Bad Taste is Peter Jackson's debut feature film. Yes, the guy who directed the Lord of the Rings trilogy directed a few schlocky B-movie in the late 1980's and early 90's. Bad Taste definitely lives up to its title, providing buckets of blood and some nasty special effects. But there are a few flaws here and there that keep this film from being great.
The script in particular is lacking. This is the type of movie that doesn't really need much of a plot, but despite that the script often feels like it's forgotten where it wants to go with the plot. The basic premise is that aliens have invaded New Zealand and instead of sending in the army, the government opts to send in a group of guys called "The Boys" to stop the aliens. It's never quite explained why the government only sent in four guys with guns instead of an army; there's a brief throwaway line about the army being "too flashy" or something. Other than that plot contrivance, the only other major flaw with the script is the pacing.
According to the IMDB page, there was no script for Bad Taste and the script was made up on the fly. This causes the plot to wander at times, but it manages to snap back to the main story. There's also a surprising lack of a second act, the script jumps from introducing the characters and setting up a conflict, and then straight to a non-stop climax for the second half of the film. There's also a lack of subplots; the only plot thread throughout the entire film is the main one, and the few minor subplots are resolved well before the end of the film.
The characters are all pretty forgettable, too. Peter Jackson's character, Derek, is really the only character given any memorable scenes. Albeit his scenes are less about character development and more about the brain-falling-out gag. The other three main characters are all pretty much the same personality, or lack thereof. And to make matters worse, the three characters all wear ski-masks during the last 30-40 minutes of the film, making it nearly impossible to tell them apart. And in terms of dialog everyone a few funny lines here and there, though, but no one in particular ever says anything memorable.
The major attraction to this film, however, is the gratuitous violence. The film makes up for its weak plot with an abundance of gross special effects and spurting blood. The special effects for the film are really well done given the budget, particularly the opening and ending fight scenes. The gross-out moments are equally abundant. There's recurring gag in which Derek's (Peter Jackson) brain keeps falling out of the back of his head, and he has to find various implements to keep his skull together. There's also a rather nasty communal vomit-eating scene, and of course a scene where an alien has his head ripped off with the spinal cord still attached for good measure. The masks used for the aliens are pretty convincing, but we don't actually get to see the aliens in their true form until the last 20 minutes of the film.
There's one big problem I had with Bad Taste, however. The film quality is terrible. According to the IMDB page, it was filmed on a 16MM camera, and started out as a short film that branched out into a feature film. As a result, the film looks like a really expensive home movie. A majority of the camera angles and cinematography give the film an unintentional AFV feel. This is the most distracting part of the film, and it makes the film feel a lot cheaper and sleazier than it is.
Overall, this is a very unbalanced but entertaining movie. The plot is unstable and extremely simplistic, and the dialog is pretty bland, too. But the charm lies in the film's over-the-top violence and several flat-out disgusting scenes. If you have an appreciation for campy movie, and have a strong stomach, this is a film worth looking into. It's not as good as Peter Jackson's 1993 film "Braindead" (which this film is sometimes compared to on a gross-out level), but it's still a fairly decent movie, and a great deal of mindless fun.
Entertainment- 4/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092610/
May 14, 2012
May 7, 2012
Movie Review- Happy Birthday to Me
Happy Birthday to Me is a very uneven mystery/slasher hybrid that rarely succeeds at either genre. As a slasher film, it's a pretty decent (if not a bit boring) movie. But as a mystery film, it's a convoluted mess that tries to make sense of itself, only to make the plot even more complicated and confusing.
Happy Birthday to Me starts out as a generic slasher movie, but with a good twist of mystery regarding the identity of the killer. Our main character is Virginia, a girl with amnesia. Throughout the film, the audience remains unsure whether or not she is the killer; her amnesia somehow triggers violence or something. This plot point is never explained very well, and only adds to the confusion of the "twist" ending. There's also a lot of phony-baloney psychology jargon that thrown around, and the scientific inaccuracies are irritating. Albeit horror movies aren't necessarily known for their realism, but as an psychology enthusiast, I found it very hard to look past this plot hole.
The first half of the film, as I said, is a pretty bland slasher movie. The movie seems to be building suspense, and it occasionally does, but it's never done effectively. There are too many characters, and it's hard to differentiate between them all. This causes the script to overextend itself at times, because it has too many characters to keep track of, while also trying to give us a reason to care about them. Coincidentally, the best parts of the movie are right around the middle of the film, once a few of the characters have been killed off.
Seeing as this a slasher movie, there is a surprising lack of makeup effects in this movie. While there is a fair amount of bloodshed during the death scenes, the victims are usually off-screen, or in a dimly lit area. That's not to say the death scenes aren't creative, however. The various implements used are typically improvised, which adds a touch of realism to the film. The killer's identity is hidden pretty well for the first few deaths; in a nice subtle touch, all the main characters wear their school colors on their scarves, and the killer does as well, keeping the audience guessing their identity. Even from a cinematography standpoint, the killer's identity is well concealed. Most of their shots are done in the first person, with the occasional shot of the killer's legs or hand. This doesn't add much to the plot, but it's the little things that keep this kind of movie from being flat-out terrible.
As for the latter half of the film, there is barely anything positive to say for it. The mystery aspect comes into play, and the execution is terrible. I can only assume that the script's intention was to toy with the audience's minds, but it's pulled off very poorly. The killer is revealed to be Virginia, who has somehow been murdering her friends because of repressed memories caused by an experimental brain surgery. This is only discussed during various flashbacks and discussions with Virginia's psychologist; the payoff makes sense, but the explanation ruins it.
Throughout the last act of the film, Virginia seems to be hallucinating and may not have killed anyone at all. Virginia also skewers her boyfriend with a kebab, but has no recollection of it the following morning. She also kills her friend when she comes to visit, but when Virginia's psychologist arrives and finds her in a crying heap, there's not a trace of blood or the corpse to be found. Virginia then proceeds to kill her psychologist; and when her father arrives a few hours later, she has somehow dug up her mother up out of her grave, and arranged all her previous victims in a display reminiscent of the dinner scene from "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".
This raises several logical questions; Virginia is obviously just a regular girl, and not some sort of superhuman mutant who could dig up a grave in what appears to only be an hour or two. It could probably be done, just not by a teenage girl. I'm also bewildered that Virginia was able to store all the corpses somewhere without anyone noticing. The movie takes places over several days, and the corpses would difficult to hid for that long without someone noticing. Virginia's motive is also questionable. The script never explains it very well, but from what I gathered, she seems to be seeking revenge on her mother's death because her mom drunk-drove off a bridge on the way to a birthday party.
Virginia then kills her dad, leading to a very strange sequence. The "real" Virginia was apparently tied up, and somehow Virginia had a secret half-sister or something that was out for revenge. Her sister somehow wore a mask identical to Virginia's face, and somehow was able to chloroform he sister into unconsciousness while she killed her friends. The half-sister's motive is equally contrived, and makes absolutely no sense given the prior direction of the script. The movie ends with the half-sister trying to kill Virginia. Virginia accidentally kills the sister, and moments afterwards, a detective from earlier in the film arrives at the scene of the crime. But when he arrives, Virginia is singing the Happy Birthday song to herself in an unsettling manner, just like her half-sister. This leaves the audience hanging; was Virginia the real killer? Is she going to be the next killer? We never find out, and all the unanswered questions are rather annoying.
Overall, this is a mess of a film. The script overextends itself and tries to do too much at once. If it had stuck with only the slasher movie elements, this would have been a much better film. The mystery and psychological thriller aspect is really clunky and rarely makes sense. There are a few enjoyable moments here and there, and a few mildly suspenseful scenes, too. But all the good parts of the film reside in the slasher-dominated first half of the movie. And to boot, there are long stretches of nothing happening, when there could be character development or suspense-building. For the most part, this is a very unenjoyable and boring movie. I would not recommend it at all. There are much better holiday-themed horror movies than Happy Birthday to Me, and this is a definite skip.
Enjoyment- 2/5
Quality- 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082498/
Happy Birthday to Me starts out as a generic slasher movie, but with a good twist of mystery regarding the identity of the killer. Our main character is Virginia, a girl with amnesia. Throughout the film, the audience remains unsure whether or not she is the killer; her amnesia somehow triggers violence or something. This plot point is never explained very well, and only adds to the confusion of the "twist" ending. There's also a lot of phony-baloney psychology jargon that thrown around, and the scientific inaccuracies are irritating. Albeit horror movies aren't necessarily known for their realism, but as an psychology enthusiast, I found it very hard to look past this plot hole.
The first half of the film, as I said, is a pretty bland slasher movie. The movie seems to be building suspense, and it occasionally does, but it's never done effectively. There are too many characters, and it's hard to differentiate between them all. This causes the script to overextend itself at times, because it has too many characters to keep track of, while also trying to give us a reason to care about them. Coincidentally, the best parts of the movie are right around the middle of the film, once a few of the characters have been killed off.
Seeing as this a slasher movie, there is a surprising lack of makeup effects in this movie. While there is a fair amount of bloodshed during the death scenes, the victims are usually off-screen, or in a dimly lit area. That's not to say the death scenes aren't creative, however. The various implements used are typically improvised, which adds a touch of realism to the film. The killer's identity is hidden pretty well for the first few deaths; in a nice subtle touch, all the main characters wear their school colors on their scarves, and the killer does as well, keeping the audience guessing their identity. Even from a cinematography standpoint, the killer's identity is well concealed. Most of their shots are done in the first person, with the occasional shot of the killer's legs or hand. This doesn't add much to the plot, but it's the little things that keep this kind of movie from being flat-out terrible.
As for the latter half of the film, there is barely anything positive to say for it. The mystery aspect comes into play, and the execution is terrible. I can only assume that the script's intention was to toy with the audience's minds, but it's pulled off very poorly. The killer is revealed to be Virginia, who has somehow been murdering her friends because of repressed memories caused by an experimental brain surgery. This is only discussed during various flashbacks and discussions with Virginia's psychologist; the payoff makes sense, but the explanation ruins it.
Throughout the last act of the film, Virginia seems to be hallucinating and may not have killed anyone at all. Virginia also skewers her boyfriend with a kebab, but has no recollection of it the following morning. She also kills her friend when she comes to visit, but when Virginia's psychologist arrives and finds her in a crying heap, there's not a trace of blood or the corpse to be found. Virginia then proceeds to kill her psychologist; and when her father arrives a few hours later, she has somehow dug up her mother up out of her grave, and arranged all her previous victims in a display reminiscent of the dinner scene from "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre".
This raises several logical questions; Virginia is obviously just a regular girl, and not some sort of superhuman mutant who could dig up a grave in what appears to only be an hour or two. It could probably be done, just not by a teenage girl. I'm also bewildered that Virginia was able to store all the corpses somewhere without anyone noticing. The movie takes places over several days, and the corpses would difficult to hid for that long without someone noticing. Virginia's motive is also questionable. The script never explains it very well, but from what I gathered, she seems to be seeking revenge on her mother's death because her mom drunk-drove off a bridge on the way to a birthday party.
Virginia then kills her dad, leading to a very strange sequence. The "real" Virginia was apparently tied up, and somehow Virginia had a secret half-sister or something that was out for revenge. Her sister somehow wore a mask identical to Virginia's face, and somehow was able to chloroform he sister into unconsciousness while she killed her friends. The half-sister's motive is equally contrived, and makes absolutely no sense given the prior direction of the script. The movie ends with the half-sister trying to kill Virginia. Virginia accidentally kills the sister, and moments afterwards, a detective from earlier in the film arrives at the scene of the crime. But when he arrives, Virginia is singing the Happy Birthday song to herself in an unsettling manner, just like her half-sister. This leaves the audience hanging; was Virginia the real killer? Is she going to be the next killer? We never find out, and all the unanswered questions are rather annoying.
Overall, this is a mess of a film. The script overextends itself and tries to do too much at once. If it had stuck with only the slasher movie elements, this would have been a much better film. The mystery and psychological thriller aspect is really clunky and rarely makes sense. There are a few enjoyable moments here and there, and a few mildly suspenseful scenes, too. But all the good parts of the film reside in the slasher-dominated first half of the movie. And to boot, there are long stretches of nothing happening, when there could be character development or suspense-building. For the most part, this is a very unenjoyable and boring movie. I would not recommend it at all. There are much better holiday-themed horror movies than Happy Birthday to Me, and this is a definite skip.
Enjoyment- 2/5
Quality- 2/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082498/
April 16, 2012
Movie Review- Willard (2003)
Willard tells the tale of Willard Stiles (Crispin Glover), a mentally ill young man who befriends a swarm of rats. It's a very strange premise, and it's told in an equally strange way. This is labeled as a horror movie, but there's few horror elements to it. While at first it seems like the movie is just building suspense, it becomes apparent that this is more of a character study of Willard. Crispin Glover does an excellent job as the title character, and while he gets extremely hammy towards the ending, he does a good job given the script. The character of Willard Stiles, however, is pretty lame; he's just the generic "bad stuff happened to me, and I went crazy" character, and I find it odd that this movie acts like a character study when the character itself is bland.
The supporting cast is scarce, but when they're around, they aren't that great. The various others actors give fairly bland performances. Nothing special, but nothing terrible. One actor worth noting, though, Lee Ermey who plays Mr. Martin, Willard's evil boss. Lee Ermey gives the same performance as his character in "Full Metal Jacket"; this is particularly amusing because his repeated yelling and foul mouth seem extremely out of place in an otherwise mundane office workplace.
The script could have used some improvement as well. There are several scenes that feel clumsily put together, and takes away from the potential that the movie had. There's a scene where Willard is training his rats to do his bidding, and he has a little rudimentary training ground for them. There's also a scene where Willard's rats hunt down and eat a cat that was given to him. This scene adds nothing to the plot, and seems only there as an excuse to play "Ben", the theme to the original film's sequel, Ben. While this a personal annoyance, I also found it strange that Willard named his favorite rat "Socrates". The point is supposed to be that the rat is smart, and he named him Socrates because of that; but I found it to be really distracting, particularly during the more suspenseful scenes. Nothing takes you out of a suspenseful moment more than a guy talking to a write rat named Socrates.
There's also strange plot point that revolves around Willard's hatred for one of his rats named Ben. Willard has some strange delusion that the rat hates him, and he makes several attempts to kill him, yet he still uses him for his evil deeds later on in the movie. And during the climax of the movie, Willard seems unwilling to kill Ben, despite his previous attempts at doing so. One could argue that it's just Willard's mental instability, but I say it's lazy screenwriting.
The only strong suit of this film however, is the atmosphere. The art direction seems heavily influenced by Tim Burton. There's an air of spookiness to the film that remains strong throughout the plot, and it makes the movie a lot better. The set design has a very unsanitary and grungy feel to it, much like the rats that pervade the film. But as usual, visuals and atmosphere alone cannot save a movie. They do make it a heck of a lot better, though.
Overall, this is a pretty uneven film. It's supposed to be a horror movie, but it acts more like a mildly creepy character study; the atmosphere is creepy, but there's prolonged spaces of time without anything creepy going on, and it dampens the effect, and so on. It's a pretty bland horror movie, but it's certainly not horrible. It's not all that great of a film, but if you're a fan of Crispin Glover, it's worth watching just for him.
Enjoyment- 3/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310357/
The supporting cast is scarce, but when they're around, they aren't that great. The various others actors give fairly bland performances. Nothing special, but nothing terrible. One actor worth noting, though, Lee Ermey who plays Mr. Martin, Willard's evil boss. Lee Ermey gives the same performance as his character in "Full Metal Jacket"; this is particularly amusing because his repeated yelling and foul mouth seem extremely out of place in an otherwise mundane office workplace.
The script could have used some improvement as well. There are several scenes that feel clumsily put together, and takes away from the potential that the movie had. There's a scene where Willard is training his rats to do his bidding, and he has a little rudimentary training ground for them. There's also a scene where Willard's rats hunt down and eat a cat that was given to him. This scene adds nothing to the plot, and seems only there as an excuse to play "Ben", the theme to the original film's sequel, Ben. While this a personal annoyance, I also found it strange that Willard named his favorite rat "Socrates". The point is supposed to be that the rat is smart, and he named him Socrates because of that; but I found it to be really distracting, particularly during the more suspenseful scenes. Nothing takes you out of a suspenseful moment more than a guy talking to a write rat named Socrates.
There's also strange plot point that revolves around Willard's hatred for one of his rats named Ben. Willard has some strange delusion that the rat hates him, and he makes several attempts to kill him, yet he still uses him for his evil deeds later on in the movie. And during the climax of the movie, Willard seems unwilling to kill Ben, despite his previous attempts at doing so. One could argue that it's just Willard's mental instability, but I say it's lazy screenwriting.
The only strong suit of this film however, is the atmosphere. The art direction seems heavily influenced by Tim Burton. There's an air of spookiness to the film that remains strong throughout the plot, and it makes the movie a lot better. The set design has a very unsanitary and grungy feel to it, much like the rats that pervade the film. But as usual, visuals and atmosphere alone cannot save a movie. They do make it a heck of a lot better, though.
Overall, this is a pretty uneven film. It's supposed to be a horror movie, but it acts more like a mildly creepy character study; the atmosphere is creepy, but there's prolonged spaces of time without anything creepy going on, and it dampens the effect, and so on. It's a pretty bland horror movie, but it's certainly not horrible. It's not all that great of a film, but if you're a fan of Crispin Glover, it's worth watching just for him.
Enjoyment- 3/5
Quality- 3/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310357/
April 9, 2012
Movie Review- House (1977)
Not to be confused with the 1986 movie of the same name, House is (you guessed it) a haunted house movie. But it's a Japanese haunted house movie. Japan can be extremely weird at times, and this is one of the country's stranger exports; this movie is weird to the point where the viewer is best to abandon all hope of comprehension of the movie.
It follows the typical haunted house movie structure, but with a very unique twist. The usual "this place is haunted but the characters haven't figured it out yet" scenes are incredibly bizarre, and blur the line between the film's rules of reality and its rules of paranormal occurrences. The same could be said for most of this movie, however. Everything in this film is utterly insane, even the scenes meant to be grounded in reality. And while this is a horror-comedy, House leans more towards the comedic side.
The pure insanity of the film is what keeps the plot moving forward, and it does so pretty effectively. This is a very fast-paced film, and the plot hurtles around like demented rollercoaster ride. We shoot around from character introductions, to the plot set up, and then to a series of insane events at the haunted house. However, there are a few plot threads that go unanswered at the end of film, and the ending is particularly nonsensical. But given the nature of the the film, it's pretty easy to look past.
One of the strangest aspects of the film, though, is the editing. The film editing is all over the place; there's zany fast-motion shots accompanied with bizarre cuts in movements, there's inexplicable slow motion scenes, there's several scenes where characters in the background are given a spotlight-esque shot while everyone else remains clearly in the foreground, and so on. The only thing I can think of comparing it to is a strange hybrid of the Monkees' TV show and the cinematography from Ang Lee's "Hulk". It works very effectively, however, and gives a sense of unease during the more horror-oriented scenes. The special effects are also very well done the time, and involve a strange combination of animation and greenscreening. This is wonderfully complemented by the manic editing, resulting in a memorable scene of a girl-eating piano.
The only problem I have with House is that gets a little too weird at times. This movie is already incredibly strange, but it veers into insanity towards the end. It gets to the point where the movie stops making any sense whatsoever, and becomes extremely difficult to comprehend. And while it's fine for a more artistic movie to have confusing moments because of various expressionistic-type factors, it seems at times that House just doesn't know when to quit being weird and continue telling the story. There's not really anything else to criticize about this movie, other than a few minute details, which can be easily overlooked.
Overall, this is a straight up insane movie, and a major joyride the whole way through. The story is engaging and funny, the editing keeps you on your toes, and the general weirdness keeps you guessing at every turn. It's a very illogical movie, and there's no point in trying to make much sense of it, this is just one of those movies that needs to be viewed with the logical part of your brain turned off. It's a lot of fun to watch, and highly recommended.
Enjoyment- 5/5
Quality- 4/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076162/
It follows the typical haunted house movie structure, but with a very unique twist. The usual "this place is haunted but the characters haven't figured it out yet" scenes are incredibly bizarre, and blur the line between the film's rules of reality and its rules of paranormal occurrences. The same could be said for most of this movie, however. Everything in this film is utterly insane, even the scenes meant to be grounded in reality. And while this is a horror-comedy, House leans more towards the comedic side.
The pure insanity of the film is what keeps the plot moving forward, and it does so pretty effectively. This is a very fast-paced film, and the plot hurtles around like demented rollercoaster ride. We shoot around from character introductions, to the plot set up, and then to a series of insane events at the haunted house. However, there are a few plot threads that go unanswered at the end of film, and the ending is particularly nonsensical. But given the nature of the the film, it's pretty easy to look past.
One of the strangest aspects of the film, though, is the editing. The film editing is all over the place; there's zany fast-motion shots accompanied with bizarre cuts in movements, there's inexplicable slow motion scenes, there's several scenes where characters in the background are given a spotlight-esque shot while everyone else remains clearly in the foreground, and so on. The only thing I can think of comparing it to is a strange hybrid of the Monkees' TV show and the cinematography from Ang Lee's "Hulk". It works very effectively, however, and gives a sense of unease during the more horror-oriented scenes. The special effects are also very well done the time, and involve a strange combination of animation and greenscreening. This is wonderfully complemented by the manic editing, resulting in a memorable scene of a girl-eating piano.
The only problem I have with House is that gets a little too weird at times. This movie is already incredibly strange, but it veers into insanity towards the end. It gets to the point where the movie stops making any sense whatsoever, and becomes extremely difficult to comprehend. And while it's fine for a more artistic movie to have confusing moments because of various expressionistic-type factors, it seems at times that House just doesn't know when to quit being weird and continue telling the story. There's not really anything else to criticize about this movie, other than a few minute details, which can be easily overlooked.
Overall, this is a straight up insane movie, and a major joyride the whole way through. The story is engaging and funny, the editing keeps you on your toes, and the general weirdness keeps you guessing at every turn. It's a very illogical movie, and there's no point in trying to make much sense of it, this is just one of those movies that needs to be viewed with the logical part of your brain turned off. It's a lot of fun to watch, and highly recommended.
Enjoyment- 5/5
Quality- 4/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0076162/
April 2, 2012
Movie Review- The Room
The Room is one of those movies that everyone loves to quote despite having never seen it. It's a rather notorious film that's been hailed as one of the worst movies ever made, and it has a large cult following. But the question is- Is it really that bad? The answer is yes. It really is that bad.
The most obvious flaw here is writer/director/actor Tommy Wiseau. He's a poor writer, a terrible director, and an even worse actor. Everything about his acting is atrocious; he butchers all of his lines and gives a very soulless performance when emotion is required. Heck, he can barely enunciate, let alone act. But that being said, he's part of what makes this movie so entertaining. Tommy Wiseau is so over the top that virtually every line he says is enough to make you laugh.
The supporting cast is equally poor, but slightly entertaining. Wiseau's girlfriend, Lisa, is an unfathomably whiny and indecisive character; and while normally this type of character would be extremely annoying, the actress playing her gives such a choppy performance that it becomes comical. The rest of the cast are all really annoying yet comical characters, and the actors who play them do their roles so poorly it's hard to take the movie seriously.
And that's part of the charm to The Room; the movie takes itself seriously. Tommy Wiseau wrote this as a serious drama, and while he failed at that, it makes the movie even funnier. Had this been written with nods towards the audience or played up some of the sillier aspects of the movie, the effect would have been lost. This movie is a train wreck, but it remains pleasantly unaware of that.
Even from a technical aspect, this movie fails. The editing is extremely poor; almost every scene in the movie opens someone opening or closing a door, and the cinematography is often jumpy and feels rushed. There's also a great deal of unnecessary football-playing scenes that have little to do with the plot, as well as a great deal of unnecessary location shots of San Francisco. The set design is terrible as well; the rooftop set is shoddily constructed and the backgrounds are obviously green-screened in.
Overall, this is a total disaster of a movie. It fails in every aspect that was attempted. But good golly is it hilarious. The Room is one of the best "so bad it's good" movies ever. Everything is so hackneyed and over the top that it becomes comical. I highly recommend it, and it's a great introduction to "bad" movies, if you're new to the genre.
Enjoyment- 5/5
Quality- 1/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/
The most obvious flaw here is writer/director/actor Tommy Wiseau. He's a poor writer, a terrible director, and an even worse actor. Everything about his acting is atrocious; he butchers all of his lines and gives a very soulless performance when emotion is required. Heck, he can barely enunciate, let alone act. But that being said, he's part of what makes this movie so entertaining. Tommy Wiseau is so over the top that virtually every line he says is enough to make you laugh.
The supporting cast is equally poor, but slightly entertaining. Wiseau's girlfriend, Lisa, is an unfathomably whiny and indecisive character; and while normally this type of character would be extremely annoying, the actress playing her gives such a choppy performance that it becomes comical. The rest of the cast are all really annoying yet comical characters, and the actors who play them do their roles so poorly it's hard to take the movie seriously.
And that's part of the charm to The Room; the movie takes itself seriously. Tommy Wiseau wrote this as a serious drama, and while he failed at that, it makes the movie even funnier. Had this been written with nods towards the audience or played up some of the sillier aspects of the movie, the effect would have been lost. This movie is a train wreck, but it remains pleasantly unaware of that.
Even from a technical aspect, this movie fails. The editing is extremely poor; almost every scene in the movie opens someone opening or closing a door, and the cinematography is often jumpy and feels rushed. There's also a great deal of unnecessary football-playing scenes that have little to do with the plot, as well as a great deal of unnecessary location shots of San Francisco. The set design is terrible as well; the rooftop set is shoddily constructed and the backgrounds are obviously green-screened in.
Overall, this is a total disaster of a movie. It fails in every aspect that was attempted. But good golly is it hilarious. The Room is one of the best "so bad it's good" movies ever. Everything is so hackneyed and over the top that it becomes comical. I highly recommend it, and it's a great introduction to "bad" movies, if you're new to the genre.
Enjoyment- 5/5
Quality- 1/5
IMDB Page- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368226/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)