Does John Melendez really think people were interested him as an actor? "Many" is a disquieting testament to Melendez's massive ego, for he not only acts, but scripts, produces, executive produces, and writes/performs about half of the soundtrack. Impressive feats, until you find out just how dreadful "Many" is.
"One, Two, Many" is atrociously unfunny and Melendez reveals himself to be a man of zero charisma and artistic capability.
The director here is actor Michael DeLorenzo ("New York Undercover"), and I use the term "director" ironically, since there's nothing in this film actually being led. Essentially a vessel for Melendez to remind the world how hilarious he thinks he is, DeLorenzo's sole job appears to be making sure the camera is in focus. Even that is a challenge during the film. Why Melendez didn't direct the picture himself is mystery, since the movie is a love letter to his talents (or lack thereof). Perhaps blocking a scene while also having to dream up new ways to mug shamelessly for the camera would've been too much for Melendez to juggle.
The pain starts with opening titles no more impressive than the introduction to grandma's vacation video and extends to: Thomas calling his genitalia a "vagining rod," an unintentionally hilarious sequence where Thomas defends the local stutterer from bullies, an embarrassing cameo from Mark Cuban, the use of what looks like "Tonight Show" offices to sub for apartment and hotel hallways, and an extended straining-on-toilet diarrhea gag that accurately sums up both John Melendez's talents and the film's vast ambitions.
In fact, "Many" is packed with unimaginative, juvenile humor. "Many" is pointlessly crude; Melendez has no actual perceivable wit, so he uses fecal jokes and sexual come-ons to cover the script's dead spots. It's a curious choice because the screenplay eventually attempts to provoke sympathy, leaving the weird vulgarity up there with other unexplained touches like: the brief use of animation to embellish Thomas's fantasy world, why Melendez thought anyone would want to watch a film where he's cast as an object of sexual desire, and why his character wears a strange, unexplained frizzy wig.
What really irritated me about "Many" wasn't the rampant stupidity and laziness of the endeavor; with Melendez's participation, that was to be expected. Rather, it's how the film wants the audience to care about these characters in the final reel. It's screenwriting 101 at its most obvious. After 70 minutes of sex jokes, lousy (if present at all) production values, and a moment where Thomas wipes his rear with money after a potent bathroom engagement, I think it's insulting to ask the viewer to give a damn about the psychological damage inflicted on these idiot characters. But then again, this is a film that believes seeing John Melendez naked is a concentrated strike of hilarity, so clearly "One, Two, Many" was doomed from the start.
Also, check out this movie's page at [...] to see more reviews.