director's credit, I didn't see one stereotype. There were a few undeveloped characters, caricatures really, but that, too, is the fault of the storytellers— it's lazy, not malicious.

Why it happened this way, I have no idea. Maybe they were forced to cut the film strangely or leave out things they wanted put in, due to money constraints. It just doesn't work.

The acting was fine, featuring some of the best actors on television today. That made it marginally watchable. Maybe television is where this film should have been sold. I see this as a Starz film. Not quite HBO or Showtime material. IFC or Sundance will be its home in about six months.

I counsel the writer and director to learn from this experience. You have to flesh out your characters more and let us in on their inner struggles. Don't tell us. Show us. That's what makes drama and comedy work, especially on film. Make us as tense as the characters appear because of the conflicts within the situation, and then resolve the audience's and characters' tensions at the same time. To paraphrase Woody Allen, if it's a comedy, make us bend with the character; if it's a drama, make us break.

For example, don't match Richard Benjamin's Bill-O'Reilly-loving rabbi character with Marshall's tolerant grandfather, and do nothing with it. That could have been some very funny stuff as the two men synthesize their worldviews. Instead… pffft. Nothing.

And finally, have a bigger theme— something the audience can sink its teeth into. I'm still not quite sure what it is. (And I won't venture a guess, because I don't want to spoil the ending for anybody.) Go back and watch how Chaplin created and then unknotted tension in "City Lights", how Sam Woods did it in "A Night at the Opera", how Marshall did it in "The Flamingo Kid" (another coming-of-age story), or even how it's done in the simplest episode of Piven's "Entourage". Have somebody check the treatment and script thoroughly for theme, conflict and catharsis. Then try it again.

I don't want this to sound angry or mean-spirited. But the situation within the film was just lousy with potential for a better film. It was all wasted. And that's a shame.

Ah, how is it like to "keep up with the Steins"? The answer is that it is much like keeping up with the Joneses, except this competition is more Jewish. Well, if you call attempts at reading Hebrew "Jewish".

The Fiedlers are trying to one-up the Steins post-Bar Mitzvah party. Their son doesn't much want it, but instead wants to see the grandfather he didn't know. Combine that with the fact that his dad doesn't like grandpa for an obvious reason leads to an interesting confrontation.

There are a few funny things. Yes there is nudity, but not many people go for old man nudity in a pool. Also his cane is a nice addition because of its usefulness with annoying drivers.

The downside is that is comes off like a quasi-false documentary. While that is nice, knowing the soon-to-be man's thoughts, it doesn't play out too much further.

Overall, it had some entertainment value. "C+"

This *seemed* like such a good idea.

While most Jewish parents try to give their kids a nice bar/bat mitzvah--because this is such an important event in an observant Jew's life--there are a few who go to extremes, as exemplified by Zachary Stein's parents at the beginning of the film. Let me reiterate that parents like these, who spend obscene amounts of money on their child's b'nai mitzvah trappings, rather than keeping the affair modest and more focused on the spiritual aspect, are the exception and not the rule.

I was hoping that the movie would be a wry, yet amusing look at the process of Bar Mitzvah one-upsmanship, with the rival family (or families) realizing in the end that what is really important is what the Bar Mitzvah symbolizes, and not how lavish an affair it is. (Kind of a Jewish version of "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation," perhaps?) Unfortunately, as a few others have pointed out, most of the movie is not inspired or amusing, nor does it stay focused on the fascinating issue of one-upsmanship. Rather, it seems to end up centering largely on the unfunny Garry Marshall character, Irwin Fiedler (the Bar Mitzvah boy's grandfather).

Turns out Grandpa Fiedler ditched his family years ago--it's not clear if he ever paid child support, but it's a safe bet he didn't, seeing as how he couldn't seem to earn money back then, a major bone of contention in his marriage to Grandma Fiedler--and his son (the Bar Mitzvah boy's father, Adam, played by Jeremy Piven) remains resentful about having been abandoned.

The movie, IMHO, tries to drum up a bit of sympathy for Grandpa Irwin, portraying him as a good, decent guy in several uninspired scenes where he helps his grandson. In an effort to justify a possible reconciliation between Irwin and his estranged son, the movie even seems to make an effort to downplay the seriousness of Irwin's abandonment of his family--after all, as Grandma Fiedler points out, they *both* made mistakes in their marriage, and as Irwin tells his son, "Haven't you ever made a big mistake you couldn't fix?"

I didn't buy it. I never found Irwin Fiedler to be likable. Moreover, I couldn't help feeling that while Grandma may have made mistakes in the marriage, too, and while Adam may have made fatal mistakes with his clients, Irwin's mistakes were (1) not liking his work, a feeling which took precedence over feeding his young family, and (2) abandoning his family. How in any way can one minimize this colossal selfishness? How can these mistakes be compared to a few mistakes Adam may have made with his clients? And whatever Grandma Fiedler's mistakes may have been, she didn't just up and abandon her family. The movie never properly addressed this important topic, IMO; instead, it aimed for a more light-hearted treatment of the issue, in keeping with the overall trite and shallow tone of the script.

Something else about the script that bugged: A number of times, when someone used a Yiddish or Hebrew word ("mensch", for example), it seemed that there was either a tiny pause before and after the word, or else it was a bit louder, or a little over-enunciated. As though the writers or director thought that--maybe for the benefit of the non-Jews in the audience?--all of these words must be Spoken. Very. Clearly. And. Distinctly. Unfortunately, this made me feel that the foreign words were almost an afterthought--as though the writer went back over the script, looking for places to insert quaint little Yiddish expressions ("How about I add the word "mishigas" to this line of Irwin's here?") An effort to give this film a more "Jewish" flavor, I guess. But it seemed a clumsy device, to me.

Finally, let me just add that I could not suspend disbelief enough to buy Darryl Hannah as a love interest for the geriatric, not-much-going-for-him Irwin Fiedler. I can only wonder if Casting was given specific instructions on what type of love interest would be acceptable to Mr. Marshall.

Whatev.

Were there any bright spots in this trite production? Yes--Jami Gertz was delightful as the Bar Mitzvah boy's mother. And the opening sequence, with Zachary Stein's Bar Mitzvah, was a hoot.

Given the general lack of depth in this film, and the number of rather juvenile plot devices (such as when Benjamin is at the Bima to deliver his Haftorah, and he deals with his stage fright), I'd guess that this film may well appeal to teens, with the ideal target audience (given the Bar Mitzvah-related subject matter) being Jewish teens.